To Save Our Planet, We Must Protect Its Defenders

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Change, Crime & Justice, Environment, Featured, Headlines, Human Rights, Latin America & the Caribbean, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

A campaign to urge the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to adopt the standards of the Escazú Agreement in its upcoming Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency was launched at the Third Conference of the Parties of the Escazú Agreement held in Santiago, Chile, in April 2024. Credit: Lily Plazas

WASHINGTON DC, May 2 2025 (IPS) – The most powerful court in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, is preparing to clarify the obligations of States in relation to climate change. In its upcoming Advisory Opinion, the Court must articulate ambitious standards for respecting and protecting the human rights of environmental defenders in the context of the climate crisis.

Environmental defenders — advocates protecting environmental rights, resources, and marginalized communities — play a critical role in helping us navigate the climate crisis: they preserve ecosystem health, and mobilize and organize when the environment is under threat. Their work is vital.

Across the globe, we are witnessing the impacts of a warming planet: devastating wildfires, lethal flash floods, droughts that fuel hunger, and increasingly intense hurricanes. This strain on land and resources translates into greater pressure on those who defend the environment.

It is thus essential to strengthen the rights and work of environmental defenders, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean, a region that is amongst the most vulnerable to the effects of the climate emergency and the most dangerous in the world for environmental activism.

During public hearings in May 2024, a petition supported by over a 1,000 individuals and human rights organizations was delivered to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights urging the Court to incorporate the Escazú standards into its Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency. Credit: Romulo Serpa

Environmental defenders’ work is often deadly. In 2023, 196 environmental defenders were brutally murdered. Most of them were opposing deforestation, pollution, and land grabbing. Their struggles are for essential needs: clean air, healthy ecosystems and biodiversity, safe and sufficient water, and food.

Only four countries in Latin America and the Caribbean — Brazil, Colombia, Honduras, and Mexico — account for 85 percent of the documented murders of environmental defenders, confirming this region as the most violent one in the world for those who defend the land and the environment.

The call to strengthen environmental defenders’ rights and work was heard loud and clear at the Third Forum on Human Rights Defenders in Environmental Matters of the Escazú Agreement, where countries from the region convened in the Caribbean island State of St. Kitts and Nevis in April.

This Forum marked a historic moment: it was the first event of its kind in the Insular Caribbean, a region already experiencing — and poised to disproportionately face — the severe impacts of the climate crisis.

“It served as a vital platform not only to advance defenders’ rights but also to expose alarming new threats: rising attacks not only against individual human rights defenders but also against groups and organizations, through the spread of “laws against NGOs” and strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) suits targeting environmental lawyers.”

SLAPPs are tactics used, mostly by businesses, to intimidate and silence environmental defender organizations. Unlike genuine legal actions, SLAPPs abuse the court system to drain resources and undermine activists’ efforts. These lawsuits can create a “chilling effect” on free speech, making others hesitant to speak out for fear of being sued.

They also burden public resources and waste judicial time on unnecessary cases. These tactics aim to silence collective action and dismantle the critical support networks that defenders rely on.

The Escazú Agreement is the first binding regional treaty to promote environmental democracy — the right to information, participation, and justice — in Latin America and the Caribbean. It is also the only one in the world that contains specific provisions aiming to guarantee a safe and enabling space for environmental defenders. It is the fruit of decades of hard work by regional governments, civil society organizations, and environmental defenders.

The Environmental Defenders Forums, in the framework of the Escazú Agreement, were established for the discussion and implementation of the Action Plan on Human Rights Defenders in Environmental Matters. This Action Plan outlines strategic measures to ensure the safety of environmental defenders in the region, as well as recognize and protect their rights while ensuring that States prevent, investigate, and sanction attacks and threats against them.

Hosting the Forum in the Insular Caribbean was a notable political achievement for the countries of this region. Internationally, discussions often group Latin America and the Caribbean as a single, cohesive entity. However, the experiences of defenders in Latin American nations and the continental Caribbean differ significantly from those in the Insular Caribbean.

