Courage, not Compromise? A Rallying Cry that Failed a Deadlocked COP Meeting

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Combating Desertification and Drought, Environment, Global, Headlines, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Negotiations on a future global drought regime got underway at UNCCD COP16 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia December 2-13.

KATHMANDU, Nepal, Dec 4 2024 (IPS) – Courage and not compromise. That was the motto desperately launched by members of the civil society in the twilight of the negotiations of the Plastic Pollution Treaty in Busan, South Korea last week.

As we now know, the negotiations did not yield the results that would have helped Planet Earth set a groundbreaking target to reduce the amount of plastic being produced.

Meanwhile, the international community is onto another crucial meeting in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia to discuss global efforts against desertification. It is going to be another COP process, what is formally known as the 16th Session of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification or UNCCD. (COP16, December 2-13).

Apparently, this time, the host, Saudi Arabia, is going to lead a tremendous effort to ensure a strong outcome. Over the last two and half months, Riyadh, rather than being a global leader to ensure the survivability of our planet, a champion of sustainability, has been a disruptor.

The Saudis were among those who have been undermining the recently concluded Climate COP 29 in Baku and, to a lesser extent, the COP 16 on Biodiversity in Cali, Colombia.

But a review of what unfolded over the last two and half months, would also bring an indictment for act of omission not only to the Petro states but also to all developed nations.

Indeed, the eleventh-hour rallying cry– “courage, not compromise”– should have been embraced as the North Star by all those nations who were ready to take bold steps in the three recently concluded COP processes.

In Busan, as explained by the Center for International Environmental Law, CIEL, ” negotiators had several procedural options available, including voting or making a treaty among the willing”. Yet the most progressive nations, around 100 countries, including the EU and 38 African nations and South American countries, did not dare to go beyond the traditional approach of seeking a consensus at any cost.

Ironically what happened at COP 16 and COP 29 was equally a travesty of justice as developed nations did not budge from their positions. At the end, the final deals on biodiversity and climate financing, were in both cases extremely disappointing especially in relation to the former.

Indeed. in Cali, there was no agreement at all in finding the resources needed to implement the ambitious Kunming- Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

According to BloombergNEF (BNEF), in its Biodiversity Finance Factbook, ” the gap between current biodiversity finance and future needs have widened to $ 942 billion”.

The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), the financial vehicle to implement the Framework, is still very far from becoming a true game changer.

The millions of dollars that a small group of European nations have pledged during the negotiations in Cali, are still a miniscule contribution in relation to what was agreed two years ago in Montreal where the second leg of the COP 15 was held.

There, the final outcome underpinning the Framework, required the mobilisation of financial resources for biodiversity of at least US$200 billion per year by 2030 from public and private sources and identifying and eliminating at least US$500 billion of annual subsidies harmful to biodiversity.

What unfolded in Baku at the climate COP was also, in terms of financing, embarrassing for developed nations. The hardly negotiated agreement of tripling the US$ 100 billion per year by 2035 with a commitment to reach up to US$ 1.3 trillion by the same year through different sources of money, including difficult to negotiate levies, is far from what is required.

On this front, the embarrassment was not only on the traditional developed nations but also on countries like China and the Gulf Nations who stubbornly rejected their responsibility to play their part in climate financing.

At least, as part of a last minute compromise, the developed nations (G7 and few others like Australia) will now co-lead the responsibility of finding the resources. China and others wealthy nations that, according to an outdated UN classification are still officially considered as “developing”, will contribute but only on voluntary basis.

As we see, the final outcomes of these three COPs were far from being courageous. Compromising, epitomized by concepts like ” constructive ambiguity”, agreeing on something that can be interpreted differently by the nations at the negotiating tables, instead dominated.

At this point, considering the frustrations of these mega gatherings, what could be done? Is the existing model of the COP with its complexities and endless delays and bickering, still viable?

The influential Club of Rome, on the last days of COP 29, had released a strongly worded press release asking for a major reform of the ways negotiations were carried out. “The COP process must be strengthened with mechanisms to hold countries accountable”. The document went even further with calls to implement robust tracking of climate financing.

Also, with each COP, a series of new initiatives are always launched, often just for the sake of visibility and prestige.

The risk is having a multitude of exercises and mechanisms that drains resources that, are at the end, are neither productive nor meaningful but rather duplicative and ultimately, a waste of money.

We should be even more radical, I would say. For example, the international community should introduce the same peer to peer review process in place in the Human Rights Council that, frankly speaking, is hardly a revolutionary tool.

