Human Rights, Healthcare Disrupted in Eastern Europe With USAID Funding Freeze

Posted on by admin

Aid, Civil Society, Democracy, Development & Aid, Editors’ Choice, Education, Europe, Featured, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Aid

Crowley Logistics in Miami, Florida, was one of three USAID shipping and logistics facilities in the nation. It could, in times of emergency humanitarian relief aid, respond with supplies delivered to aircraft at Miami International Airport within two hours. Credit: USDAID/Lance Cheung

Feb 17 2025 (IPS) – As the full effects of the US decision to freeze foreign aid funding begin to be felt across the world, organizations in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) are warning years of work in everything from delivering life-saving healthcare to defending human rights and strengthening democracy could be undone.

In many countries in the region, foreign aid is vital for the continued functioning of large parts of civil society and the activities NGOs and other groups carry out.

But since US President Donald Trump’s executive order on January 20 freezing foreign aid for 90 days and a ‘stop work order’ announced four days later, some groups have had to entirely, or partly, shut down their operations—with potentially devastating consequences.

One area that has been heavily affected is the fight against HIV/AIDS.

According to a UN report published in 2024, only half of the 2.1 million people living with HIV in the EECA region have access to treatment, and just 42% of people living with HIV have suppressed viral loads—the lowest rate in the world. In 2023, 140,000 new cases of HIV infection were registered in the region.

US funding has been central to the HIV response in EECA, including through the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), as well as USAID.

According to UNAIDS, this support has helped fund community-based HIV prevention programmes, provision of antiretroviral therapy (ART), development of laboratory and diagnostic infrastructure, and training of health workers. It has also played a key role in prevention and harm reduction programmes among key populations.

This is critical in a region where 94 percent of new HIV cases occur among key populations and their partners.

While US aid is not the primary source of funds for HIV programmes in some countries in the region, in others it is vital.

In Ukraine, which has Europe’s second worst HIV epidemic, local groups working with key populations and people living with HIV say the aid freeze has had a dramatic impact.

The charity 100% Life provides treatment and prevention services to marginalized communities, including drug users and people with HIV, TB, and other diseases, often operating in frontline areas.

Dmytro Sherembei, head of the Coordination Council of 100% Life, told IPS that up to 25 percent of specialist staff carrying out testing, monitoring and other tasks would have to be laid off, while testing programmes and other assistance for state healthcare projects would be stopped.

“The funding suspensions stopped our whole programme, and it will cause a lot of damage,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Alliance for Public Health (APH), one of the country’s largest healthcare NGOs, said its HIV case-finding operations had been suspended after the aid freeze.

“About 35-40 percent of all HIV-positive cases in Ukraine are found, tested, and referred for treatment by APH and its partners. It will be difficult to find alternative funding,” Andriy Klepikov, Executive Director of APH, told IPS.

APH estimates the halt to testing could mean thousands of cases going undetected during the 90-day suspension of aid.

There are also concerns that treatment for more than 100,000 patients with HIV may be interrupted. Since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the Ukrainian government has not had funds to procure antiretroviral drugs (ARVs), and PEPFAR has been procuring ARVs for all patients.

The country has ARV stocks for the next six months, “but a suspension of funding could impact the next delivery of medications planned for March,” Klepikov said.

“This funding stop threatens to turn a manageable epidemic into a deadly crisis,” warned Sherembei.

In Tajikistan, US funding has supported services including treatment and prevention among key populations, training of professionals, strengthening of local organizations, and support for community-led initiatives.

But the funding freeze is threatening to undo years of progress, local HIV activists told IPS.

Pulod Dzhamalov, Director of the Tajik NGO SPIN PLUS, said services for people living with HIV and other key populations in many places had “simply ceased to exist.”

“For many people who sought these services, it was the only place where they felt safe. And staff who worked on these projects have suddenly found themselves unemployed, without any means of livelihood or hope for the future. Significant resources were invested in building a positive image of these services, and now all of that has gone to waste. A considerable portion of the national HIV prevention programme’s budget was covered by PEPFAR funding, and this will inevitably impact the healthcare system as a whole,” he said.

Takhmina Haiderova, head of the Tajik Network of Women Living with HIV, said her organization was “facing serious challenges” and that the freeze on US funds had had a significant impact on all HIV-service NGOs in the country.

“Reduced funding results in fewer HIV prevention and treatment projects, staff reductions, and limited access to life-saving services such as testing, counseling, and treatment. In addition, it negatively affects the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, such as reducing the spread of HIV, improving the quality of life of people living with HIV, ensuring gender equality, and upholding human rights,” she said.

The decision to freeze funding, especially in places where the epidemic is not improving, such as EECA, risks doing irreparable harm to global efforts to fight HIV, activists say.

