‘Australia Must Turn Its Climate Rhetoric into Action’

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Climate Change Justice, COP29, Energy, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Indigenous Rights, Peace, TerraViva United Nations

Oct 1 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the recent Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) meeting in Tonga with Jacynta Fa’amau, Pacific Campaigner at 350.org, a global civil society organisation campaigning for climate action.

Representatives from 18 countries gathered in Tonga for the 53rd Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting from 26 to 30 August, seeking to address issues including the climate crisis, socio-economic challenges and political conflict in New Caledonia. A key agenda item was securing funding for the Pacific Resilience Facility, a climate finance mechanism aimed at supporting communities affected by climate change. Civil society called on Australia, the world’s third largest fossil fuel exporter and a co-founder of the Forum, to demonstrate real climate leadership by phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable energy.

Jacynta Fa’amau

What was on the agenda at the recent PIF Leaders Meeting?

The PIF is an intergovernmental body that aims to improve cooperation between Pacific states and territories, Australia and New Zealand. We may be divided by national borders, but we are united by the ocean, and many of the issues that affect one island can provide valuable lessons for another. As a Samoan, I know my future is linked to that of a sister in the Solomon Islands or a brother in the atolls of Kiribati.

PIF meetings bring together regional leaders to discuss the most pressing issues facing our region. At the 53rd session, the agenda focused on several issues, including climate change, climate finance, education, health and the Pacific Policing Initiative – an Australia-backed strategy to train and support police.

But climate issues were at the top of the agenda. As Pacific Islanders, we know that phasing out fossil fuels is critical to our survival. We deserve not just resilience, but the ability to thrive in the face of this crisis. To do this, we need access to adequate climate finance and affordable renewable energy. The Pacific Resilience Facility is part of the way to achieve this, with an emphasis on ensuring accessibility for communities. Leaders had already endorsed Tonga as the host country for this financial facility, so now the key priority is to secure the resources.

What were civil society’s priorities, and what did it bring to the table?

Civil society has a vital role to play in holding leaders to their promises and creating pathways for communities to get involved. The PIF’s Civil Society Village hosted remarkable groups such as the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network and the Pacific Network on Globalisation, which are working to bridge the gap between civil society and policymakers.

As for 350.org Pacific, our role has always been to ensure that communities have the tools they need to take part in multilateral discussions that often seem far removed from realities on the ground. There’s no point in making decisions about the people you serve if you do it without their input. Before the PIF began, we held the Our Pawa Training with over 200 young people and students across Tonga. ‘Pawa’ references the people power driving the climate movement and the promise of a Pacific built on safe, ethical renewable energy. This training equipped young Tongans with tools to engage in climate conversations.

Our top priority is to ensure a safe and liveable future for the Pacific. Scientists have made it abundantly clear that our survival depends on an immediate global phase out of fossil fuels. Wealthier nations must phase out first, and historical emitters must support the global south in achieving their phase out.

The Pacific mustn’t be left behind in the renewable energy revolution. It’s unfair that our islands should bear the financial burden of recovering from a crisis we didn’t cause. We need the resources and expertise to transform our energy systems on our own terms and put the land, sea and wellbeing of Pacific Islanders first. We call for accessible climate funding to meet the Pacific Resilience Facility’s US$500 million target.

For us, this means Australia must turn its climate rhetoric into action.

Why is Australia at the centre of civil society’s demands?

As the region’s biggest producer of fossil fuels and the third largest exporter in the world, Australia plays a significant role in the climate crisis that threatens our survival. To come to the lands of our ancestors and claim climate leadership while signing our death warrants with every gas project you approve is immoral and unacceptable.

But we also hold Australia to high standards because it claims to be our family. In the Pacific, kinship puts the welfare of the many before the greed of the one. There’s no world in which Australia can be a true partner to the Pacific while continuing to exploit fossil fuels. With every tonne of coal exported, Australia is exporting climate disaster to our islands.

Australia must commit to phasing out fossil fuels, domestically and in its exports. It must ensure the Pacific is not left behind in the transition to renewable energy and commit to the funding it’s historically owed to the victims of the climate crisis. The Ki Mua Report commissioned by the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative found that eight Pacific countries could transform their energy systems for less than a seventh of the amount Australia gives to the fossil fuel industry.