And yet, despite the fact that nations with a solid track record in human rights abuses remain unscathed in the Council, such a change would represent some forms of accountability in the areas of biodiversity and climate.

This could be envisioned as a reform that should accompany the implementation of the upcoming 3rd wave of Nationally Determined Contributions due by 2025. Getting rid of the consensus model is also something that should truly be considered.

Why not holding votes that would break the vetoes of even one single nation? Why being so attached to unanimity when we do know that it is not working at all?

As show in Busan, it is the traditionally developed nations that lack courage and farsightedness in pursuing a procedure that might backfire against them. This is, instead, a cause that at least the EU, Canada and Australia should embrace. Yet we are still very far from reaching this level of audacity.

Another fanciful thinking relates to tie nations’ actions to the possibility of hosting prestigious sports tournament. Why not forcing international sport bodies like FIFA to reward the hosting rights for its mega events only to nations which are climate and biodiversity leaders in practice rather than through empty but lofty declarations?

Unfortunately, there will never be consensus within the football federations that run FIFA governing body or say, within the International Olympic Committee. A more promising area, though also not easy to put into practice, would be to find ways in which non state actors would have a real say in the negotiations.

Both the COP 16 and the COP 29 reached some breakthroughs in relation to giving more voice, for example, to indigenous people. In Cali, it was decided to establish a new body that will more power to indigenous people.

It is what is formally known, in reference to the provision related to the rights of indigenous people of the International Convention on Biodiversity, as the Permanent Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j).

The details of this new body will be object of intense negotiations but at least a pathway has been created to better channel the demands of a key constituency who, so far, has struggled to gain its due recognition.

Also at COP 29 saw some wins for indigenous people with the adaption of the Baku Workplan and the renewal of the mandate of the Facilitative Working Group (FWG) of local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platforms.

Surely there can be some creative solutions to strengthen what was supposed to be the platform to incorporate and engage non state actors, the Marrakesh Partnership for Global Action.

The members of civil society could come up with new ideas on how to formally have a role in the negotiations. While it is impossible to have non state actors at the par of member states party to the conventions around which the COPs are held, surely the latter should be in a better place and have some forms of decision power.

Lastly one of the best ways to simplify these complex and independent from each other negotiations, would be to work towards a unifying framework in relation to the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

On this, the Colombian Presidency of the COP 16 broke some important grounds with Susana Muhammad, the Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia who chaired the proceedings in Cali, pushing for bridging the gap between biodiversity and climate negotiations.

None of the propositions listed here are going to be easy to implement. What we need is simple to understand but also extremely hard to reach.

Only more pressure from the below, from the global civil society can push governments to make the right choice: setting aside, at least for once, the word compromise and instead chose another one that instead can make the difference while instilling hope.

This word is called courage.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

COP29 Falls Short on Finance

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, COP29, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Inequality, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Murad Sezer/Reuters via Gallo Images

LONDON, Dec 2 2024 (IPS) – COP29, the latest annual climate summit, had one job: to strike a deal to provide the money needed to respond to climate change. It failed.

This was the first climate summit dedicated to finance. Global south countries estimate they need a combined US$1.3 trillion a year to transition to low-carbon economies and adapt to the impacts of climate change. But the last-minute offer made by global north states was for only US$300 billion a year.

The agreement leaves vague how much of the promised target, to be met by 2035, will be in the form of direct grants, as opposed to other means such as loans, and how much will come directly from states. As for the US$1 trillion annual funding gap, covering it remains an aspiration, with all potential sources encouraged to step up their efforts. The hope seems to be that the private sector will invest where it hasn’t already, and that innovations such as new levies and taxes will be explored, which many powerful states and industry lobbyists are sure to resist.

Some global north states are talking up the deal, pointing out that it triples the previous target of US$100 billion a year, promised at COP15 in 2009 and officially reached in 2022, although how much was provided in reality remains a matter of debate. Some say this deal is all they can afford, given economic and political constraints.

But global north states hardly engaged constructively. They delayed making an offer for so long that the day before talks were due to end, the draft text of the agreement contained no numbers. Then they made a lowball offer of US$250 billion a year.

Many representatives from global south states took this as an insult. Talks threatened to collapse without an agreement. Amid scenes of chaos and confusion, the summit’s president, Mukhtar Babayev of Azerbaijan, was accused of weakness and lack of leadership. By the time global north states offered US$300 billion, negotiations had gone past the deadline, and many saw this as a take-it-or-leave it offer.