“[The Trump administration’s] efforts are doing irreparable harm to the global HIV response and global health more broadly. These are inefficient, wasteful  and deadly policy moves,” Asia Russell, Executive Director of the Health Gap advocacy organization, told IPS.

But it is far from just efforts to fight HIV/AIDS in the region that have been affected by the pause on US aid.

In many countries, foreign funding is essential to the survival of independent media, keeping a check on autocracies and serving audiences living under repressive regimes.

Press freedom watchdogs say the aid freeze has created confusion, chaos, and uncertainty among media organizations and outlets that rely heavily, or completely, on American funds.

Exiled media reporting for audiences in countries such as Russia, Belarus, and others from outside those states are particularly vulnerable.

“This is very bad news for exiled media that relocated to democratic countries after crackdowns. Some newsrooms from Belarus have reported a complete lack of funding due to the current [US aid] freeze, which may lead to a complete cessation of these projects due to the inability to pay employees. Others have been forced to cut their staff, which is very worrying since they have so far managed to keep their audience in their country, despite being forced into exile. Their efforts made it possible to effectively counter official Belarusian and Kremlin propaganda,” Jeanne Cavelier, Head of Eastern Europe & Central Asia Desk at Reporters Without Borders (RSF), told IPS.

Meanwhile, in Ukraine, where nine out of ten outlets rely on subsidies and USAID is the primary donor, a survey after the aid freeze showed that almost 60% of media professionals surveyed believe that the suspension of US media support programmes could have ‘catastrophic consequences and lead to the closure or significant reduction in the work of many independent media outlets,’ according to RSF.

“Projects funded by American aid, such as USAID, were mostly intended to enable the media to investigate corruption and public spending. This is critical for reliable information, as well as for small media outlets reporting from the frontline,” said Cavelier.

“The freeze has already led a number of newsrooms to cut back on content, lower salaries, increase part-time working and reduce staff numbers,” she added.

Editors at local independent media outlets fear the suspension could lead to publications turning to other sources of funding, which could then look to change editorial stances, influence the independence of these media and, potentially, become tools for Russian propaganda.

There are similar fears in other parts of the region.

“The independent media here relies very much on foreign funding because otherwise they would not be economically viable in a country that is poor and in a market where some media are financed by shady Russian money,” Valeriu Pasha, Programme Manager at Moldovan think tank WatchDog.Md, told IPS.

“I think we could definitely see some deals where some media that are now struggling with funding could be bought by, or would start to be funded through, Russian sources in some way,” he added.

However, he pointed out that it was not just independent media that had been affected by the US aid freeze.

“This will have quite an effect on civil society here; plenty of organizations will feel its impact,” he said, pointing out that groups involved in everything from local election observation to healthcare, rights defense, and even working with the government on judicial reform were reliant to some extent on US aid.

“Even our organization, which has not really been affected by this so far, could well be affected in the future. We don’t know,” he added.

The freezing of US funding may also have had an unexpected, although equally pernicious, effect on civil society in the region.

The US administration’s apparent efforts to effectively shutter USAID have been welcomed by authoritarian leaders who have already been cracking down on NGOs and others they see as critical of their regimes.

In Georgia, USAID is currently investing in scores of programmes across the country with a total value of USD 373 million, according to local media. These initiatives focus on, among others, strengthening democratic institutions and increasing public resilience to disinformation.

Much US funding to the country was stopped last year in response to increasingly authoritarian behavior by the ruling regime—including legislative crackdowns on civil society.

But Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze earlier this month told local journalists the stop on USAID activities proved his government’s previous claims that the organization’s funds were used not for humanitarian goals but to “stage revolutions, sow disorder, and destabilize countries, including Georgia.”

Lawmakers appear to have also taken it as confirmation of the hardline approach they have already taken to civil society and the media—including a controversial law on foreign funding of NGOs introduced last year, which forced many to close—and emboldened them to tighten restrictions even further. On February 5, a media regulation law was announced that would ban foreign funding of media, as well as an even more restrictive version of the law on foreign funding for NGOs.

Reports have suggested authorities in Russia, where a swathe of laws and repressive measures have already forced the closure of many key services provided by civil society groups in areas from HIV prevention and help for marginalized groups to rights organizations, may be planning to ask US Congress to share a list of Russian citizens who received US funding with Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB).

Groups affected by the funding freeze are looking to find alternative sources of finance. Some have called for governments, particularly in Europe, to step in and fill the gap left by the withdrawal of American money.

In a statement, a group of European disability organizations and services called on the European Union and non-governmental donors to provide emergency and long-term funding to disability organizations affected by the cuts in US funding.

They highlighted that organizations were implementing lifesaving programs in countries such as Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and Albania and that the loss of funding will put at risk organizations and persons with disabilities in the Balkans, Eastern Europe and South Caucasus, leaving hundreds of thousands without support.