With its potential COP31 presidency on the horizon, Australia has the chance to become the climate leader it claims to be.

Did the outcomes of the PIF meeting meet your expectations?

We had high expectations, particularly on climate action, given the recent report by the World Meteorological Organisation on the accelerated sea level rise our region faces. The Pacific is particularly vulnerable, so we need to be exceptionally ambitious. Despite our negligible contribution to this climate crisis, we have set ourselves ambitious climate targets. We have been innovative in our adaptation strategies and ambitious in our climate finance goals.

And while the PIF’s final communiqué is an encouraging step towards securing the resources we need to tackle the climate crisis, there’s a disappointing lack of pressure on the region’s major fossil fuel producers to commit to a phase out.

The PIF’s focus on peace and stability was important given the current sovereignty struggles and the shadow of a geopolitical tug-of-war hanging over our islands. But the climate crisis remains the most pressing security threat we face. With each new cyclone comes increased instability, and with each displaced community comes a host of security issues.

The time for deliberation is long past and the time for action is upon us. The PIF may be over, but the journey to COP29 is just beginning. We Pacific climate warriors will continue to celebrate our culture and ancestors as we advocate for decisive climate action that will help us achieve a safe and sustainable future for the Pacific. We hope those with the power to effect change will choose to join us.

Get in touch with 350.org through its website or Facebook and Instagram pages, and follow @350 on Twitter.

  Source

Georgia’s Dangerous Anti-LGBTQI+ Law

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Europe, Featured, Gender Identity, Gender Violence, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, LGBTQ, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Vano Shlamov/AFP via Getty Images

LONDON, Sep 30 2024 (IPS) – Georgia’s ruling party has put LGBTQI+ people firmly in the firing line ahead of next month’s election. On 17 September, parliament gave final approval to a highly discriminatory law that empowers the authorities to censor books and films with LGBTQI+ content, stop discussion of LGBTQI+ issues in schools, ban people from flying rainbow flags and prevent Pride events. The law excludes LGBTQI+ people from adopting children, bans gender affirmation surgery and refuses to recognise same-sex marriages of Georgians conducted abroad.

Latest troubling development

Georgia’s anti-LGBTQI+ law breaches a wide range of international human rights commitments. And it’s a repeat offence: in May, a bill became law designating civil society and media groups that receive at least 20 per cent of funding from international sources as ‘pursuing the interests of a foreign power’. The ‘foreign agents’ law will enable vilification, fuel public suspicion and tie organisations up in lengthy compliance procedures.

President Salome Zourabichvili, who is independent of the ruling Georgian Dream party, vetoed the foreign agents bill, calling it a ‘Russian law’, also the view of the mass protest movement that rose up to oppose it. But presidential powers are weak, and parliament quickly reversed the veto. Zourabichvili – Georgia’s last directly elected president, with future presidents to be picked by parliament after her term ends in October – has also pledged to veto the anti-LGBTQI+ law. But a similar parliamentary override seems certain.

Georgia Dream says its anti-LGBTQI+ law, known as the law on ‘family values and the protection of minors’, is needed to defend ‘traditional moral standards’. It also said its foreign agents law was needed to stop international funders sponsoring ‘LGBT propaganda’ and fomenting revolution.

Both laws are part of a growing climate of state hostility towards civil society, in a country that once stood out as an ex-Soviet state that broadly respected civic freedoms. Last year, the European Union (EU)-Georgia Civil Society Platform – a body established as part of negotiations towards the country potentially joining the EU – criticised a sustained government smear campaign against civil society. Freedom House pointed to growing harassment and violence against journalists.

The anti-LGBTQI+ law reflects a reassertion of influence by the Georgian Orthodox Church, the country’s dominant religion, and a closer alignment with Russia. The foreign agents law imitates one introduced in Russia in 2012, which paved the way for intense repression of civil society, while Georgia’s anti-LGBTQI+ law is also strikingly similar to that passed in Russia in 2013, which has been extensively used to criminalise and silence LGBTQI+ people.