Key distinctions — such as country size, government capacities, and unique environmental challenges, including heightened vulnerability to specific climate events — result in diverse needs and priorities for environmental defenders.

This event was eye-opening for many, as it shed light on the diverse realities within the Caribbean that are often overshadowed when grouped under the broad label of “Latin America and the Caribbean.”

Environmental defenders in the Caribbean face significant pressures despite lower reported lethal attacks compared to Latin America. Over a decade, three lethal cases were recorded in one country, but reports acknowledge these figures as incomplete due to challenges such as limited civil society presence, media repression, and insecurity. Additionally, non-lethal aggressions — such as criminalization, harassment, and stigmatization — often go overlooked.

During the Forum, Caribbean environmental defenders highlighted socio-environmental conflicts across industries like oil and gas, mining, tourism, and infrastructure. Despite their efforts, their work is often stigmatized, infantilized, and unrecognized —even by themselves — as many identify as “climate activists” or “community leaders” rather than environmental defenders.

This lack of recognition hinders awareness of their protections and State obligations under international human rights law, underscoring the need for States to better recognize, protect, and promote defenders’ rights.

State representatives had a limited presence at the Forum, unlike mandatory participation in the Escazú Conference of the Parties, leaving “empty chairs” without accountability. This absence isolates environmental defenders in echo chambers, limiting dialogue with decision-makers.

The Forum is a vital platform to address violence and threats against defenders, but State neglect undermines its purpose. By failing to engage in the Forum and to protect defenders, States violate their rights and international law, making their absence unacceptable.
In this critical context, strengthening the rights and work of environmental defenders is essential, with the Escazú Agreement and its Action Plan providing a vital framework.

The Advisory Opinion process of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the Climate Emergency presents a key opportunity for the region’s most influential Court to advance this goal.

We urge the Court to incorporate the Escazú Agreement’s specific standards as a baseline where Inter-American standards are less robust. This includes clearly defining the minimum essential content of the rights to access information, public participation, and justice in environmental matters under the American Convention.

Additionally, regional and international standards must be harmonized to ensure strong protections for environmental defenders, including a safe and enabling environment for their vital work.

There is no time to lose — every moment of inaction puts the lives of environmental defenders at greater risk. Without those who defend the planet, there can be no sustainable future. Protecting environmental defenders is not charity — it is survival.

Luisa Gómez Betancur is Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

‘The International Response Should Follow the Principle of ‘Nothing about Us, Without Us’’

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Europe, Featured, Gender, Gender Violence, Global, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Labour, Migration & Refugees, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

May 1 2025 (IPS) – CIVICUS speaks with Ukrainian gender rights activist Maryna Rudenko about the gendered impacts of the war in Ukraine and the importance of including women in peacebuilding efforts.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has profoundly impacted on women and girls. Many have been displaced and are struggling with poverty and unemployment. Those who’ve stayed endure daily missile attacks, damaged infrastructure, lack of basic services and sexual violence from Russian forces if they live in occupied territories. Women activists, caregivers and journalists are particularly vulnerable. The international community must increase support to ensure justice for victims and women’s inclusion in peace efforts.

Maryna Rudenko

What have been the impacts of the war in Ukraine, particularly on women and girls?

The war began in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea, with Indigenous women, particularly Crimean Tatars, immediately and severely affected. They risked losing their property and livelihoods, and to continue working they were forced to change their citizenship. Pro-Ukraine activists had to flee and those who stayed faced arrest. This placed a heavier burden on many women who were left in charge of their families.

At the same time in 2014, Russia began supporting separatist movements in eastern Ukraine, leading to the occupation of territories such as Donetsk and Luhansk and the displacement of over a million people. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, many lost their homes again. Nearly seven million fled to European countries. This population loss poses a significant demographic challenge to Ukraine’s post-war development.

Since 2015, conflict-related sexual violence has been a major issue. Around 342 cases have been documented. The International Criminal Court recognised that conflict-related sexual violence has been committed in the temporarily occupied territories since 2014.