While there are hopes that US funding will, sooner or later, resume once the Trump administration finishes its review, whatever US foreign aid is resumed, it is unlikely to be disbursed in the same way as it was previously, said Pasha.

“I expect that some aid will resume in some form after the 90-day freeze, but it will reflect the priorities of the new US administration—in the future it will likely be less connected to values and more to economics,” he said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Colombia’s Historic Child Marriage Ban

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Education, Featured, Gender, Gender Violence, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Latin America & the Caribbean, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Women’s Health

Opinion

Credit: Fundación Plan/Instagram

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Jan 8 2025 (IPS) – Colombia has just marked a historic milestone in the global campaign against child marriage, with the Senate passing one of Latin America and the Caribbean’s most comprehensive bans on child marriage and early unions. In a country where one in five girls under 18 and one in 10 under 14 are married or live in marriage-like conditions, the new law raises the minimum age to 18 with no exceptions, eliminating a 137-year-old Civil Code provision that allowed children over 14 to marry with parental consent. This achievement aligns with goal 5 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which has a target of eliminating harmful practices like child marriage by 2030. The new law now awaits the signature of President Gustavo Petro to come into effect.

The breakthrough

Child marriage disproportionately affects Colombia’s most vulnerable communities, with rates of between 40 and 65 per cent among rural, Indigenous and Afro-Colombian populations. In some communities, girls as young as 10 are married off. These early unions expose girls to unequal power relations, deny them education, limit their bodily and economic autonomy and lead to higher rates of gender-based violence and health issues linked to early pregnancy.

The passage of the #SonNiñasNoEsposas (‘They are girls, not wives’) bill reflected the power of persistent civil society advocacy. After several failed attempts since 2007, the bill, authored by two congresswomen, passed with unanimous support. This success was driven by a coalition of Colombian civil society organisations as part of the Girls Not Brides global network, including the Foundation for Gender and Family Development, Fundación Plan and Profamilia, working alongside international partners such as Equality Now and Plan International, with Girls Not Brides directly supporting legislative advocacy and media campaigns.

Beyond raising the marriage age, the new law establishes the National Comprehensive Programme for Life Projects for Children and Adolescents. This preventive initiative targets the structural causes of early unions – poverty and lack of education – particularly in remote rural areas. The programme includes the participation of Indigenous communities through their own governance structures, recognising the importance of cultural sensitivity in implementation.

The global landscape

Colombia is by no means alone in having a child marriage problem. Around the world, some 12 million girls are married each year, two million before the age of 15. While child marriage can affect boys as well, girls are six times more likely to be married as children than boys.

According to the Child Marriage Monitoring Mechanism, a collaborative initiative to generate evidence to support efforts to end child marriage, one in five young women worldwide are married before their 18th birthday, with rates highest in sub-Saharan Africa.

To tackle this problem, The Elders, a group of senior public figures, launched the global Girls Not Brides partnership in 2011. With over 1,400 member organisations in more than 100 countries, Girls Not Brides works to prevent under-age marriage, recognising it as both a human rights violation and an obstacle to development. It identifies four main drivers of child marriage: poverty, limited educational and economic opportunities, gender inequality and insecurity in conflict or disaster situations. It tackles the problem with awareness-raising campaigns, national and international policy advocacy and community engagement to challenge social norms that perpetuate child marriage.

Since then, efforts have multiplied. In 2016, the United Nations Population Fund and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) launched the Global Programme to End Child Marriage. Now in its third phase, set to run until 2030, the programme operates in 12 high-prevalence countries in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. Working directly with governments, it has reached millions of adolescent girls, focusing on education, healthcare and economic opportunities.

Regional-level initiatives include the South Asian Initiative to End Violence Against Children, which works in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and the African Union’s Campaign to End Child Marriage in Africa, launched in 2014 in 10 high-prevalence countries and later expanded to 30.

Many more initiatives work at national and local levels. They combine multiple responses, including working with religious and community leaders to change social norms, supporting girls’ education and economic empowerment, engaging with men and boys on gender equality, advocating for stronger laws and their enforcement, providing support services to girls at risk of child marriage, using media and technology to raise awareness and change attitudes and building networks of young advocates and change-makers.

Progress and challenges

These efforts have contributed to a global decline in child marriage rates. According to UNICEF, the proportion of young women married as children has decreased from 25 per cent to 21 per cent over the past decade, meaning that 25 million child marriages have been prevented. However, the global number of child brides is still estimated at 650 million, including girls under 18 who have already married and adult women who married as children.

The average annual rate of reduction has been 0.7 per cent over the past 25 years and 1.9 per cent over the past decade, showing the impact of recent initiatives. But at this rate, the SDG target of eliminating the practice by 2030 won’t be achieved.