The two laws can only move the country further away from the stated goal of joining the EU. They place Georgia at a fork in the road: the government and the church clearly see it as a socially conservative country that legitimately belongs in Russia’s orbit. But others – the many people, overwhelmingly young, who’ve protested and faced state violence in return – represent a different Georgian identity: one that’s democratic, inclusive and European.

Vilification and violence

Hostility has made it harder for Georgia’s LGBTQI+ people to claim visibility. Last year, violent far-right attacks forced the cancellation of the Tbilisi Pride parade. The authorities have consistently failed to ensure the safety of participants. When people first marched on 17 May 2013, they were attacked by a mob that included members of the clergy. In 2021, extremist groups also attacked journalists covering the event, as the police stood by and did nothing.

In 2014, the year after Pride first mobilised, the Church declared 17 May – the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia – to be Family Purity Day, an event marked with a public holiday. This year, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze joined thousands at the Family Purity Day march in Tbilisi. In contrast, such was the level of hostility that Tbilisi Pride organisers decided to only hold virtual events. LGBTQI+ people were denied the chance to do the very thing Pride events exist for: assert visibility and normalise their public presence.

The new law reverses some recent progress civil society achieved in shifting homophobic social values, with young people particularly showing more tolerant attitudes. But now the law will have the effect similar legislation has had elsewhere: giving the green light to stigmatisation, vilification and violence. Activists have pointed to the recent murder of one of the country’s few high-profile transgender people, model Kesaria Abramidze, as a grim sign of what may come. Extremist groups can only be emboldened, confident the law is on their side when they commit acts of hatred.

The upcoming election

Georgian Dream seeks a fourth consecutive term when the country goes to the polls in October. With the opposition divided, it seems certain to come first again. But its support fell in the last election and opinion polls suggest it’s lost more votes since. Possibly worried about keeping its majority, it’s opted to vilify an already excluded group of people.

Georgian Dream may think hostility towards LGBTQI+ people and civil society groups is safer electoral territory than a more explicitly anti-western, pro-Russian stance. But its recent decisions signal how it will rule if its electoral strategy pays off: not by upholding the rights of all Georgians but by putting the interests of its socially conservative supporters first, and by tailoring policies to please Vladimir Putin.

Georgian Dream still pays lip service to the idea of joining the EU, but the party’s billionaire financier and behind-the-scenes leader Bidzina Ivanishvili recently made his position clear, accusing western countries of being part of a global conspiracy to drag Georgia into a repeat of its ill-fated 2008 war with Russia. Georgian-Russian relations have warmed since Russia launched its all-out war on Ukraine in 2022.

The EU, for its part, reacted to the foreign agents law by suspending financial aid and Georgia’s accession negotiations. It must take a firm line and make clear Georgia won’t be allowed to join until the human rights of all its people are recognised and civil society is respected.

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

A longer version of this article is available here.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org.

  Source

Activists Call on World to ‘Imagine’ Peace, End Nuclear Arms

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Conferences, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Nuclear Disarmament, Peace, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Peace

The panel for the session on “Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Imagining a World without Nuclear Weapons.” Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS

The panel for the session on “Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Imagining a World without Nuclear Weapons.” Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS

PARIS, Sep 27 2024 (IPS) – In any discussion of world peace and the future of humanity, the issue of nuclear arms must be addressed, and now.

That was the message from a range of delegates at the “Imaginer la Paix / Imagine Peace” conference, held in Paris September 22 to 24, and organized by the Sant’Egidio Community, a Christian organization founded in Rome in 1968 and now based in 70 countries.

Describing its tenets as “Prayer, service to the Poor and work for Peace,” the community has hosted 38 international, multi-faith peace meetings, bringing together activists from around the world. This is the first time the conference has been held in Paris, with hundreds traveling to France, itself a nuclear-weapon state.

Occurring against the backdrop of brutal, on-going conflicts in different regions and a new race by some countries to “upgrade” their arsenal, the gathering had a sense of urgency, with growing fears that nuclear weapons might be used by warlords. Participants highlighted current and past atrocities and called upon world leaders to learn from the past.

