Agroecology: The Game-Changing Solution to Global Food, Climate and Conflict Crises

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Biodiversity, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, COP16, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition, Food Sustainability, Global, Headlines, Humanitarian Emergencies, Natural Resources, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Biodiversity

Edward Mukiibi, President, Slow Food. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

Edward Mukiibi, President, Slow Food. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

TURIN, Italy, Oct 8 2024 (IPS) – Edward Mukiibi, President of Slow Food, champions agroecology as a transformative answer to the world’s most pressing crises: food insecurity, climate change, and violent conflicts.

In a world where these challenges intersect, Mukiibi called for an urgent rethink of our approach to food systems. 

Agroecology, a practice already embraced by millions of farmers worldwide, is emerging as a sustainable alternative to the industrialized agriculture model that dominates today. It emphasizes biodiversity, environmental stewardship, and equitable livelihoods—elements that Mukiibi insists are key to addressing the multifaceted crises facing our planet.

Speaking ahead of the highly anticipated Terra Madre 2024 event in Turin, Mukiibi called for immediate global action to end the misuse of food as a weapon in war-torn regions like Gaza and Ukraine, where food scarcity is exacerbating human suffering.

“Slow Food strongly advocates for an end to all violence in the ongoing conflicts, from the Gaza Strip to Sudan, from Lebanon to the Democratic Republic of Congo, from Ukraine to Yemen, and opposes the use of food as a weapon of war, said Mukiibi, calling for immediate negotiations to achieve a just solution that ensures the dignity of all people and fosters a peaceful future for everyone.

With global crises growing more complex, Mukiibi stresses that agroecology is not just about farming techniques—it is a framework for building more resilient societies.

Carlo Petrini, Founder, Slow Food. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

Carlo Petrini, Founder, Slow Food. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

The Power of Agroecology

As climate change accelerates, its devastating impacts—melting glaciers, rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and shifting ecosystems—are becoming harder to ignore. Mukiibi linked these environmental crises directly to our food systems, calling industrial agriculture a “leading culprit.” He argues that agroecology offers a path toward resilience, citing its ability to regenerate soil health, reduce social inequality, and provide local communities with economic opportunities.

Mukiibi’s call for change comes as 3,000 international delegates convene at the biennial Terra Madre event to explore solutions for sustainable food systems. He argues that agroecology not only regenerates soil fertility and promotes environmental health but also strengthens local economies, reduces social inequalities, and builds resilience against climate-induced disasters.

“As climate change intensifies, agroecology offers a path to more resilient and equitable food systems,”  Mukiibi declared. “This situation compels us to reflect on the transformation needed if we want to achieve a food system that feeds all people well, regenerates and protects the environment, and allows local cultures to survive and prosper.”

A Call for Global Food System Reset

Carlo Petrini, the founder of Slow Food, echoed Mukiibi’s sentiments, calling for nothing less than a complete reset of the global food system.

“The current global food system is not only unfair but is criminal because it destroys our mother earth, it destroys biodiversity and is based on waste and it has turned food into a price, not into a value,” said Petrini. “We need to restore the value of food because food represents our common good; with food we can establish relations with each other, we can establish reciprocity.”

Petrini emphasized the political significance of food in shaping our future, asserting that the fight for sustainable food systems is inherently tied to larger social and environmental battles.

Petrini also condemned multinational corporations that prioritize profit over the health of the planet, calling on them to stop polluting ecosystems through unsustainable food production methods. He called for an ecological transition.

Food and Humanity

Pope Francis, head of the Catholic Church, also weighed in, highlighting the spiritual and cultural dimensions of food.

In a message to the Terra Madre network, the Pope criticized the commodification of agriculture, noting that it is being manipulated for profit at the expense of both the environment and human dignity.

The Pope praised Terra Madre for fostering a movement that respects the integrity of both food and culture. He argued that only through recognizing the value of food and promoting food education can humanity move towards a future of universal fraternity—a future where diversity is celebrated rather than a cause of division.