Setbacks have been caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, conflict and economic instability. Wherever insecurity rises, so does child marriage, as parents see early marriage of daughters as a financial and security solution. During Syria’s conflict, for example, the rate of child marriages shot up among refugees in countries such as Jordan and Lebanon.

Looking ahead

Colombia’s new law marks significant progress, but it’s just the beginning, as evidenced by the fact that many of the early marriages that take place in Colombia would have been illegal under the old law.

The real work of implementation begins now. Colombia’s efforts over the next few years will be crucial in demonstrating how legislative change can translate into real protection for vulnerable girls. For Latin America and the Caribbean, it should open up opportunities for strengthened cross-border cooperation and similar legislative reforms.

Colombia’s comprehensive approach could serve as a model for change in a region where many countries still have legal exceptions that allow child marriage under some circumstances, while others have strong laws that aren’t adequately implemented.

While the declining trend in global child marriage rates offers hope, the current pace of change remains far too slow. Colombia’s example shows that significant progress is possible through sustained, multi-stakeholder commitment and comprehensive approaches that change laws but also address underlying social dynamics. The international community must build on this momentum. This means scaling up successful initiatives, increasing funding for civil society organisations and maintaining political pressure.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

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

  Source

Carter’s Virtue Trumps Mendacity

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: White House

ATLANTA, Georgia, Jan 3 2025 (IPS) – The fireplace in the State Dining Room of the White House that says, “May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.” President John Adams wrote that in a letter to his wife Abigail in 1800.

Jimmy Carter was by all accounts a wise, just, and decent man—a man of deep religious faith, who was also circumspect—some may say old fashioned—about his rhetoric.

He was refreshingly candid in using the country-boy phrase “I’ll whip his ass!” against Democratic primary opponent Sen. Edward Kennedy. Most reporters in that era considered it too harsh or nearly obscene, so instead, they wrote, “I’ll whip his donkey!”

Carter was honest. When asked by a reporter amid stories of the Kennedy brothers’ sexual indulgences, if he had ever had lust in his heart, he responded straightforwardly, “Yes.” That’s something no other politician would ever do. But it was easy for Carter to admit because he followed the Christian and Calvinist doctrine that “We are all sinners.”

Historians view his administration as a watershed in the civil rights struggle, especially in the South. As president he negotiated the first ever peace agreement between Israel and the Arabs. In his post-presidential years, he made a worldwide impact as a humanitarian.

Civic virtue must be faithful to the original concept of American nationhood—favoring citizens ahead of government. Liberty and justice are the watchwords of democracy, not blind obedience to politicians.

George Washington said, “There exists an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness.” Lincoln advised “Malice toward none…charity for all…firmness in the right.” Carter followed these sentiments at his inauguration with a pledge from the Biblical Prophet Micah: “Do justly, love mercy, walk humbly.”

There are two ways of recognizing people as honest and wise—by their words and by their deeds. Carter told the truth straight out—even if it was inconvenient or might hurt him. His policies were based on simple fairness, especially in his efforts to overcome the endemic racism of the Old South.

By contrast, President-elect Trump is famous for the lies and invective-filled slander constantly dripping from his lips: “When somebody hurts you, just go after them as viciously and as violently as you can…. When somebody screws you, screw them back in spades.” Trump’s brand, he said, means, “Power is the only true value.”

We teach our kids differently. “Be nice,” we always say. Sesame Street TV and First Grade teachers call out children for “Courtesy Lacking.” Why can’t we demand as much from our leaders?

Trump is a symptom of the ills of our society, not the cause. Today most of us tolerate curses and obscenities that would have scandalized our grandmothers. Trump is simply riding the crest of a flood of indecency that already exists among the public.

Let’s bring back civic virtue. Jimmy Carter may be the best example of personal rectitude among US leaders in our lifetimes. Let him be your model—not the empty, sleazy suit that is soon to be the next occupant of the White House.

James E. Jennings PhD is President of Conscience International.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Remembering Jimmy Carter: a UN Perspective

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Children on the Frontline, Civil Society, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Carter was a man of decency and integrity who devoted his life to promoting peace and democracy. Credit: Courtesy Kul Chandra Gautam

 
Former US President Jimmy Carter, a leader of impeccable integrity and decency who devoted his life to promoting peace and democracy worldwide. I recall his contribution to the peace process in Nepal and his leadership in combatting deadly diseases in Africa.
 
Jimmy Carter enthusiastically supported the child survival campaign led by UNICEF. He had nominated Jim Grant to be the Executive Director of UNICEF and said that it was one of the most important decisions of his presidency.

KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jan 2 2025 (IPS) – Former American President Jimmy Carter was a man of peace and principles. He presided over a tumultuous period in American history from 1977 to 1981, working hard to restore trust in government after the Watergate scandal and the divisive era of the Vietnam War. He brokered a landmark peace deal between Israel and Egypt and negotiated a historic treaty to hand over the Panama Canal to Panama.