“After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have been blessed with many who have said ‘no’—’no’ a million times, creating movements and treaties, (and) awareness… that the only reasonable insight to learn from the conception and use of nuclear weapons is to say ‘no’,” said Andrea Bartoli, president of the Sant’Egidio Foundation for Peace and Dialogue, based in New York.

Participating in a conference forum Monday titled “Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Imagining a World Without Nuclear Weapons,”  Bartoli and other speakers drew stark pictures of what living in a world with nuclear weapons entails, and they highlighted developments since World War II.

“After the two bombs were used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, humans built more than 70,000 nuclear weapons and performed more than 2,000 tests. Still today we have more than 12,500, each of them with power greatly superior to the two used in August 1945,” Bartoli said.

Despite awareness of the catastrophic potential of these weapons and despite a UN treaty prohibiting their use, some governments argue that possessing nuclear arms is a deterrent—an argument that is deceptive, according to the forum speakers.

Anna Ikeda, program coordinator tor disarmament at the UN Office of Soka Gakkai International. Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS

Anna Ikeda, program coordinator for disarmament at the UN Office of Soka Gakkai International. Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS

Jean-Marie Collin, director of ICAN (the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a movement launched in the early 2000s in Australia and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017), said that leaders who cite deterrence “accept the possibility of violating” international human rights.

“Nuclear weapons are designed to destroy cities and kill and maim entire populations, which means that all presidents and heads of government who implement a defense policy based on nuclear deterrence and who are therefore responsible for giving this order, are aware of this,” Collin told the forum.

ICAN campaigned for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons that was adopted at the United Nations in 2017, entering into force in 2021. The adoption came nearly five decades after the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970.

The terms of the NPT consider five countries to be nuclear weapons states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China. Four other countries also possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel.

According to a 2024 ICAN report, these nine states jointly spent €85 billion (USD 94,6 billion) on their atomic weapon arsenals last year, an expenditure ICAN has called “obscene” and “unacceptable.” France, whose president Emmanuel Macron spoke about peace in broad, general terms at the opening of the conference, spent around €5,3 billion (about USD 5,9 billion) in 2023 on its nuclear weapons, said the report.

The policy of “deterrence” and “reciprocity,”  which essentially means “we’ll get rid of our weapons if you get rid of yours,”  has been slammed by ICAN and fellow disarmament activists.

“With the constant flow of information, we often tend to lose sight of the reality of figures,” Collin said at the peace conference. “I hope this one will hold your attention: it is estimated that more than 38,000 children were killed in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Children!”

All those killed—an estimated 210,000 people by the end of 1945—died in horrific ways, as survivors and others have testified. Delegates said that this knowledge should be the real “deterrent.”

At the forum, Anna Ikeda, program coordinator for disarmament at the UN Office of Soka Gakkai International, a global Buddhist movement, described testimony from a Hiroshima a-bomb survivor, Reiko Yamada, as one she would never forget.

“She (Yamada) stated, ‘A good friend of mine in the neighbourhood was waiting for her mother to return home with her four brothers and sisters. Later, she told me that on the second day after the bombing, a moving black lump crawled into the house. They first thought it was a black dog, but they soon realized it was their mother; she collapsed and died when she finally got to her children. They cremated her body in the yard,” Ikeda told the audience with emotion.

“Who deserves to die such a death? Nobody!” she continued. “Yet our world continues to spend billions of dollars to upkeep our nuclear arsenals, and our leaders at times imply readiness to use them. It is utterly unacceptable.”

Ikeda said that survivors, known as the “hibakusha” in Japan, have a fundamental answer to why nuclear weapons must be abolished—it is that “no one else should ever suffer what we did.”

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

‘We Need Competitive Elections so Only Truly Committed States Are Elected to the UN Human Rights Council’

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Conferences, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Sep 26 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the upcoming election of new members of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council with Madeleine Sinclair, New York Office Director and Legal Counsel at the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR).