The Food Revolution

Launched 20 years ago, Terra Madre has sparked a global food revolution. Over the past two decades, it has united small-scale producers, farmers, and consumers committed to creating a better, cleaner, and fairer food system.

Mukiibi said Terra Madre 2024 serves as a reflection point, a moment to assess the progress made and chart a course for the future.

Coinciding with Terra Madre, the G7 Agriculture Ministers met in Sicily, where Slow Food has urged governments to place food at the center of global political agendas. The call is clear: food must be recognized as a cornerstone of fundamental rights and environmental sustainability.

Mukiibi underscored that millions of farmers around the world are already practicing agroecology, ensuring food sovereignty, food security, and healthy diets. He emphasized the need to build on these successes by expanding the Slow Food network and empowering more farmers to take up agroecological practices.

Agroecology is a path forward for resilient local food systems, Mukiibi noted, explaining that Slow Food was building a network of Slow Food Farms to empower farmers and make them central to future sustainable food systems.

A Hopeful Vision for the Future

Mukiibi’s message is agroecology is not just a farming method—it’s a movement with the potential to tackle some of the most profound challenges of our time.

“Agroecology is the solution, not just for a more sustainable food system, but for addressing inequality, social injustice, and the global environmental crisis.”

As the world grapples with the devastating impacts of climate change, violent conflict, and food insecurity, the vision laid out by Slow Food offers a hopeful path forward—one where food is not a weapon, but a source of unity, resilience, and renewal.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

‘The Focus Should Be on Holding Social Media Companies Accountable, Not Punishing Individual Users’

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Featured, Freedom of Expression, Global, Headlines, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Oct 7 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the recent Twitter/X ban in Brazil with Iná Jost, lawyer and head of research at InternetLab, an independent Brazilian think tank focused on human rights and digital technologies.

Brazil’s Supreme Court recently upheld a ban on Elon Musk’s social media platform X, formerly Twitter, after it repeatedly refused to comply with orders to moderate content. The court ordered tech companies to remove X from app stores and imposed fines for continued access via VPNs in Brazil. This appeared to cause users to switch to alternatives such as Bluesky and Threads. Musk condemned the ban as an attack on free speech, but has since backed down and complied with the court’s orders. Debate continues over the controversy’s implications for democracy and accountability.

Iná Jost

Why did the Brazilian Supreme Court ban X?

The case began on 7 August when a Supreme Court justice, investigating ‘digital malicious activities’, ordered the blocking of seven X profiles for intimidating law enforcement officers and directly threatening the integrity of the court and democracy in Brazil.

X refused to comply with the order, claiming it violated freedom of expression. The judge then imposed a daily fine for non-compliance, which was subsequently raised and ended up amounting to over US$3 million as Musk continued to refuse to comply. At one point, the justice ordered the freezing of X’s financial assets in Brazil, but they weren’t enough to cover the fines.

After more back and forth, tensions escalated when the judge also froze the bank accounts of satellite internet company Starlink, arguing that both companies were part of the same economic group. This caused some controversy, as Starlink operates in a different sphere and its operations aren’t entirely linked to X.

The turning point came when X closed its headquarters in Brazil. Without a legal representative in the country, the court found it difficult to enforce its orders or impose additional penalties. It then gave X 24 hours to appoint a new representative, which it failed to do. As a result, on 30 August, the court ordered the closure of X.

It is important to mention that the court is not super transparent and the whole procedure was carried out under seal. We are unable to grasp the full picture because the process is closed and not all decisions are made public.

What was the legal basis for the decision to close X?

The Court based its decision on Brazil’s 2014 Civil Framework for the Internet. Under this law, platforms can be blocked for failing to comply with Brazilian laws or court orders. Some confusion arose over the notion that the ban was due to X’s lack of a legal representative in Brazil; however, the shutdown resulted from the company’s repeated refusal to comply with court orders.