The negotiating style of global north states spoke of a fundamental inequality in climate change. Global north countries have historically contributed the bulk of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions due to their industrialisation. But it’s global south countries that are most affected by climate change impacts such as extreme weather and rising sea levels. What’s more, they’re being asked to take a different development path to fossil fuel-powered industrialisation – but without adequate financial support to do so.

These evident injustices led some states, angered by Babayev bringing talks to an abrupt end, to believe that no deal would have been better than what was agreed. For others, waiting another year for COP30 would have been a luxury they couldn’t afford, given the ever-increasing impacts of climate change.

Financing on the agenda

Far from being settled, the conversation around climate financing should be regarded as only just having begun. The figures involved – whether it’s US$300 billion or US$1.3 trillion a year – seem huge, but in global terms they’re tiny. The US$1.3 trillion needed is less than one per cent of global GDP, which stands at around US$110 trillion. It’s a little more than the amount invested in fossil fuels this year, and far less than annual global military spending, which has risen for nine years running and now stands at around US$2.3 trillion a year.

If the money isn’t forthcoming, the sums needed will be eclipsed by the costs of cleaning up the disasters caused by climate change, and dealing with rising insecurity, conflict and economic disruption. For example, devastating floods in Valencia, Spain, in October caused at least 217 deaths and economic losses of around US$10.6 billion. Research suggests that each degree of warming would slash the world’s GDP by 12 per cent. Investing in a transition that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and enables communities to adapt isn’t just the right thing to do – it’s also the economically prudent option.

The same problems arose at another recent summit on a related issue – COP16 of the Biodiversity Convention, hosted by Colombia in October. This broke up with no agreement on how to meet the funding commitments agreed at its previous meeting. The international community, having forged agreements to address climate change and protect the environment, is stuck when it comes to finding the funding to realise them.

What’s largely missing is discussion of how wealth might be better shared for the benefit of humanity. Over the past decade, as the world has grown hotter, inequality has soared, with the world’s richest one per cent adding a further US$42 trillion to their fortunes – less than needed to adequately respond to climate change. The G20’s recent meeting said little on climate change, but leaders at least agreed that ultra-wealthy people should be properly taxed. The battle should now be on to ensure this happens – and that revenues are used to tackle climate change.

When it comes to corporations, few are richer than the fossil fuel industry. But the ‘polluter pays’ principle – that those who cause environmental damage pay to clean it up – seems missing from climate negotiations. The fossil fuel industry is the single biggest contributor to climate change, responsible for over 75 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. It’s grown incredibly rich thanks to its destructive trade.

Over the past five decades, the oil and gas sector has made profits averaging US$2.8 billion a day. Only a small fraction of those revenues have been invested in alternatives, and oil and gas companies plan to extract more: since COP28, around US$250 billion has been committed to developing new oil and gas fields. The industry’s wealth should make it a natural target for paying to fix the mess it’s made. A proposed levy on extractions could raise US$900 billion by 2030.

Progress is needed, and fast. COP30 now has the huge task of compensating for the failings of COP29. Pressure must be kept up for adequate financing combined with concerted action to cut emissions. Next year, states are due to present their updated plans to cut emissions and adapt to climate change. Civil society will push for these to show the ambition needed – and for money to be mobilised at the scale required.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

  Source

Confronting the Global Crisis of Land Degradation

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Global, Headlines, Humanitarian Emergencies, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

The 16th session of the Conference of Parties (COP 16) of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) will take place in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from 2 to 13 Dec. 2024

RIYADH Saudi Arabia, Dec 2 2024 (IPS) – A major new scientific report was launched December 1, a day ahead of the opening of the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD COP16).

The report charts an urgent course correction for how the world grows food and uses land in order to avoid irretrievably compromising Earth’s capacity to support human and environmental wellbeing.

Produced under the leadership of Professor Johan Rockström at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in collaboration UNCCD, the report, titled Stepping back from the precipice: Transforming land management to stay within planetary boundaries, was launched as nearly 200 countries convene for COP16 starting on Monday, 2 December in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

The report draws on roughly 350 information sources to examine land degradation and opportunities to act from a planetary boundaries’ perspective. It underlines that land is the foundation of Earth’s stability and regulates climate, preserves biodiversity, maintains freshwater systems and provides life-giving resources including food, water and raw materials.

It outlines how deforestation, urbanization and unsustainable farming are causing global land degradation at an unprecedented scale, threatening not only different Earth system components but human survival itself.

The deterioration of forests and soils further undermines Earth’s capacity to cope with the climate and biodiversity crises, which in turn accelerate land degradation in a vicious, downward cycle of impacts.