The Human Rights Council plays a crucial role in addressing global human rights issues and serves as a platform for activists and victims of violations. Its 47 members represent different regional groups. In October, 19 states will stand for 18 seats, with the Asia-Pacific region the only group with more candidates than seats. Many of the candidates have poor human rights records, and one – Saudi Arabia – stands out for its extremely serious rights violations. Civil society calls on UN member states to reject Saudi Arabia’s candidacy and uphold human rights standards when selecting members of the UN’s top human rights body.

Madeleine Sinclair

Why is the election of UN Human Rights Council members important?

As happens every year, the Human Rights Council will soon renew one third of its membership through a secret ballot election. On 9 October, all 193 members of the UN General Assembly will vote for the 18 members who will sit on the UN’s main human rights body from 2025 to 2027.

Elections should provide an opportunity to elect candidates with a strong human rights record. According to the Council’s membership criteria, candidate states should demonstrate a genuine commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights through domestic and international action. They should also demonstrate a willingness to address emerging challenges and crises to ensure the Council’s effectiveness.

How competitive will this year’s election be?

Unfortunately, this election will be nowhere near as competitive as it should be, with only 19 countries standing for 18 seats. These seats are divided among the UN’s five official regional groups, each of which presents its own slate of candidates. But only the Asia-Pacific slate is competitive, with six candidates vying for five seats, while the other four slates are closed, meaning they have as many candidates as seats available. Africa has five candidates for five seats, Latin America and the Caribbean has three for three, Eastern Europe has two for two and Western Europe and Others has two for two.

This election is less competitive than last year’s, when 17 candidates contested 15 seats. Only Latin America and the Caribbean and Eastern Europe had more candidates than seats, resulting in the defeat of Russia. In 2021, all 18 candidates running for 18 seats were elected, receiving between 144 and 189 votes out of a possible 193, despite some having extremely problematic human rights records.

Unfortunately, non-competitive elections are common, with fully closed slates being presented four times since 2008. Other elections have seen only one or two competitive slates. The problem with non-competitive races is they deprive voting states of the opportunity to rigorously evaluate and select candidates based on their records and commitments, potentially compromising the quality of the Council.

But even in closed slates, it’s still possible for unopposed candidates to fail if they don’t receive at least 97 out of 193 votes. In 2023, for example, Burundi and China received the lowest number of votes in their regional groups, sending a message that their candidacies were not fully supported. ISHR encourages voting states to evaluate all candidates carefully and withhold votes from problematic ones, even in closed slates.

Who are the candidates in the October election?

Candidates in this year’s election include Benin, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, The Gambia and Kenya from the African group. In the Asia and Pacific group, Cyprus, South Korea, the Marshall Islands, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Thailand are running. Latin America and the Caribbean is represented by Bolivia, Colombia and Mexico. Iceland, Spain and Switzerland are the candidates from Western Europe and Others, while the Czech Republic and North Macedonia are running for Central and Eastern Europe.

This year, one candidate has a particularly poor human rights record: Saudi Arabia. It has closed civic space and has been repeatedly included in the UN Secretary-General’s reprisals report and accused by UN experts of committing war crimes in Yemen. Due to these serious concerns, we are actively campaigning against its election in the Asia and Pacific group.

What’s the role of civil society in this process?

Civil society, including ISHR, has a crucial role to play in advocating for a more effective and accountable Human Rights Council. One of the key areas where reform is needed is closed slates. Competitive elections are essential to ensure that only states with a genuine commitment to human rights are elected.

ISHR has created scorecards to assess and compare the candidates based on their history of cooperation with human rights mechanisms such as the Universal Periodic Review and their engagement with civil society, UN treaty bodies and special procedures. These criteria provide a solid understanding and clear overview of a country’s human rights record and therefore its suitability to sit on the Council. While we understand no country has a perfect record, these criteria aim to provide valuable insights into each state’s commitment to upholding human rights and its potential role on the Council.

In addition to our scorecards, our annual joint pledging event with Amnesty International provides a platform for states to present their candidacies, make strong, public commitments as potential members and receive direct feedback and critical questions from civil society. If all candidates participated in this event, it would increase the political cost of refusing to participate or failing to submit formal pledges and commitments. Such engagement would make it harder for states with poor human rights records to seek a seat without facing scrutiny.