Civil society raised concerns about some aspects of the decision. Initially, the order included blocking VPN services to prevent access to X, but this part was later reversed due to cybersecurity risks. Blocking VPNs that serve legitimate purposes would have been disproportionate. The order also proposed a US$9,000 fine for users trying to circumvent the ban, which many felt was excessive. We believe the focus should be on holding the company accountable, not punishing individual users.

Is it possible to strike a balance between regulating online platforms and protecting freedoms?

It is. Regulating platforms isn’t necessarily about censorship. In this case, it’s about ensuring a powerful company operates transparently and protects users. Platforms acting solely in their commercial interests can harm the public interest. Regulation can force them to provide clear terms and conditions and fair content moderation policies and respect due process for content removal.

The belief that any form of regulation threatens freedom of expression is misguided. Thoughtful regulation that allows users to express themselves while protecting them from harm such as hate speech or misinformation can balance the scales.

Musk’s stance in this case is deeply problematic. His selective compliance with court orders undermines the rule of law. While platforms like X are crucial to public communication, that doesn’t give them the right to defy the legal system they operate in. Freedom of expression does not absolve platforms of their legal responsibilities, particularly when those laws protect the integrity of democracy.

Musk’s claim that X represents absolute freedom of expression fails to consider the risks of a platform without proper rules. Without moderation, platforms can become havens for extremist groups, hate speech and disinformation. They should be regulated to ensure they remain a space for lawful discourse.

Do you think this case will set a precedent?

I don’t think so. Some people are worried other platforms could be blocked as well, but I don’t think that will happen. This is a unique scenario, and Brazil is a strong democracy. This wasn’t an act of censorship by the judiciary but a necessary measure given the platform owner’s refusal to comply with court orders.

States should develop regulatory mechanisms that allow them to hold platforms accountable and ensure compliance with national laws. This would avoid the need for outright blocking, which ultimately harms the users the most. While the company might incur some financial losses, journalists and citizens are losing access to a vital information and communication tool.

I hope states that are serious about regulating platforms will see this as an example of what shouldn’t happen. We shouldn’t allow things to escalate to this point. And we certainly shouldn’t use this as a leading case for blocking platforms.

Get in touch with InternetLab through its website or its Instagram and Facebook pages, and follow @internetlabbr on Twitte.

  Source

Why Africa Should Embrace Territorial Markets to Withstand Climate Shocks and Crises

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Africa, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Cooperatives, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition, Food Sustainability, Headlines, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Trade & Investment

Economy & Trade

Farmers, traders and consumers at the Mbare Musika Territorial Market in Harare, Zimbabwe. Credit: Isaiah Esipisu/IPS

Farmers, traders and consumers at the Mbare Musika Territorial Market in Harare, Zimbabwe. Credit: Isaiah Esipisu/IPS

HARARE, Oct 4 2024 (IPS) – African policymakers, local leaders and the private sector have been asked to create an enabling environment that will help African traders and farmer folks build reliable systems for food security and resilience through territorial markets.

During a week-long 2024 Africa Agroecological Entrepreneurship and Seed Festival in Harare, Zimbabwe, experts observed that persistent crises have shown the importance of resilient close-to-home ‘territorial’ markets that feed billions of people every day—from public markets and street vendors to cooperatives, from urban agriculture to online direct sales, and from food hubs to community kitchens. 

“For instance, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, global food prices spiked by 15 percent, forcing policymakers around the world to question how to reduce dependency on volatile global markets and strengthen food self-sufficiency,” said Dr. Million Belay, the General Coordinator at the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA).

“Further, questions have been raised about how people are actually fed and by whom, prompting us to ask: in this century of crisis, what kinds of food supply chains and markets can build resilience and help fulfill the right to food—nourishing people around the world more sustainably and equitably?” asked Belay.

To answer the question, experts are calling for policies and a sound working environment that will empower territorial markets that promote dietary diversity and affordable nutritious foods for all, allow producers and food workers to retain control over their livelihoods, and produce food that is adaptable to climate change shocks and emerging crises.