Carter, a champion of human rights both in the US and around the world, passed away at 100 on December 29, 2024.

More than any recent American president, Carter pressed gently but firmly on autocratic regimes worldwide to respect human rights and the rule of law. When he led the country with immense moral authority, it encouraged many human rights advocates, while dictators worried about the US sanctions.

At home, Carter got many progressive legislations passed in areas of consumer protection, welfare reforms and the appointment of women and minorities in America’s judiciary. However, he had difficulties managing the US economy, the Iran hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. And in the 1980 Presidential election, when he lost his bid to Ronald Reagan, his active political career came to an end.

Kul Chandra Gautam

But he didn’t retire to a comfortable life, rather, he embarked on a noble mission as one of the world’s highly respected elder statesmen, deeply committed to promoting democracy and human rights. He founded the Carter Center with a motto of “Waging Peace, Fighting Disease and Building Hope”.

With his team, he worked tirelessly to help resolve conflicts, monitor elections and improve human health through campaigns to eliminate several neglected diseases afflicting the poorest people worldwide, particularly in Africa.

“For his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights and to promote economic and social development,” Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.

Links with UNICEF and Nepal

Carter greatly admired UNICEF Executive Director James Grant and strongly supported the UNICEF-led global child survival and development campaign. Further, the organisation was a key partner in the Carter-led global campaign to eradicate a debilitating disease called dracunculiasis or Guinea-worm disease.

My first substantive meeting with Carter took place on August 3, 1995, at an event in Washington, DC, organised jointly by the Carter Center, USAID, WHO and UNICEF to mark the 95 percent reduction in Guinea worm cases worldwide and to recommit to its total eradication. I had a long and fruitful discussion with Carter on strengthening our collaboration in the global campaign to eradicate Guinea-worm disease.

In February 2004, I joined President Carter and WHO Director-General JW Lee on a 3-day field visit to observe and advocate for Guinea-worm eradication in Ghana. I learned about Carter’s humble personality, deep commitment to many worthy causes and impressive advocacy skills.

In our informal interactions, we often talked about Nepal.

Carter’s involvement in Nepal

Carter visited Nepal twice to observe Nepal’s Constituent Assembly Elections. He advised Nepali leaders, including the Election Commission, based on his worldwide experience and credibility in observing elections and conflict resolution. Over the years, the Carter Center produced several reports on Nepal dealing with issues related to the peace process, challenges in drafting Nepal’s Constitution and other important issues of social justice and equity.

I instinctively supported Carter’s noble efforts to promote peace, democracy and development. However, like everybody else, Carter was human and fallible, and some aspects of the Carter Center’s reports on Nepal were flawed.

In particular, Carter’s hasty verdict that Nepal’s first Constituent Assembly election was free, fair and peaceful ignored the fact that there was an unusually high degree of intimidation in many rural constituencies. The non-Maoist parties’ candidates were prevented from campaigning, and voters were threatened with physical violence for weeks preceding the actual voting.

There were well-intentioned but inaccurate analyses of Nepal’s socio-political dynamics by the Carter Center, the International Crisis Group, and even the United Nations. In their effort to appear “balanced and even-handed”, they gave the undue benefit of the doubt to the progressive-sounding rhetoric of the Maoists, ignoring their violent and corrupt practices.

Carter witnessed the insincerity and duplicity of the Maoists when they initially welcomed the 2013 election for the second Constituent Assembly but then denounced it as rigged and unfair when the results showed that they had suffered a humiliating loss.

Unlike during the first CA election, Carter took the necessary time to analyse the second CA election better. He left somewhat sobered by a deeper understanding of the Maoists’ opportunistic and undemocratic nature.

A man of faith and integrity

Jimmy Carter was a deeply religious and spiritual man who often turned to his faith during his political career. But as a progressive man and defender of human rights and gender equality, he found himself at odds with his Southern Baptist Church when it opposed gender equality, citing a few selected verses from the Bible that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and must not be allowed to serve as priests.

Carter protested and took a painful decision to sever ties with his Baptist Church, saying that parts of its rigid doctrine violated the basic premises of his Christian faith. He wrote to his fellow Baptists and published an op-ed article “Losing my religion for equality”.

Carter had a philosophical and spiritual perspective on death. As he suffered from multiple bouts of cancer treatment, he remarked, “I didn’t ask God to let me live, but I just asked God to give me a proper attitude toward death. I found that I was absolutely and completely at ease with death”.

May Carter’s noble soul rest in eternal peace.