Ukraine also experienced the largest campaign of child abduction in recent history: Russia took close to 20,000 Ukrainian children from occupied territories and sent then to ‘camps’ in Crimea or Russia, where the authorities changed their names and nationalities and gave them to Russian families. Ukrainian children were forced to change their national identity. This is evidence of genocidal approach in Russia’s war activities.

The war has also devastated infrastructure and the economy. In my town, 30 km from Kyiv, the heating station was hit by 11 ballistic missiles, leaving us without electricity or water for a long time. It was very scary to stay at the apartment with my daughter and know that Russian ballistic missiles were flying over our house. Roughly 40 per cent of the economy was destroyed in 2022 alone, causing job losses at a time when the government spends over half its budget on the military. Civilians, including a record 70,000 women, have taken up arms.

Beyond the immediate human cost, the war is causing serious environmental damage, with weapons and missile debris polluting soil and water beyond national borders. Russia’s occupation of Zaporizhzhia, the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, poses a very real risk of a nuclear disaster for Ukraine and Europe as a whole.

How have Ukrainian women’s organisations responded?

Starting in 2014, we focused on advocacy, championing United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1,325, which reaffirms the role of women in conflict prevention and resolution. The government adopted its National Action Plan on the implementation of the resolution in 2016. We formed local coalitions to implement this agenda, leading to reforms such as opening military roles to women, establishing policies to prevent sexual harassment, integrating gender equality in the training curriculum and gender mainstreaming as part of police reform.

Following the full-scale invasion, Ukrainian women’s civil society organisations (CSOs) shifted to providing immediate humanitarian relief, as survival became the top priority. Women’s CSOs began helping people, particularly those with disabilities, relocate to western Ukraine and providing direct aid to those who remained. As schools, hospitals and shelters for survivors of domestic violence were destroyed, women’s CSOs tried to fill the gap, providing food, hygiene packages and cash and improvising school lessons in metro tunnels.

People stood up and helped. In Kharkiv, which is located 30 km from the boarder with Russia, the local government created underground schools. It’s unbelievable that this happened in the 21st century and because of the aggression of a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Our children, women and men can’t sleep normally because every night there are missile and drone attacks.

In the second half of 2022, women’s CSOs and the government tried to refocus on long-term development. One of the first initiatives was to amend the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security to better address conflict-related sexual violence in both occupied and liberated areas. This was a much-needed response given the many reported cases of killing, rape and torture. This involved training law enforcement officers, prosecutors and other officials on how to document these crimes and properly communicate with survivors, who often blame themselves due to stigma surrounding the violence.

We have also reported Russia’s violations of the Geneva Conventions, particularly those concerning women, to UN human rights bodies.

Women’s groups are pushing for more donor support for psychological services to address trauma and helping plan for long-term recovery, aiming to rebuild damaged infrastructure and improve services to meet the needs of excluded groups. Some donors, like the Ukrainian Women’s Fund, have agreed to support the costs of mental recovery for women activists to help them restore their strength and support others.

How should women’s voices be integrated into recovery and peacebuilding efforts?

Women must have a real seat at the negotiation table. Genuine participation means not just counting the number of women involved but ensuring their voices are heard and their needs addressed. Unfortunately, the gender impacts of the war remain a secondary concern.

We have outlined at least 10 key areas where the gender impacts of the war should be discussed and prioritised in negotiations. However, it looks like these are being largely ignored in the current high-level negotiations between Russia and the USA. We heard that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy highlighted the importance of returning Ukrainian children when he met with Donald Trump. It’s highly important for the mothers and fathers of these children and for all Ukrainians.

Women’s CSOs are working to ensure all survivors can access justice and fair reparations, and that nobody forgets and excuses the war crimes committed. We urgently need accountability; peace cannot be achieved at the expense of truth. This is particularly important because the Council of Europe’s Register of Damage for Ukraine only accepts testimonies of war crimes that happened after the 2022 invasion, leaving out many survivors from crimes committed since 2014. We are working to amend this rule.