These markets have been broadly defined as markets that are centered on small-scale agroecological food producers and business owners that produce and sell a variety of commodities, and often meet the preferences of the majority of farmers, traders and consumers.

Studies have shown that these markets play a crucial role in making food accessible and affordable, especially for low-income populations in the Global South, allowing for the purchase of small and flexible quantities of food, price bargaining, informal credit arrangements, and being located in or near low-income neighborhoods.

A new study launched on the sidelines of the Harare event that culminated into the fifth Biennial Africa Food Systems Conference, however, shows that profit-oriented corporate value chains are highly concentrated in Africa’s market places.

The report, titled ‘Food from Somewhere,’ by the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES Food), finds that just seven grain traders control at least 50 percent of the global grain trade, six major corporations control 78 percent of the agrochemical market, the top eight carriers of freight account for more than 80 percent of the market for ocean freight capacity and globally, 1 percent of the world’s largest farms control 70 percent of the world’s farmland.

This, according to experts, amounts to a corporate capture of Africa’s food systems.

The report is therefore advocating for a paradigm shift, urging governments to reinvest in local and regional supply infrastructure, relocalize public purchasing and develop food security strategies for a more resilient and equitable approach to food security.

“The problem for smallholders is not of being connected to markets (most are already involved in markets) but rather the conditions of their access and the rules and logics by which markets operate—who determines prices and on what criteria, who controls the costs of production, who holds market power, among other issues,” said Mamadou Goïta, a member of IPES and the lead author.

A spot check at the Mbare Musika territorial market in Harare found a variety of foodstuffs sourced from all eight regions of Zimbabwe, among others from neighboring countries, such as apples and other fruits from South Africa, fish and ginger from Mozambique, groundnuts from Malawi, sorghum from Botswana, as well as grapes from Egypt and tamarind from Tanzania, among others.

“This is the central hub for smallholder farmers and traders, supporting over seven million people from all over Zimbabwe and other parts of the continent,” said Charles Dhewa, Chief Executive Officer, Knowledge Transfer Africa (KTA), whose flagship known as eMkambo (eMarket) is to create a physical and web-based market for agriculture and rural development, integrating the use of mobile phones and the internet to create, adapt and share knowledge.

Mbare Musika Market, which is in the outskirts of Harare, is located next to the main bus-park, through which food is brought in using informal means such as passenger buses and vans from different parts of the country, in small and big quantities, and of different varieties and qualities.

“The evidence is clear—localized food systems are vital for feeding an increasingly hungry planet and preventing food insecurity and famine,” said Shalmali Guttal, the Executive Director of Focus on the Global South. “They provide nutritious, affordable food and are far more adaptable to global shocks and disruptions than industrial supply chains,” she added.

Jennifer Clapp, professor and Canada Research Chair in Global Food Security and Sustainability at the University of Waterloo, Canada, pointed out that during this time of rising hunger and ecological fragility, global industrial food chains will be catastrophically liable to break down under the strain of frequent crises.

“To have a chance of reaching the world’s zero hunger goal by 2030, we need to re-imagine our food systems, and we need to bolster the food markets that serve the poor,” she said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

The UN Cybercrime Convention: A New Repressive Tool in Disguise?

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: CIVICUS

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Oct 4 2024 (IPS) – The UN Office on Drugs and Crime hailed the recently agreed Cybercrime Convention as a ‘landmark step’ in cooperating to tackle online dangers. But human rights organisations aren’t so sure.

Ominously, the resolution that started the process, passed by the UN General Assembly in December 2019, was sponsored by authoritarian Russia and backed by some of the world’s most repressive states. Some of them already had cybercrime laws they use to stifle legitimate dissent. Many more have passed similar laws since.

When Russia’s resolution was put to a vote, the EU, USA and many other states, alongside human rights and digital rights organisations, urged states to reject it. But once the resolution passed, they had to engage with the process to try to prevent the worst possible outcome: a treaty lacking human rights safeguards that could be used as a repressive tool.