What should be the Council’s priorities?

The Human Rights Council is vital in amplifying the voices of rights holders, victims and human rights defenders, providing them with a platform to expose violations and demand accountability. To fulfil this role effectively, its priorities must focus on being credible, effective and accessible. It should continue to focus on upholding international law universally, supporting the remote and hybrid participation of civil society and ensuring that demands for accountability are promptly addressed.

A credible and effective Council can only function if its members fully cooperate with its mechanisms and adhere to objective human rights criteria. At a time of increasing conflict and crisis, often rooted in repression and human rights violations, the Council’s role in promoting accountability and justice is more important than ever. States should support the work of human rights defenders, whose efforts to prevent violations, document abuses and provide essential services are essential to crisis resolution.

To address these conflicts, states must apply human rights standards consistently. Selective or inconsistent application of standards undermines the international framework and the credibility of those involved. International human rights law, when applied consistently and in a principled manner, remains the best guide to achieving a more just, peaceful and inclusive world.

Get in touch with ISHR through its website or Facebook page, and follow @ishrglobal on Instagram and @ISHRglobal and @Madeleine_ISHR on Twitter.

 

Cultivating a Culture of Peace

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Peace, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

UNDP’s peacebuilding work in Afghanistan coordinates efforts, from international to local, and ensures community members, particularly disadvantaged groups, have a meaningful role in shaping their future. Credit: UNDP Afghanistan

UNITED NATIONS, Sep 26 2024 (IPS) – As global peace hits its lowest point since the Second World War, the International Day of Peace on September 21 offered a critical moment to reflect on and strengthen our peacebuilding efforts.

This year’s theme, ‘Cultivating a Culture of Peace’, is a powerful reminder that for peace to be possible, everyone must play a part.

This sentiment is at the heart of the UNDP’s conflict prevention and peacebuilding work, which we call an ‘area-based approach’. Under this model, we ensure that all those who are working towards peace within a community are working together, and towards a common goal.

The work is tailored to the specific needs and conditions of each particular community, and is locally-led. Peace has its greatest chance when communities come together to address the underlying causes of tension or conflict.

Conflict is on the rise

Today’s conflicts are driven by complex factors including shifting global power dynamics, weak governance, rising inequalities, and a range of interconnected threats such as climate change, crime, and terrorism.

The toll of armed conflicts is staggering. By the end of 2023, conflict-related deaths had surged dramatically. Over 117 million people have been forcibly displaced. Violence has cost the global economy an astonishing US$19.1 trillion. Two billion people, one quarter of the world’s population, live in conflict zones.

If we don’t invest sufficiently in peace, we can’t hope to reverse these trends. Yet, international resources are increasingly focused on immediate humanitarian relief rather than at the root causes of conflict.

The OECD estimates humanitarian aid in fragile contexts has reached a historic high of 27.7 percent of the Development Assistance Committee’s official development assistance, while peace building funding has fallen to a 15-year low of 10.8 percent.

In response, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres’s vision for building a more peaceful world, the New Agenda for Peace, calls for greater international cooperation and a decisive shift towards prioritizing conflict prevention.

To effectively address the root causes of violence It emphasizes the importance of national ownership, people-centred strategies, and peace financing. One way of meeting the promise of the New Agenda for Peace is to employ an area-based approach.

Area-based responses keep local communitiess at the centre of the peacebuilding process. Credit: UNDP Syria

What is an area-based approach?

It delivers tailored recovery and development based on context and conflict analysis. It works with local authorities, community groups, and local businesses to analyze and plan locally tailored solutions. In places such as Syria it ensures that responses are locally rooted, and keeps communities at the centre of the process.

Local communities, including vulnerable and excluded groups, define the priorities of area-based approaches. This inclusive engagement creates a shared sense of purpose, which is the foundation for building peace.

In Mozambique this has helped address localized conflict and foster resilience, including ensuring meaningful local participation in navigating entrenched social and political barriers.