“If we fail to acknowledge the pivotal role of land and take appropriate action, the consequences will ripple through every aspect of life and extend well into the future, intensifying difficulties for future generations,” said UNCCD Executive Secretary Ibrahim Thiaw.

According to the UNCCD, the global area impacted by land degradation – approx. 15 million km², more than the entire continent of Antarctica or nearly the size of Russia – is expanding each year by about a million square km.

Planetary boundaries
The report situates both problems and potential solutions related to land use within the scientific framework of the planetary boundaries, which has rapidly gained policy relevance since its unveiling 15 years ago.

“The aim of the planetary boundaries framework is to provide a measure for achieving human wellbeing within Earth’s ecological limits,” said Johan Rockström, lead author of the seminal study introducing the concept in 2009. “We stand at a precipice and must decide whether to step back and take transformative action, or continue on a path of irreversible environmental change,” he adds.

The planetary boundaries define nine critical thresholds essential for maintaining Earth’s stability. The report talks about how humanity uses or abuses land directly impacts seven of these, including climate change, species loss and ecosystem viability, freshwater systems and the circulation of naturally occurring elements nitrogen and phosphorus. Change in land use is also a planetary boundary.

Six boundaries have already been breached to date, and two more are close to their thresholds: ocean acidification and the concentration of aerosols in the atmosphere. Only stratospheric ozone – the object of a 1989 treaty to reduce ozone-depleting chemicals – is firmly within its “safe operating space”.

Unsustainable agricultural practices
Conventional agriculture is the leading culprit of land degradation according to the report, contributing to deforestation, soil erosion and pollution. Unsustainable irrigation practices deplete freshwater resources, while excessive use of nitrogen- and phosphorus-based fertilizers destabilize ecosystems.

Degraded soils lower crop yields and nutritional quality, directly impacting the livelihoods of vulnerable populations. Secondary effects include greater dependency on chemical inputs and increased land conversion for farming.

Climate change
Meanwhile, climate change – which has long since breached its own planetary boundary – accelerates land degradation through extreme weather events, prolonged droughts, and intensified floods. Melting mountain glaciers and altered water cycles heighten vulnerabilities, especially in arid regions. Rapid urbanization intensifies these challenges, contributing to habitat destruction, pollution, and biodiversity loss.

The report also states that land ecosystems absorbed nearly one third of human-caused CO₂ pollution, even as those emissions increased by half. Over the last decade, however, deforestation and climate change have reduced by 20% the capacity of trees and soil to absorb excess CO₂.

Transformative action
According to the report, transformative action to combat land degradation is needed to ensure a return to the safe operating space for the land-based planetary boundaries. Just as the planetary boundaries are interconnected, so must be the actions to prevent or slow their transgression.

Principles of fairness and justice are key when designing and implementing transformative actions to stop land degradation, ensuring that benefits and burdens are equitably distributed.

Agriculture reform, soil protection, water resource management, digital solutions, sustainable or “green” supply chains, equitable land governance along with the protection and restoration of forests, grasslands, savannas and peatlands are crucial for halting and reversing land and soil degradation.

From 2013 to 2018, more than half-a-trillion dollars were spent on agricultural subsidies across 88 countries, a report by FAO, UNDP and UNEP found in 2021. Nearly 90% went to inefficient, unfair practices that harmed the environment, according to that report.

New technologies
The report also recognizes that new technologies coupled with big data and artificial intelligence have made possible innovations such as precision farming, remote sensing and drones that detect and combat land degradation in real time. Benefits likewise accrue from the precise application of water, nutrients and pesticides, along with early pest and disease detection.

It mentions the free app Plantix, available in 18 languages, that can detect nearly 700 pests and diseases on more than 80 different crops. Improved solar cookstoves can provide households with additional income sources and improve livelihoods, while reducing reliance on forest resources.

Numerous multilateral agreements on land-system change exist but have largely failed to deliver. The Glasgow Declaration to halt deforestation and land degradation by 2030 was signed by 145 countries at the Glasgow climate summit in 2021, but deforestation has increased since then.