They succeeded in tempering some of the worst aspects of early drafts, but the results still leave much to be desired.

The treaty process

The December 2019 resolution established an ad hoc committee (AHC) to lead negotiations, open to the participation of all UN member states plus others as observers, including civil society.

The pandemic delayed the process, and the AHC’s first meeting, focused on procedural rules, was held in mid-2021. Brazil’s proposal to require a two-thirds majority for decisions when states couldn’t reach consensus prevailed over the simple majority rule favoured by Russia. The AHC approved a list of eligible stakeholders, including civil society organisations (CSOs), academic institutions and private sector representatives.

The first negotiating session in February 2022 took another important decision: consultations would be held between negotiations, including for CSOs, to provide input and feedback. Numerous human rights and digital rights CSOs took part, often working in coalitions. They made written submissions, attended face-to-face and online meetings and made oral interventions.

Damage control

Ahead of the first negotiating session, some 130 organisations and experts signed a letter urging the AHC to ensure the treaty included human rights protections, warning that otherwise it could become ‘a powerful weapon for oppression’. They were up against numerous states that didn’t agree human rights safeguards were needed.

By April 2022, many states initially opposed to the treaty had begun to participate actively, so civil society focused on damage control. By then it was apparent there wasn’t a clear definition of what constitutes a cybercrime and which crimes the treaty should regulate. Several states aggressively pushed for broad and ambiguous provisions they claimed were needed to combat extremism, hate speech and terrorism.

Civil society insisted the treaty shouldn’t be overly broad and should only cover core cybercrimes or cyber-dependent crimes: crimes committed against computer systems, networks and data, including hacking, computing system interference, ransomware and the spreading of malware. And even when dealing with these crimes, civil society warned, treaty provisions shouldn’t apply to security research, the work of whistleblowers and other actions that benefit the public.

Civil society insisted on the exclusion of cyber-enabled crimes: those that can be facilitated by ICTs but can also committed without them, such as arms and drug trafficking, money laundering and the distribution of counterfeit goods. This category could potentially include numerous offences that would repress the online exercise of civic freedoms.

A second major concern was the scope and conditions for international cooperation. Here too civil society urged clear definitions and a narrow scope. It argued that if not clearly defined, cooperation arrangements could mean enhanced surveillance and bulk data sharing, violating privacy and data protection provisions. It warned that in the absence of the principle of dual criminality – which means extradition can only apply to an action that constitutes a crime in both the country making the request and the one receiving it – state authorities could be made to investigate activities that aren’t crimes in their countries on other states’ behalf. They could effectively become enforcers of the repression of others.

Tech companies also shared civil society’s concerns about the potential for expansive electronic surveillance in the name of fighting crime.

Human rights sidelined

Civil society representatives see the final draft as not as bad as it could have been, but it still lacks clear, specific and enforceable human rights protections. Rather than applying them as international standards, the treaty leaves human rights safeguards up to each state’s domestic law.

Civil society advocacy led to improvements on the first drafts, including an expanded article on human rights that references civic freedoms, and the inclusion of the right to an effective remedy in the article on conditions and safeguards. The most blatant attempts to weaponise the treaty to criminalise expression failed, although some cyber-enabled crimes still made it into the text. The activities of journalists, security researchers and whistleblowers aren’t adequately protected.

The convention includes a chapter on crimes against computer systems, networks and data, plus a limited number of cyber-enabled crimes, such as child sexual abuse. But while the list of crimes is narrower than initially proposed, the scope of cooperation in collecting and sharing data became wider, raising real dangers of state overreach in the form of surveillance and invasion of privacy.

Still time

It isn’t game over. The final text will soon be put to a vote by member states at the UN General Assembly and, assuming a majority approves it, states will then need to ratify the convention. At least 40 ratifications will be needed before it enters into force, a process likely to take several years. Two years after the General Assembly vote, negotiations are expected to begin on an additional protocol covering further crimes, which won’t be concluded until 60 states have ratified the convention. Civil society fears this is when the worst proposals to criminalise speech will resurface.