Source: Kathmandu Post, Nepal

Kul Chandra Gautam is a distinguished diplomat, development professional, and a former senior official of the United Nations. Currently, he serves on the Boards of several international and national organizations, charitable foundations and public-private partnerships. Previously, he served in senior managerial and leadership positions with the UN in several countries and continents in a career spanning over three decades. As a former Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF and Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, he has extensive experience in international diplomacy, development cooperation and humanitarian assistance.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

‘Quilombola Communities Live in Fear Because the Laws That Are Supposed to Protect Them Are Ignored’

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Education, Featured, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Latin America & the Caribbean, TerraViva United Nations

Dec 4 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses threats to the security, rights and ancestral lands of Brazil’s quilombola communities with Wellington Gabriel de Jesus dos Santos, leader and activist of the Pitanga dos Palmares Quilombola community in Bahia state.

Founded by formerly enslaved Africans, quilombola communities represent a legacy of resilience and freedom. But their way of life is increasingly disrupted by harmful infrastructure projects and their members face constant threats from land grabbers and speculators. Community leaders demanding justice and reparations are met with intimidation and violence while public institutions look the other way. The National Coordination of Rural Black Quilombola Communities urges the Brazilian government to grant them protection and ensure accountability.

Wellington Gabriel de Jesus dos Santos

What are quilombola communities, and what’s the focus of their struggle?

Quilombola communities were born out of resistance to slavery. My community, Quilombo Pitanga, was founded by the descendants of those who fought for freedom when slavery was officially abolished in 1888. Even after slavery ended, the struggles continued because former slave owners and landowners continued to exploit and persecute our people.

Today, quilombola communities continue to fight for our land and culture. It’s important to us to preserve our heritage for future generations because it’s a testament to the strength of our ancestors, our survival and our resilience.

We advocate for justice and land rights through a combination of local and international strategies. We work with organisations such as the National Articulation of Quilombola Communities, which brings together quilombo leaders from across Brazil. We also hold protests, develop public awareness campaigns and work with international organisations to draw attention to our struggles.

What threats does your community face and who’s responsible?

My community faces significant threats, particularly from drug traffickers and powerful business interests. These threats became very real when my great-grandmother, María Bernadete Pacífico, was murdered by drug traffickers last year. She fought for the preservation of our culture and the wellbeing of younger generations, and I believe that’s what got her killed. She was part of a human rights protection programme, but the promised protection failed when she needed it most. My father was also murdered in 2017, during a battle against the construction of a landfill near our territory.

After my great-grandmother was killed, I haven’t been able to visit my family or enter the community. I live in constant fear, watching over the community and its heritage from afar.

Our community also faces institutional racism, reflected in the fact that the state built a prison on our land but fails to provide basic services such as schools and hospitals. We lack any public security, as a result of which some believe they can act with impunity. The prison, which was inaugurated in 2007, was supposed to be a shoe factory that would bring prosperity to the community. Suddenly, it was announced that it would be a prison, and it brought rising criminality and contamination of water resources and wetlands. Quilombo Pitanga dos Palmares hasn’t been the same since.

The bigger problem is that many quilombola communities, including ours, own valuable land. My community has a large territory, so we’ve been targeted by powerful interests that view our land as prime real estate for expansion. In 2012 we fought against the construction of an industrial road that would have cut through our land. There were large corporations involved, which made this fight particularly hard.

How do authorities respond?

The state not only turns a blind eye, leaving us vulnerable to exploitation, but it’s also complicit in these attacks because it protects the interests of big business rather than people. INEMA, the agency responsible for granting environmental licences to companies, has been investigated for corruption that has led to the approval of projects that harm communities like ours.

The authorities say they care about our safety, but the reality is different. The laws that are supposed to protect us are ignored and often the government is either unconcerned or in collusion with those causing harm.

What support do quilombola communities need?

Several issues need immediate attention, including securing our land rights, gaining access to basic services such as health and education and preserving our cultural heritage. A practical issue that needs attention is the toll we are forced to pay to enter the city, which constitutes arbitrary discrimination and isolates us from the wider community.

We are fighting the prison built on our land and the expansion of harmful companies that threaten our environment. We need more than words; we need tangible action, including stronger laws to protect us.

We need international support because local and national authorities often ignore or dismiss our struggles. Financial support is crucial, particularly for community leaders under threat. Many of us, including myself, face death threats. Our lives are far from normal and we need resources to ensure the safety of our families and communities.

United Nations human rights agencies could play a vital role in protecting our rights and securing the support we need. Unfortunately, despite local efforts to raise awareness, we often feel isolated in our struggles.