Some key findings include:
Land degradation is undermining Earth’s capacity to sustain humanity;
Failure to reverse it will pose challenges for generations;
Seven of nine planetary boundaries are negatively impacted by unsustainable land use, highlighting land’s central role in Earth systems;
Agriculture accounts for 23% of greenhouse gas emissions, 80% of deforestation, 70% of freshwater use;
Forest loss and impoverished soils drive hunger, migration and conflicts;
Transformation of land use critical for humanity to thrive within environmental limits
Read the full press release with more facts and figures in all official languages, as well as with daily media updates: https://www.unccd.int/news-stories/press-releases

The COP is the main decision-making body of UNCCD’s 197 Parties – 196 countries and the European Union. UNCCD, the global voice for land, is one of three major UN treaties known as the Rio Conventions, alongside climate and biodiversity, which recently concluded their COP meetings in Baku, Azerbaijan and Cali, Colombia respectively.

Coinciding with the 30th anniversary of UNCCD, COP 16 will be the largest UN land conference to date, and the first UNCCD COP held in the Middle East and North Africa region, which knows first-hand the impacts of desertification, land degradation and drought. COP 16 marks a renewed global commitment to accelerate investment and action to restore land and boost drought resilience for the benefit of people and planet.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Ensuring Violence-Free Homes for Sri Lankan Women

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Featured, Gender, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

The AKASA safe house is seen in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka. August 2023. Credit: UN Women/Ravindra Rohana

NEW YORK, Nov 25 2024 (IPS) – A woman’s right to live free from violence is upheld by international agreements like the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the 1993 UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women.

The International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, observed on November 25th, 2024, serves as a significant platform to raise awareness about gender-based violence. Globally, one in three women experiences physical or sexual violence, mostly by an intimate partner.

In his message for the 2024 International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated, “The epidemic of violence against women and girls shames humanity. Every day, on average, 140 women and girls are killed by someone in their own family.

Around one in three women still experience physical or sexual violence. Almost 30 years since the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action promised to prevent and eliminate violence against women and girls — it’s beyond time to deliver”.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health and human rights concern and affects millions of women worldwide, often remaining underreported and behind closed doors. IPV is particularly acute in South Asia where 35% of ever-partnered women reported experiencing IPV in their lifetime, compared to 20% in Western Europe and 21% in high-income Asia Pacific.

The reasons are complex and include a combination of socio-economic structures, patriarchal attitudes, and prevalent social norms that define gender roles. IPV remains a largely hidden and stigmatized issue, with many women suffering in silence in South Asia.

IPV in Sri Lanka is a significant and pervasive issue. An estimated 40% of women aged 15 years or older reported experiencing physical, sexual, emotional, and/or economic violence or controlling behaviors by a partner in their lifetime. Disturbingly, 21% of the population, or about 4.6 million women, are affected by IPV, given that women constitute 52% of Sri Lanka’s 23.1 million population.

These figures reflect reported cases, but IPV is significantly underreported due to fear of stigma, lack of awareness about available support services, and reluctance to involve authorities in family matters. Many women fear retaliation from their abusers or social ostracism if they speak out.

The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), passed in 2005, provides legal protection for victims of domestic violence in Sri Lanka, allowing them to obtain protection orders against their abusers. The PDVA defines domestic violence as “physical or emotional harm done by a spouse, ex-spouse, or cohabiting partner.” However, its effectiveness has been criticized due to issues with enforcement and limited awareness among both victims and law enforcement.

Despite high levels of educational attainment, 73.5 per cent of Sri Lankan women of working age are out of the labor force, compared to just 26.5% of men. This is mainly due to their engagement in household duties, including care work. Aggravating this situation, women on average earn 27 per cent less than men for one hour of work.

Consequently, many women economically depend on their partners, making it hard to leave abusive relationships. Especially in rural areas, they may lack financial resources or social support to escape violence. This financial vulnerability is a key barrier to addressing IPV in Sri Lanka. Empowering women economically and socially can reduce their dependency on abusive partners.

Among Sri Lankan faith-based communities such as Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and Christians, religious leaders are influential authorities on behavior and sources of guidance on proper conduct in relationships, including family and marriage. Therefore, they can play a crucial role in motivating men to cede power and reduce IPV.

This approach, guided more by principles of peace and social justice than by a rights agenda, cannot replace rights-based solutions to end IPV. Therefore, it is necessary to encourage and promote collaboration between faith-based and rights-based organizations to address and end violence against women and girls in Sri Lanka.

Various research shows that the ethnic dimensions of the civil war and the continuing ethnic tensions post-war have worsened the situation for Tamil and Muslim women in Sri Lanka, creating conditions that are likely to keep them entrapped in abusive relationships.

There are also strong associations between IPV and suicidal behavior in Sri Lanka, signaling the need to prioritize violence reduction both on its own and within national suicide prevention strategies.