Civil society will encourage governments to reject the convention and instead take a human rights-based approach. Once the UN General Assembly approves the convention, civil society will warn of the dangers it poses to human rights and civil liberties and oppose ratification.

With or without an international convention, civil society will continue to work to ensure cybercrime legislation at all levels meets the highest human rights standards, including respect for civic freedoms, and isn’t used as a means of repression.

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.

A longer version of this article is available here.

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

  Source

Prostitution an ‘Egregious Violation of Human Rights’—UN Special Rapporteur

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Featured, Gender, Gender Violence, Global, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Population, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Women’s Health

Gender Violence

Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, at a press conference in which she discusses her findings on prostitution. Credit: Naureen Hossain/IPS

Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, at a press conference in which she discusses her findings on prostitution. Credit: Naureen Hossain/IPS

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 3 2024 (IPS) – Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, calls prostitution a “system of violence” that does not benefit society at all, especially the women and girls forced into this system.

Alsalem spoke at the Roosevelt Public Policy House in New York on Wednesday, October 2, to discuss her special report in which she posits that prostitution is a form of violence against women and girls. The report was first made public in June 2024, where it was presented to the Human Rights Council in Geneva. Over 60 member states endorsed the report and its findings, including but not limited to Ghana, South Africa, Egypt, Norway, Sweden, Colombia, France, Bangladesh, India, and Nigeria.

Alsalem received over 300 submissions for the report from multiple stakeholders, including civil society groups, academia, experts, policymakers, and, importantly, women from around the world with lived experience.

Across the world, the exploitation of women and girls through prostitution and sex trafficking is a pervasive issue that threatens their safety and rights. Alsalem remarked that many systems of prostitution are built on patriarchal norms that position the abuse of power at the hands of mostly men, who are largely the ‘buyers’ or the profiteers in the sex trade. Deeper economic inequalities and the complexities of emergency humanitarian situations have only further displaced women and girls from systems that would have protected and empowered them.

Alsalem remarked that efforts to normalize or recognize prostitution as a form of labor, such as referring to it as “sex work,” do more harm by gaslighting the women who have experienced it, and it fails to consider the serious human rights violations that can occur within the system, such as the physical and psychological harm they experience under this umbrella of “labor.”

Pornography should also be classified as a form of prostitution and violence against women at large, according to Alsalem. She noted that its proliferation has only normalized acts of violence and harmful attitudes towards women and girls. Alsalem told IPS that the online platforms that host pornographic material only further incentivize and promote these acts and other forms of coercive and nonconsensual sexual acts.

Regardless of the platform, how it is branded or how one enters the trade, the system of prostitution is based on the commodification of the body to undergo physical activity and under that there cannot be consent, Alsalem argues.

“Trying to pretend that there is somehow consent in prostitution, that women want to do this, is actually meaningless in context like prostitution because the concept of consent is actually not relevant when there are systems of exploitation and violence,” she said. “And when the term of consent is being weaponized while we fully know that whatever notions of agreement that women may have—or at least some of them—is extorted through physical coercion, manipulation, and violence.”

When it comes to the legal frameworks around prostitution, this also reveals the contradictions within countries on the letter of the law versus its regulation in practice. The report indicates that under certain approaches, little is actually done to de-incentivize “buyers” or “organizers” in engaging in prostitution systems.

Criminalizing prostitution is more likely to punish the prostituted persons through persecution and incarceration, social ostracization, and even further abuse at the hands of law enforcement. In fact, under this approach, it is rare that the ‘buyers’ are punished or that the third parties are held accountable. Under the regulation approach, legal prostitution ensures control to the state through commercial establishments and federal or national laws, including tax laws that they profit from, often at the expense of the sex workers. Decriminalizing prostitution allows for all parties to operate without the fear of persecution; however, this has also resulted in an increased demand, and it does not stop exploitative parties from profiting off vulnerable women and girls and leading them into the sex trade.