In southern Iraq, UNDP is using an area-based approach to harmonize crisis response coordination, basic service delivery, livelihood opportunities, and protection for at-risk groups. It addresses the many facets of recovery and resilience simultaneously, helping build a foundation for lasting peace.

Area-based approaches also provide a coordination framework for international organizations to assess local needs, and design cost-effective responses.

UNDP’s work in Afghanistan coordinates efforts, from international to local, increasing effectiveness and value for money while also supporting local ownership. This ensures that community members, particularly disadvantaged groups, have a meaningful role in shaping their future.

Leveraging over 30 years of experience, UNDP has found area-based approaches to be highly effective in addressing some of the key barriers to peace, such as poverty, inequality, and weak governance.

However, these approaches are not a panacea.

There are challenges in ensuring meaningful participation. Among them are coordinating diverse stakeholders, sustaining long-term impact, managing varying expectations, and overcoming capacity constraints. To be effective peacebuilding programmes must be integrated into broader frameworks, such as national prevention strategies, efforts to mitigate strategic risks, and international cooperation.

Despite their challenges, area-based approaches have great potential for preventing conflict, fostering peace and building community resilience. We’re already seeing the dividends in Mozambique, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond.

By focusing on people-centred solutions, fostering national ownership and addressing the root causes of conflict, area-based approaches play a critical role in cultivating a culture of peace from the ground up.

Naysan Adlparvar is Core Government Functions and Research Advisor, UNDP; Giacomo Negrotto is Local Governance Specialist, UNDP; Adela Pozder-Cengic is Core Government Functions Specialist, UNDP

Source UNDP

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Summit of the Future: Youth Driven Action Needed to Tackle Nuclear and Climate Crises

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Civil Society, Climate Change, Conferences, Development & Aid, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Nuclear Disarmament, Nuclear Energy – Nuclear Weapons, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Youth, Youth Thought Leaders

Nuclear Disarmament

Dr. Tshilidzi Marwala, USG and Rector of the United Nations University, and Ms. Kaoru Nemeto, Director of the United Nations Information Centre during a discussion ‘Building the Future: Synergetic Collaboration on Nuclear and Climate Crises.’ Credit: Naureen Hossain/IPS

Dr. Tshilidzi Marwala, USG and Rector of the United Nations University, and Ms. Kaoru Nemeto, Director of the United Nations Information Centre during a discussion ‘Building the Future: Synergetic Collaboration on Nuclear and Climate Crises.’ Credit: Naureen Hossain/IPS

UNITED NATIONS, Sep 23 2024 (IPS) – Driving the Summit of the Future’s core messages of international solidarity and decisive action are young people who are determined to address the intersecting issues that the world contends with today.

During the Summit’s Action Days (20-21 September), it was young people who led the conversations of increasing and defining meaningful engagement, both on- and off-site from the United Nations Headquarters.

Not only are they driving the conversation, but in the Pact for the Future adopted by world leaders at the United Nations on Sunday (September 22), youth and future generations are at the forefront of global leaders’ concerns, and their role was clearly defined with the first ever Declaration on Future Generations, with concrete steps to take account of future generations in our decision-making, including a possible envoy for future generations.

This includes a commitment to more “meaningful opportunities for young people to participate in the decisions that shape their lives, especially at the global level.”

Building the Future: Synergetic Collaboration on Nuclear and Climate Crises, a side event whose co-organizers included Soka Gakkai International (SGI) and the Future Action Festival Organizing Committee, with the support of the United Nations University (UNU) and the United Nations Information Centre (UNIC), brought together young activists to discuss the intersection between two different crises and what will define meaningful youth engagement.

Kaoru Nemoto, the Director General of UNIC in Tokyo, observed that it was “ground-breaking” to see the agenda of the Summit’s Action Days largely led and organized by youth participants, as signified by the majority of seats in the General Assembly Hall being filled by young activists.


“There is an undercurrent, a common message, that the youth can make this world a better place to live,” said Nemoto. “No matter what agenda you are working on, be it climate change, nuclear disarmament, fighting inequality… youth issues are cross-cutting, very strong cross-cutting issues across the board.”