Empowering women, educating communities, and involving men in the conversation are essential steps toward reducing IPV in Sri Lanka. NGOs like the Women’s Education and Research Centre and international organizations run awareness campaigns to educate people about IPV, its harmful effects, legal rights, and available support services.

These campaigns also engage men and boys in discussions about gender equality and the unacceptability of IPV. The goal is to change societal attitudes that contribute to IPV and make men active partners in promoting non-violent relationships.

In Sri Lanka, several support systems are in place for victims of IPV. Various community organizations and NGOs provide localized support, including shelters and legal aid. The Ministry of Women and Child Affairs operates a toll-free helpline (Dial 1938) that offers counselling and legal support to victims of violence.

Health-sector responses to support women experiencing IPV in Sri Lanka are evolving and currently include two models of integration: GBV desks with facility-level integration, and Mithuru Piyasa, a modified One-Stop Crisis Centre model with some system-wide integration. Additionally, the Ministry of Health has implemented training programs for public health midwives to improve their ability to identify and assist IPV victims.

IPV remains a critical issue in Sri Lanka, influenced by socio-cultural, economic, and legal factors. An effective coordination and information sharing mechanism among the ministries of Health, Women and Child Affairs, and Public Security, at both state and local levels is essential to provide immediate support and empower women experiencing IPV.

Traditional cultural norms in Sri Lanka often view gender roles as rigid, expecting women to be submissive and take on domestic responsibilities. These norms can contribute to the normalization of IPV and limit women’s ability to seek help.

IPV is often seen as a private matter, with victims frequently facing pressure to stay silent. By tackling the economic, political, social, cultural, and other systemic factors that enable IPV, we can create a safer and more equitable environment for all women in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lankan women deserve the fundamental right to a violence-free home life. Achieving this necessitates a unified approach to challenge and transform harmful social norms, enhance the availability and accessibility of support services, and rigorously enforce existing laws.

Only through these coordinated efforts can we create a safer and more equitable society for all women in Sri Lanka.

Shihana Mohamed, a Sri Lankan national, is a founding member and Coordinator of the United Nations Asia Network for Diversity and Inclusion (UN-ANDI) and a US Public Voices Fellow with The OpEd Project and Equality Now on Advancing the Rights of Women and Girls. She is a dedicated human rights activist and a strong advocate for gender equality and the advancement of women.

The author expresses her views in this article in an entirely unofficial, private, and personal capacity. These views do not reflect those of any organization.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

It’s About our Entire Planet: The Pandemic of Violence Against Women

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Featured, Gender, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

NEW YORK, Nov 25 2024 (IPS) – The 16 Days of Activism to end gender-based violence, started with seeking to eliminate violence against women (VAW). This year’s theme highlights the reality that violence against women and girls is of pandemic proportions. The figures are galling.

References cite how millions of women and girls suffer physical or sexual violence all over the world; 95% of people trafficked for sexual exploitation in Europe are female; every 10 minutes, partners and family members killed a woman intentionally in 2023; one in three women experience violence in their lifetime; 1 in 4 adolescent girls is abused by their partners.

And more. The 16 Days of Activism is an opportunity to revitalize commitments, call for accountability and actions by diverse decision-makers. 2025 will be the 30th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action in 2025, described by UN Women as a “visionary blueprint for achieving gender equality and women’s and girls’ rights everywhere”.

Apart from the pandemic scale of the violence against women we are living through – without it being properly declared as a pandemic by governmental authorities – and the horrific data which is on the increase, there are a few pieces of this VAW puzzle that bear stressing.

Lead Integrity’s founding Partner and international activist, Dr Fulata Moyo, who is credited with efforts to institutionalize the World Council of Church’s (WCC) Thursdays in Black campaign, and her successor at leading this and executing a Programme on Just Community of Women and Men, at the WCC – Reverend Nicole Ashwood – stress this centrality of unequal power relations.

Dr Moyo is a strong advocate of mentorship, and yet she reminds us that even this process can be misunderstood as a one-way benefit relationship. Instead, she constantly argues that both mentor and mentoree learn from one another. This insistence on awareness of the mutuality of benefit – and its responsibilities – is a means of righting power imbalances not only among individuals, but in families, societies and nations.

Another Lead integrity founding Partner, Grove Harris – also serving as the UN representative of the Temple of Understanding, and is a strong eco-feminist in her own right – argues cogently that the exploitative violence leveraged on our earth, is a reflection of the exploitative violence perpetuated against women. And vice versa.

In other words, we will need to face a reality that we cannot fight the violence against women and girls, without also struggling to eliminate violence against our planet. These are not separate struggles, but integrated ones.