GET IN TOUCH
Instagram

SEE ALSO
Brazil: a step forward for Indigenous peoples’ rights CIVICUS Lens 20.Oct.2023
Brazil back on the green track CIVICUS Lens 21.Jul.2023
Brazil: ‘If Bolsonaro continues as president, it is a threat to the Amazon and therefore to humanity’ Interview with Daniela Silva 21.Sep.2022

  Source

Make Health Top of Climate Negotiations Agenda—Global Climate & Health Alliance

Posted on by admin

Climate Action, Climate Change Finance, Climate Change Justice, Conferences, COP29, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Global, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

COP29

Community health worker in Nepal helping giving polio vaccine to a child. Climate change-induced events are affecting basic health facilities directly. Photo: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

Community health worker in Nepal helping giving polio vaccine to a child. Climate change-induced events are affecting basic health facilities directly. Photo: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

BAKU, Nov 14 2024 (IPS) – Climate change and its impact on public health hasn’t made the top of the agenda even at a forum like the UN Climate Conference, but is should, say the health community.

Understanding the gap, more than 100 organizations from across the international health and climate community came together as the Global Climate and Health Alliance and have called wealthy countries to protect people’s health by committing to provide climate finance in the order of a trillion dollars annually, in addition to global action with leadership from the highest emitting countries to end the fossil fuel era.

Alliance endorsed nine recommendations for the summit through a policy brief—‘A COP29 for People and Planet’ which includes financing to community engagement.

In an interview with Dr. Jeni Miller, Executive Director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance IPS asked about the recommendations and why they were necessary.

Dr. Jeni Miller, Executive Director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance.

Dr. Jeni Miller, Executive Director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance.

IPS: How and why the international health and climate community came together—why was it necessary, right before COP29?

Miller: For many years, the UN climate negotiations have been going on. For many years, health was not a part of the conversation. And in fact, the Global Climate and Health Alliance was established because a handful of health organizations felt like this is an important health issue, and we need to get health into that conversation, and we’re not seeing it there. Over the years, more and more health organizations have really begun to understand the threat that climate change poses to people’s health. I think a big contributing factor as well is that we are now seeing those impacts of climate change in real time in communities all over the world—every country, every region, is seeing some combination of extreme weather events.

This is directly impacting the communities that we serve, and we have to raise the alarm bell and make sure that we’re pushing for those solutions that are going to protect people’s health. The report, specifically the policy recommendations, is really an attempt to take what we’re seeing from the health perspective, the concerns that we have. About the threat that this poses for people’s health and the reality of the impacts on people’s health, and somewhat translate that into terms that make sense for negotiators to pick that up, understand it, and use it in the context of those actual decision-making processes in the climate talks.

IPS: Wealth is concentrated on one side of the world or one section of the community, but burden—especially public health burden—is on marginalized communities who don’t have access to basic resources. Is there any way that gap will be narrowed in the near future?

Miller: This is such a critically important issue. And unfortunately, we’re seeing some real extremes of wealth disparity—ironically, in countries that have huge wealth disparity within the country, everyone is less healthy than they would be if there was less health disparity. If people were more equal, that would be healthier for everyone. But the reality is, many people, as you say, don’t have the resources to access the basic necessities of life. Healthy food, clean water, electricity of any kind, but particularly clean energy, even access to education, access to basic health care—all of those things are really vital to growing up healthy and to living a healthy life. And the thing that is so clear is that access to those basic necessities early in life makes a tremendous difference in being able to grow up healthy, resilient, and productive.

It’s a huge impact on the individual that’s growing up without those resources—it’s also an impact on society. So, a society that has people that grow up with enough resources to be resilient, healthy, and well educated is a healthier society. And I would argue that that extends not only within a community or even a country but also internationally. So, if we have huge disparities internationally, that’s also kind of a drain on the world, a challenge for the world as a whole. It leads to conflict, it leads to friction, and it leads to difficulty making decisions to tackle climate change together. I would argue that it’s really in the best interest of wealthy countries to make those investments to help the lowest-income, vulnerable countries have the resource they need to address those basic necessities. I think it’s fundamental. It’s the right thing to do.

I think for so many reasons, it’s important that the wealthy countries do step up and provide this kind of resources.

IPS: While talking about the resources, wealthy countries are already far behind on their climate finance commitment. Do you think they will consider financing to protect people’s health?

Miller: This is a major focus of this year’s climate negotiations. In fact, on the table is a major discussion about a new pot of financing for climate change, and I don’t think we know the answer yet as to how that’s going to come out.

It often gets talked about as we can’t economically afford to put in that money. I think a key question is, what is the cost of inaction? If we fail to act, we’re already seeing. The cost of failing to act on climate change is immense. The cost of failing to enable countries to be better, prepared to be better, to have their systems, their water and sanitation systems be stronger, their hospitals be more prepared, etc. The costs are just staggering. So, when we’re talking about, can we afford to put the money into climate action, I think we also need to ask the question, can we afford not to? I think the answer is no. And then the last thing that I’ll say about this is, and this is also important, we are currently subsidizing fossil fuels more than a trillion a year in direct public subsidies. So that’s public money going into supporting the production and use of fossil fuels, and fossil fuels are the primary driver of climate change.