The international response should follow the principle of ‘nothing about us, without us’. International partners should collaborate directly with women-led CSOs, using trauma-informed approaches. For women affected by combat, loss or abduction, recovery must start with psychological support, and civil society can play a vital role in this process.

The effective implementation of Resolution 1,325 also requires reconstruction funds that incorporate a gender perspective throughout. Ukrainian women’s CSOs prepared a statement to highlight the importance of analysing the war’s impact on the implementation of the UN’s Beijing Platform for Action on gender equality and we used this as common message during the recent meeting of the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

Additionally, we believe it’s time to consider the successes and failures in implementation of Resolution 1,325 and its sister resolutions, because it’s 25 years since its adoption and the world is not safer.

We appreciate any platforms where we can speak about the experience of Ukraine and call for action to support Ukraine to help make a just and sustain peace in Europe and the world.

GET IN TOUCH
LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Ukraine: ‘Civil society remains resilient and responsive, but financial constraints now hamper its efforts’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Mykhailo Savva 25.Feb.2025
Russia: Further tightening of restrictions on ‘undesirable’ organisations CIVICUS Monitor 30.Jul.2024
Russia and Ukraine: a tale of two civil societies CIVICUS Lens 24.Feb.2024

  Source

Trump’s First 100 Days Portend Long-Lasting Damage to Press Freedom

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

NEW YORK, May 1 2025 (IPS) – Press freedom is no longer a given in the United States 100 days into President Donald Trump’s second term as journalists and newsrooms face mounting pressures that threaten their ability to report freely and the public’s right to know.

A new report released April 30 by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)– “Alarm bells: Trump’s first 100 days ramp up fear for the press, democracy,” noted that the administration has scaled up its rhetorical attacks and launched a startling number of actions using regulatory bodies and powerful allies that, taken together, may cause irreparable harm to press freedom in the U.S. and will likely take decades to repair.

The level of trepidation among U.S. journalists is such that CPJ has provided more security training since the November election than at any other period.

“This is a definitive moment for U.S. media and the public’s right to be informed. CPJ is providing journalists with resources at record rates so they can report safely and without fear or favor, but we need everyone to understand that protecting the First Amendment is not a choice, it’s a necessity. All our freedoms depend on it,” said CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg.

Emerging challenges to a free press in the United States fall under three main categories:
1) The restriction of access for some news organizations; 2) The increasing use of government and regulatory bodies against news organizations; and 3) Targeted attacks against journalists and newsrooms.

While The Associated Press (AP), a global newswire agency serving thousands of newsrooms in the U.S. and across the world, has faced retaliation for not adhering to state-mandated language, the Federal Communications Commission is mounting investigations against three major broadcasters – CBS, ABC, and NBC – along with the country’s two public broadcasters – NPR and PBS – in moves widely viewed as politically motivated.

“The rising tide of threats facing U.S. journalists and newsrooms are a direct threat to the American public,” said Ginsberg. “Whether at the federal or state level, the investigations, hearings, and verbal attacks amount to an environment where the media’s ability to bear witness to government action is already curtailed.”

Journalists who reached out to CPJ in recent months are worried about online harassment and digital and physical safety. Newsrooms have also shared with us worries about the possibility of punitive regulatory actions.

Since the presidential election last November until March 7 of this year, CPJ has provided safety consultations to more than 530 journalists working in the country. This figure was only 20 in all of 2022, marking an exponential increase in the need for safety information.

Globally, the gutting of the U.S. Agency for Global Media resulted in the effective termination of thousands of journalist positions, and the elimination of USAID independent media support impoverished the news landscape in many regions across the globe where the news ecosystem is underdeveloped or information is severely restricted.

As the executive branch of the U.S. government is taking unprecedented steps to permanently undermine press freedom, CPJ is calling on the public, news organizations, civil society, and all branches, levels, and institutions of government – from municipalities to the U.S. Supreme Court – to safeguard press freedom to help secure the future of American democracy.