Lead Integrity’s Senior Advisor and Gender expert, Ms. Gehan AbuZeid expounds further to note that VAW is about endemic structural violence which permeates all domains of life, including ecology, economy, politics, and of course, society.

Inbuilt power relations which prioritize the needs, views, and priorities of one set of humans at the expense of ‘others’ means all our institutions are predisposed to violence against those deemed as more vulnerable by the dominant groups.

Violence against women happens not only because of gendered dynamics per se, but because all of power dynamics around us, are inherently based on exploitative relationships.

This leads to another couple of critical observations – ones which are becoming more taboo to speak of, especially in the kinds of times we live in today. Since the root of VAW are exploitative relationships based on unequal power dynamics, then everyone, every institution and every nation, every initiative, is responsible for ending the structural, the social and the personal forms of these interrelated violent dynamics.

In other words, ending VAW is not, and should not, be left for women alone to end it (even when they may work miracles with male and myriad other allies), nor is it only a matter of legislation – as important as that is. And while we are recognizing the principle and reality of collective responsibility, let us also have the courage to acknowledge that women can be violent towards other women too, and some men are fairly vicious against each other which is statistically related to rising VAW, and as the countless wars around us attest to.

As we consider the collective responsibilities, we need to strengthen our multilateral institutions – not only secular ones, but also those which deliberately seek to partner with different civil society organizations, including those who work to mobilize multi faith and multi stakeholder collaborations.

An example of such a multi-stakeholder and global effort is the first Women, Faith and Climate Change Network, launched at the COP 29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. The Network brings together faith-based and secular, women and male allies, working with governmental, non-governmental and intergovernmental partner institutions, elevating the influence of female faith leaders (including Indigenous ones) to maximize knowledge and impact, to right the power imbalances in each of these diverse institutions, as they work together to eliminate the violence perpetrated against our planet.

We need to ask ourselves this: by continuing to work – and work hard – within our respective silos (secular, religious, feminist, peacemaking, human rights, business, institutional, individual, national, regional, global, etc.), have we not, inadvertently, failed to address the interrelated forms of violence?

And if so, can the recognition of this pandemic of VAW, push us to work better together at a time when we face much polarization and fear – or are we destined to repeat some of the Covid pandemic’s mistakes? If we do, we risk our peaceful co-existence, and – heaven forbid – we may well risk losing the ability to exist on this planet.

Dr Azza Karam is President and CEO of Lead Integrity, and affiliate Professor at Notre Dame University’s Ansari Center for Religion and Global Engagement.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

‘AI-powered Weapons Depersonalise the Violence, Making It Easier for the Military to Approve More Destruction’

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Nov 22 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the dangers arising from military uses of artificial intelligence (AI) with Sophia Goodfriend, Post-Doctoral Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Middle East Initiative.

The global rise of AI has raised concerns about its impact on human rights, particularly for excluded groups, with controversial uses ranging from domestic policing and surveillance to ‘kill lists’ such as those used by Israel to identify targets for missile strikes. Digital rights groups are calling for the development of an AI governance framework that prioritises human rights and bans the most dangerous uses of AI. While recent United Nations (UN) resolutions recognise the human rights risks of AI, more decisive action is needed.

Sophia Goodfriend

Why should we be concerned about AI and its current and potential uses?

AI is being rapidly integrated into military operations around the world, particularly in weapons systems, intelligence gathering and decision-making. Its increasing autonomy reduces human oversight, raising serious concerns and sci-fi fears of machines making life-and-death decisions without meaningful human intervention.

AI-based technologies such as drones, automated weapons and advanced targeting systems are now part of military arsenals. The military’s increasing reliance on these systems raises significant concerns, as they are largely unregulated under international law. The level of surveillance these technologies rely on violates privacy protections under international law and many national civil rights laws.

The rapid development and deployment of these technologies is outpacing regulation, leaving the public largely unaware of their implications. Without proper oversight, AI could be misused in ways that cause widespread harm and evade accountability. We urgently need to regulate the military use of AI and ensure it is consistent with international law and humanitarian principles.

In addition, faulty or biased data can lead to devastating mistakes, raising serious ethical and legal questions. And the decisions made by these systems can undermine the principles of proportionality and distinction in warfare, putting civilian lives at risk.

What’s an example of how AI is currently being used?

The Israeli military is using AI-assisted targeting systems to identify and strike targets in Gaza. These systems analyse huge amounts of data collected through drones, satellites, surveillance cameras, social media and phone hacks to identify potential targets, locate them and decide where and when people should be killed.