So again, when we’re talking about, can we afford to or are we prepared to invest in climate action and put money into a Climate Fund? We need to ask ourselves the question. What is the cost of not doing so? And then where else is public money going that could be going into moving us in the right direction, towards clean energy, towards climate resilience?

IPS: You talked about the extreme weather events. In recent years, extreme events contributed by climate change are causing destruction en masse; often its monetary losses will be counted but its public health impact is still to be discussed. How do you see climate and health discussion moving forward especially regarding financing?

Miller: I don’t think it happens by itself. In my own country, the US, we are seeing climate-exacerbated disaster, and yet people not accepting the role of climate change in that and not accepting that the health impacts, the dislocation, and the trauma that they’re experiencing were caused by climate change.

It’s not necessarily going to happen just by itself, in in other countries as well. People may be feeling the impacts, but not connecting the dots, and not because of disinformation, not recognizing.

I do think that it’s important for those who know about those connections—the scientists, the advocates, the health professionals who are looking at these issues, the academic departments—to talk about it and articulate what those connections are.

But then I do think that each time one of those extreme weather events does create the opportunity for that conversation to happen, and we need to step up to those opportunities.

And I think that can make a really big difference in changing the nature of the conversation and opening-up possibility for a deeper conversation about what we need to do about this.

IPS: Let’s talk about the report. It talks about healthy climate action for most affected communities. Can you explain it for our audience and what would be the role of the community?

Miller: It’s so often the case that decisions get made without consulting communities affected by those decisions. There can be very good will that is, and good intentions behind that, and yet the results are not going to be as good if you’re not working with the people affected by the issue. The thing that community members know that nobody else knows in the way that they know it is their lived experience of what’s going on in their community, their resources in terms of their own knowledge, their own community relationships, their own resilience, their own techniques. There may be techniques that they know for growing food and their ecosystem.

There may be knowledge you know for forced communities, knowledge that they have of the force that they live in. There is very deep knowledge that communities have about their circumstances, their context, and their needs and what they can bring in terms of solutions, so effectively working with communities means really involving them in the conversation from the get-go when designing programs and projects and all of that sort of thing. And I think when it comes even to financing, thinking about how finance for Climate Solutions reaches that community level.

I think another thing that’s really important to recognize is that climate change puts a huge strain on all of us. It’s a huge psychological strain just to live in the climate era. Enabling communities to come together and be a part of the solution helps to heal that burden.

IPS: You touched on mental health. The report also talks about mental health and wellbeing outcomes—we are seeing people struggling with climate-related post- and pre-event psychological burden in different forms. How do you see this dimension moving forward?

Miller: That is one area where I’ve definitely seen significant progress in the last several years. I think I’ve seen significant progress in increasingly recognizing the health impacts of climate change and the health threat that climate change poses, and then within that, significant progress in beginning to recognize and acknowledge and understand the mental health dimensions of this. There’s a long way to go, but it is a part of the conversation, and it’s an important one.

There are mental health impacts before or after an extreme weather event, and that can show up as kind of anxiety and stress, a variety of things. People who go through major extreme weather events, like the post-traumatic stress of having experienced that and having gone through it, not knowing if it might happen again or when it might happen again.

There’s also the sense of losing one’s world, losing the world that one grew up in, losing the environment that one, the world that one grew up in and seeing those things kind of slip away—this sort of a cultural, ecological and cultural dimension to that. And if you know, failing to acknowledge that mental health dimension both leaves people suffering and also leaves people sort of disempowered.

I think community is important in response to those kinds of mental health challenges—the kind of recognition that there are actions that one can take and ways that one can come together. And some of those actions may be kind of the direct actions of sustainability, working to live a more sustainable lifestyle. I think even, maybe even more important than that, are actions of coming together with the community to influence the kinds of decisions that get made, to call for the kinds of policies that will turn the needle on climate change, to have a voice in the larger conversation. I think that can be even more powerful.

IPS: Do you have anything to add that we may have missed or you wanted to add?

Miller: I think the one thing that I would add is that, right now, every government that’s part of the Paris Agreement is in the process of drafting new national climate commitments.

It’s an important opportunity, not just at the international level, and as at these big international climate talks, but at home, in every single country, for people to call on their governments to make commitments that are aligned with protecting their health from climate change.

Also, I think it’s important to continue to focus on what we can do. The headwinds can feel pretty strong. Addressing climate change will be something that we’re doing for the rest of our lives, not just for the rest of my life—anybody alive today will be dealing with this issue for the rest of our lives. So, we need to maintain our stamina around it and know that this is a long-term commitment and know that it’s worth it.

IPS UN Bureau Report