In particular, Congress must prioritize passage of the PRESS Act and The Free Speech Protection Act, both bipartisan bills that can strengthen and protect press freedom throughout the United States.

The Committee to Protect Journalists is an independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan organization that promotes press freedom worldwide. We defend the right of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Indispensable—Native Hawaiian Elder Says of Indigenous Ocean Management Systems

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Asia-Pacific, Biodiversity, Civil Society, Climate Change, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Headlines, Humanitarian Emergencies, Natural Resources, North America, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Indigenous Rights

Solomon Pili Kaaho'ohalahala shares perspectives with IPS. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

Solomon Pili Kaaho’ohalahala shares perspectives with IPS. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

BUSAN, Korea, Apr 30 2025 (IPS) – Indigenous people play a vital role in ocean protection due to their deep-rooted connection to the marine environment and their traditional knowledge of sustainable resource management. They often possess centuries-old practices and stewardship ethics that prioritize ecological balance and community well-being.

Recognizing and supporting indigenous leadership in ocean conservation is crucial for building a more sustainable future for the world’s oceans. Solomon Pili Kaho’ohalahala from the Maui Nui Makai Network spoke to IPS during the 10th Our Ocean Conference in Busan, Korea.

“My name is Solomon Pili Kaho’ohalahala. I am from the small island of Lanai in Hawaii. I’m an eighth-generation Lanai. As an indigenous Hawaiian, one thing that is really clear is that I grew up with the traditional practices of our kupuna, our ancestors, and our elders. These practices brought us into a very close relationship with the land and sea, and we learned to strike a balance between what we gather from the land and sea for our daily sustenance and what is left behind for future generations.

“This practice is very mindful of spawning seasons for our land and sea resources, whether they be plants, animals, or fish, and respects those seasons so that we leave them alone when they’re at their highest ability to perpetuate their species. By contrast, now that we are illegally a part of the United States, they have put their management systems and laws in place, and their systems are contrary to those of traditional Hawaiian practices.

“And what we find is that under their management, the resources are in decline. So, the number of fish, which I previously described as plentiful, is now declining. The seaweed, which is also a type of food for us, is declining.

“So, what we have asked the government, the state of Hawaii, is to allow the indigenous people to begin their own traditional management practices to help restore. The government has such a hard time allowing the indigenous people to be the caretakers and managers, even though we have thousands and thousands of years of experience, but the government wants to do it alone and push us aside. By excluding indigenous people, the government is failing.

“We therefore decided that we don’t need the government’s permission to be the caretakers of our resources. So, we created our own community of managers of our resource, and these are cultural people. We are applying our cultural practice from land and into sea and ensuring that all of these natural resources on land and underwater are cared for in their proper manner, and this ensures that the cycle of replenishment is not broken.

“And what we’ve been able to demonstrate is that we are finding success, but the government does not acknowledge this success. So, we are still not recognized as the people that should be the caretakers of these systems, because the experience is an indigenous one and this is a problem.

“We are hoping for opportunities where the government will allow the community to be the caretakers. It’s slow in coming, and we don’t have much time to implement this, because if we don’t, then we may lose our resources forever, and that would be a sad day. So, we are doing our part with our own initiatives, but we are also pushing the government to consider these traditional practices of the indigenous people as management practices in islands in the largest ocean on the planet.

“And it’s very slow, but we are not stopping. We are moving ahead. Now, we want to take that experience and elevate this conversation in the international arena, because now we are talking about not just an island where I live on, but I’m talking about the entire ocean in which I live in.