Nemoto further added that the United Nations needs to do much more to engage youth for meaningful participation. This would mean allowing youth to consult in decision-making and to be in positions of leadership. Youth presence cannot be reduced to tokenism.

The climate and nuclear crises are existential threats that are deeply connected, said Dr. Tshilidzi Marwala, the rector of the United Nations University. Climate instability fuels the factors that lead to conflict and displacement. Conflict, such as what is happening in Sudan, Israel, Palestine, and Ukraine, increases the risk of nuclear escalation. As leaders in the present day tackle the issues, Marwala called on the youth to continue raising their voices and to hold those powers accountable.

Marwala noted that the United Nations University would be committed to “realizing meaningful participation” in all parties. For young people, while they are motivated and demonstrate a care for deeper social issues, they face challenges in having their voices heard or in feeling galvanized to take action. Marwala noted that it was important to reach out to those young people who are either not involved or feel discouraged from getting involved in political work and activism.

Chief among the Summit of the Future’s agenda is increasing youth participation in decision-making processes. It has long been acknowledged that young activists and civil society actors drive greater societal change and are motivated to act towards complex issues. Yet they frequently face challenges in participating in policymaking that would shape their countries’ positions.

Among these challenges are representation in political spaces. Within the context of Japan, young people are underrepresented in local and national politics. As Luna Serigano, an advocate from the Japan Youth Council, shared during the event, there is a wider belief among young voters in Japan that their voices will go unheard by authorities.

This is indicated in voter turnout, which shows that only 37 percent of voters are in their 20s, and only 54 percent of voters believe that their votes matter. By contrast, 71 percent of people in their 70s voted in elections. People in their 30s or younger account for just 1 percent of professionals serving in government councils and forums. The Japan Youth Council is currently advocating for active youth participation in the country’s climate change policy by calling for young people to be directly involved as committee members to work on a new energy plan for the coming year.

Yuuki Tokuda, a co-founder of GeNuine, a Japan-based NGO that explores nuclear issues through a gender perspective, shared that young people are out of decision-making spaces. Although their voices may be heard, it is not enough. As she told IPS, the climate and nuclear crises are on the minds of young people in Japan. And while they have ideas on what could be done, they are not informed on how to act.

There is some hope for increasing participation. Tokuda shared within policymakers on nuclear issues, of which 30 percent include women, have begun to engage with young people in these discussions.

“It is time to reconstruct systems so that youth can meaningfully participate in these processes,” said Tokuda. “We need more intergenerational participation in order to work towards the ban of nuclear weapons and the climate crisis.”

During the event, what meaningful youth engagement should look like was discussed. It was acknowledged that efforts have gone towards giving a space to the perspectives of young people. Including young people in the discussions is a critical step. It was suggested that direction should shift towards ensuring that young people have the authority to take the action needed to resolve intersecting, complex issues. Otherwise, the inclusion is meaningless.

“The future-oriented youth is more needed than ever to tackle the challenges in building and maintaining peace,” said Mitsuo Nishikata of SGI.

“As a youth-driven initiative such as what the Future Action Festival demonstrates, youth solidarity can stand as a starting point for resolving and passing issues.”

Next year (2025) will mark 80 years since the end of World War II and the Hiroshima-Nagasaki atomic bombings. Nishikata pointed out that this will be a time for crucial opportunities to advance the discussions on nuclear disarmament and climate action, ahead of the Third Meeting of State Parties on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the 30th UN Climate Conference (COP30).

“We will continue to unite in our desire for peace, sharing the responsibility for future generations and expanding grassroots actions in Japan and globally.

Other commitments for the Pact for the Future included the first multilateral recommitment to nuclear disarmament in more than a decade, with a clear commitment to the goal of totally eliminating nuclear weapons.

It also pledged reform of the United Nations Security Council since the 1960s, with plans to improve the effectiveness and representativeness of the Council, including by redressing the historical underrepresentation of Africa as a priority.

The pact has at its core a commitment to “turbo-charge” implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including the reform of the international financial architecture so that it better represents and serves developing countries.

“We cannot build a future that is suitable for our grandchildren with a system that our grandparents created,” as the Secretary-General António Guterres stated.

This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau Report