The report speaks in favor of the abolition approach, otherwise known as the “Equality model” or the “Nordic model.” Under this model, third parties (the ‘organizers’) and the buyers are criminalized for engaging in the buying and promotion of sex, while the sex workers do not face criminal persecution. Instead, more investments are made in exit pathways for sex workers to ensure alternative work, economic stability, housing, and support to address trauma and even substance abuse where needed. In the report, Alsalem notes that the Nordic model maintains the international standard on sexual exploitation and trafficking in persons by criminalizing third parties, and that it recognizes the majority of prostitutes are women and girls.

This approach could have its limitations, however, as one report from the London School of Economics (LSE) notes that sex trade legislation still varies across the different countries that implement this model, the safety of sex workers remains uncertain and they still face the risk of policing. For migrant sex workers, their status prevents them from accessing social protections, and under immigration laws, prostitution can be grounds for deportation.

The issues present in the current legal models for prostitution reflect some of the institutional structures that maintain the status quo where sex workers are exploited and left unprotected. At the same time, they also reflect a wider cultural issue on how prostitution, and more broadly, sex, is discussed and perceived.

“In addition to being a human rights violation that needs legal solutions, what is mentioned very clearly in the report is that we are dealing with a cultural issue,” said Taina Bien-Aimé, Executive Director of Coalition Against Trafficking in Women. She added that other acts of violence against women, such as intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and harassment, are now recognized as forms of abuse.

“But for some reason, because money is exchanged in prostitution, somehow it is seen outside of the context of male violence and discrimination, particularly against women and girls.”

In her report, Alsalem offers recommendations to governments on how they can reshape their legislation and policies on prostitution towards a direction that is more conscionable of human rights and that centers the experiences of the women and girls who are forced to participate. Governments also need to take measures to address the root causes behind prostitution and the factors that leave women and girls at a higher risk of it.

“The importance of this report is in its recommendations as well, where the Special Rapporteur is asking jurisdictions and member states around the world to find legislative and policy solutions to this egregious human rights violation,” said Bien-Aimé.

When asked to elaborate on the steps that need to be taken by international actors like the United Nations, Alsalem referred to the recommendation that UN agencies should also adopt a rights-based approach to prostitution. Alsalem commented that she had reached out to several UN agencies. In particular, she is having “continuous conversations” with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO), on her recommendation for these agencies to conduct studies into the wider impacts of prostitution on survivors within their focus of health and labor.

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Frontline Women’s Fund, and local civil society groups play an important role in spotlighting the issue. Alsalem told IPS that they need to come together to listen to the survivors of prostitution, as well as engage with all actors working on the matter.

“We see that in decision-making places, including governments, parliaments, whenever the issue is discussed, the law is being prepared or the policy is being revised, some have privileged access to these decision-making places, and that can be those that are advocating for full legalization of all aspects. Whereas those that are advocating for the abolition model… cannot get the same access, and that includes survivors.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Nepal’s Deadly Flash Floods: What Went Wrong?

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Climate Change, Conferences, COP29, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Headlines, Natural Resources, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

COP29

Kathmandu under water because of heavy rainfall, which claimed more than 225 lives in last week of September. Photo: Barsha Shah/IPS

Kathmandu under water because of heavy rainfall, which claimed more than 225 lives in last week of September. Photo: Barsha Shah/IPS

KATHMANDU, Oct 3 2024 (IPS) – Nepal is trying to recover from recent flash floods and landslides caused by heavy rainfall over the last weekend of September, which claimed at least 226 lives. The mid- and eastern parts of the country, including the capital, Kathmandu, experienced the heaviest monsoon rains in two decades from September 26-28, leaving many parts of Kathmandu underwater. Experts say this is one of the deadliest and worst flash floods that impacted thousands of people in decades.

The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority (NDRRMA)—facing intense backlash for its inability to act effectively to minimize losses—reported by Tuesday (October 1) that at least 25 people were still stranded or missing, while more than 150 were injured.