AI-generated ‘kill lists’ raise serious concerns. Flawed or biased data has already led to devastating mistakes, with journalists and humanitarian workers killed in strikes. There have also been allegations that the military has expanded its definition of who or what constitutes a valid target, allowing attacks on people or places that may not meet the standards set by international law.

These systems operate at an unprecedented speed and scale, creating a huge number of targets. They have the potential to cause widespread destruction without thorough oversight. Soldiers operating in Gaza have as little as 20 seconds to approve targets that include Hamas militants, but also people who wouldn’t be considered valid military targets under international laws of war and human rights standards.

What does this mean for moral responsibility over the damage caused?

AI-assisted targeting technologies such as the Lavender system are not fully autonomous. They still require human oversight. This is a critical point because these technologies are only as destructive as the people in charge. It all depends on the decisions made by military leaders, and these decisions can either comply with or violate international human rights law.

At the same time, the use of machines to target and destroy can depersonalise violence, making it easier for military personnel to authorise more destruction. By outsourcing decision-making to AI, there’s a risk of abdicating moral responsibility. This technological approach makes military action seem more efficient and rational, which can help justify each bombing with a seemingly logical rationale, but it also dehumanises the civilian casualties and widespread devastation that follow.

Are current AI governance frameworks sufficient to protect human rights?

The short answer is no: current AI governance frameworks fall short in protecting human rights, particularly in military applications. While most states agree that AI-driven weapons – from fully autonomous to AI-assisted ones – should comply with international human rights law, there’s no global framework to ensure this happens.

This has led to calls for more comprehensive and enforceable rules, and there have been some positive steps. For example, civil society groups and researchers successfully pushed for a ban on fully autonomous weapons in the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which was supported by over 100 states. As a result, the UN Secretary-General has called for a legally binding treaty to be adopted in 2026 to completely ban fully autonomous weapons, which are powered by AI but have no human oversight of their operations.

The European Union (EU) has also taken action, banning some military AI applications such as social scoring systems – which give people ratings based on their social behaviour – as part of its AI Act. However, the EU still lacks specific rules for military AI.

Organisations such as the Future of Life Institute, Human Rights Watch and Stop Killer Robots have been instrumental in pushing for change. But they’re facing growing challenges as Silicon Valley tech CEOs and venture capitalists push for faster AI development with fewer regulations. This is worrying, as these powerful figures will now have more influence over AI policy under a new Trump administration.

What role should AI companies play in ensuring compliance with human rights principles?

Companies have a critical role to play. In recent years, many of the leading companies, such as Amazon, Google, Microsoft and OpenAI, have made public statements about their commitment to human rights. OpenAI, for example, has called for the creation of a watchdog similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and its founders have pledged not to allow their technology to be used for military purposes. Amazon, Google and Microsoft also have fair use policies, which they claim ensure their technologies are used in accordance with human rights principles.

But in practice, these policies often fall short, particularly when it comes to military applications. Despite their claims, many of these companies have sold their technologies to military forces, and the extent of their involvement in military AI development is often unclear. Just a few weeks ago, The Intercept reported that the US military’s Africa Command had purchased OpenAI software through Microsoft. We also know the Israeli military used Google cloud services to target bombs in Gaza and Amazon web services to store classified surveillance data on civilians in the Palestinian territories.

This has sparked protests within the companies involved, with workers staging walkouts and demanding greater transparency and accountability. While these protests are important, AI companies can ultimately only do so much to ensure their technologies are used ethically. We need stronger, more comprehensive international laws on the military use of AI, and governments must take responsibility for ensuring these laws are enforced at the national level.

At the same time, many tech CEOs, such as Elon Musk, have moved away from their previous commitment to human rights and are more aligned with right-wing political leaders like Trump. Some CEOs, such as Peter Thiel of PayPal and Alex Karp of Palantir Technologies, argue that private companies need to work closely with the military to maintain US technological superiority. This has created tensions between human rights advocates and tech giants, highlighting the need for stronger regulatory frameworks to hold these companies accountable and prevent AI being used in ways that undermine human rights.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
LinkedIn
Twitter

SEE ALSO
Human rights take a backseat in AI regulation CIVICUS Lens 16.Jan.2024
AI: ‘The biggest challenges are the biases and lack of transparency of algorithms’ Interview with Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team 24.Aug.2023
AI regulation: ‘There must be a balance between promoting innovation and protecting rights’ Interview with Nadia Benaissa 25.Jul.2023

  Source