On September 28, the country’s 25 weather stations in 14 districts recorded new precipitation records within 24-hours. Kathmandu airport stations recorded 239.7 millimeters of rain. Before that, on July 23, 2002, it had recorded 177 mm of rainfall. Flash floods caused by extreme rainfall within a short period washed away entire neighborhoods, roads, and bridges in Kathmandu and surrounding areas.

The heavy rains caused rivers in Kathmandu, including the Bagmati, which runs through the city, to swell more than 2 meters above the safe level. Senior journalist Yubaraj Ghimire—whose house was also submerged—wrote, “The disastrous hours of terror further confirmed the state’s incompetence in times of need.”

Outside of Kathmandu villages like Roshi in Kavre district are impacted by flood and landslides. Photo: Barsha Shah/IPS

Outside of Kathmandu villages like Roshi in Kavre district are impacted by flood and landslides. Photo: Barsha Shah/IPS

Early warnings were there, but lives were lost!

Frustration is growing, not only because of its failure in conducting effective rescue operations but also for not acting on the information that was available beforehand about the forthcoming disaster.

The Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM) issued a special weather bulletin at least five days prior, alerting the public to impending heavy rainfall that could result in flooding and landslides.

In the bulletin, the DHM labeled districts with red, orange, yellow, and green, urging “Take Action,” “Be Prepared,” “Be Updated,” and “No Warning,” respectively.

Again, on September 25, the DHM issued another “special weather bulletin,” this time labeling most parts of the country in red, or the “Take Action” category.

As predicted, heavy rain started pouring—rivers began flowing with water levels higher than the safe limit.

“The information was there, but it doesn’t seem like it was taken seriously to be prepared,” Dr. Ngamindra Dahal, who works on climate change-induced disaster risk reduction, said. “To minimize consequences, we need to take action according to the information we have, but that was not the case in most parts.”

Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli acknowledged that the government was not prepared for a disaster of this scale. In a press conference on Tuesday, Oli said, “Our preparedness was not for this kind of circumstance. We were not expecting this scale of rains, landslides, and human and infrastructure losses.”

But the weather agency, DHM, had been warning and urging appropriate action through multiple notices. Government agencies admit they were not able to communicate disaster-related information effectively.

Why was NDRRMA not able to act quickly?

This time, the weather information was accurate in most parts, but avoidable incidents still claimed lives.

“I was traveling, and what I can say is that even though there was information beforehand, it was not transformed into action,” Dahal added. “I do think NDRRMA and other stakeholders could have done better to reduce casualties.”

But the agency responsible for disaster risk reduction and management—NDRRMA—claims that it was due to their collaborative effort with other stakeholders that human casualties were lower.

“That information did help, and it is because of us that things are not worse than this,” Dr. Dijan Bhattrai, spokesperson for NDRRMA, said.

“In the case of Kathmandu, our urban setting is not capable of handling this kind of disaster, and in other parts of the country, it was a combination of intense rain and fragmented geological conditions due to the 2015 earthquake.”

Stakeholders have publicly acknowledged the role of river encroachment and unplanned settlement in Kathmandu, and this problem is well-known. However, for this recent disaster, people are angry because they noticed a clear gap between the information and the preparedness effort.

“It’s true we were not well-equipped to deal with this kind of situation in terms of resources and trained manpower,” Bhattrai claimed. “We did our part, doing what we could within our capacity.”

Is it exacerbated by climate change?

In recent years, scientists have said that climate change is altering the amount and timing of rainfall across Asia. However, the impact of floods has increased due to the built environment, including unplanned construction, especially on floodplains, which leaves insufficient areas for water retention and drainage.

A recent report published in Nature Communications states that Asia’s exposure to extreme rain and flood risk will grow by 2030.

“Definitely, there is much to do in terms of effective disaster communication and actionable preparedness, but it is also a fact that these kinds of events are becoming more frequent because of climate change,” Bhattrai said. “We are planning to lay our case at the upcoming UN climate conference (COP29) to secure more resources to deal with future disasters.”

IPS UN Bureau Report