“And if the international bodies consider making rules and regulations to manage that large ocean without the indigenous people, then we would be creating something not any different from what I’ve been living with, where state governments try to manage and control without indigenous input. At the international level, we are asking, are you going to manage and control the large oceans of the earth without the indigenous people? It cannot be.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Sights Set on Highest Ambition as World Rows Through Toughest Ocean Crisis

Posted on by admin

Africa, Asia-Pacific, Biodiversity, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Conferences, Economy & Trade, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Headlines, PACIFIC COMMUNITY, Pacific Community Climate Wire, Population, Small Island Developing States, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Trade & Investment

Climate Change

Kenya's high-level delegation meets the Republic of Korea's high-level delegation. Kenya will host the 11th OOC. Credit: OOC

Kenya’s high-level delegation meets the Republic of Korea’s high-level delegation. Kenya will host the 11th OOC. Credit: OOC

BUSAN, Korea, Apr 30 2025 (IPS) – Participants from over 100 countries will leave the 10th Our Ocean Conference in Busan, the Republic of Korea, with stark reminders that with sea levels rising dangerously, coastal regions and low-lying areas globally, particularly densely populated areas, are threatened.

Asia, Africa, island nations, as well as the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts are increasingly on the frontlines of the coastal climatic carnage. Countries and regions at high risk include Bangladesh, India, the Philippines, and Pacific Island nations like Tuvalu and Fiji. In 2024, floods caused the highest number of fatalities in Africa in countries such as Cameroon and Nigeria.

“We started this conference with the understanding that the ocean is under threat. A third of the world’s fisheries are overfished. Illegal and destructive fishing is damaging the ecosystems. It hurts the coastal communities that depend on it and undermines global economies. So, to risk the ocean risks the future security of all of our countries and the planet,” said Tony Long, CEO, Global Fishing Watch.

The Our Ocean Conference gathered approximately 1,000 global leaders from various sectors, including heads of state and high-level government officials from over 100 countries, and representatives from more than 400 international and non-profit organizations. Together, they discussed diverse and concrete actions for a sustainable ocean.

Today, experts highlighted the intersection of the ocean, climate, and biodiversity in finding solutions that transform science into political action. While the ocean is on the frontlines of the climate crisis, it is also a significant source of sustainable solutions because it absorbs nearly 25 percent of carbon dioxide emissions and 90 percent of the heat resulting from these emissions.

The 30×30 campaign supports the national and global movements to protect at least 30 percent of the blue planet’s land, waters, and ocean by 2030. While moderating a session on the importance of 30×30 and progress in national waters, Melissa Wright, a senior member of the environment team at Bloomberg Philanthropies, where she leads the Bloomberg Ocean Initiative, spoke about ongoing support for the global ambition.

“We’re supporting global ambition to achieve 30×30 in the ocean through equitable and inclusive partnerships and initiatives with civil society, governments, indigenous and community groups, and local leaders. Since 2014, the Blue Water Ocean Initiative has invested more than USD366 million to advance ocean conservation,” she said.

The initiative works in tandem with governments, NGOs, and local leaders to accelerate the designation and enforcement of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Most recently, the initiative has pushed for the rapid ratification of the High Seas Treaty and ensured the creation of MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

“We do not have much time left until 2030 to achieve the 30×30. As such, we are presented with a unique and challenging opportunity for ambitious, robust enhancement to our national and global capacities for the protection, conservation, and sustainability of our oceans,” said Noralene Uy, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning, and Foreign-Assisted and Special Projects, Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Noralene Uy speaking to participants about the Philippines' efforts and challenges towards achieving the 30x30 targets. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

Noralene Uy speaking to participants about the Philippines’ efforts and challenges towards achieving the 30×30 targets. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

The Philippines is one of the 17 megadiverse countries in the world, meaning it possesses a high level of biodiversity and a large number of endemic species. The country is home to a significant portion of the world’s plant and animal species, including many unique and endemic species.

Within this context, she said an undue burden weighs on the Philippines given limited resources and other priority development objectives. Nonetheless, the country has turned to science and is making progress. The country has established marine scientific research stations strategically located in the major marine biogeographic regions of the country to provide insights and knowledge into their ocean.

They have also formulated the national ocean environment policy, stressing that as science and policy evolve according to the priorities of our country, organizational structures and knowledge systems must change as well.

To achieve the highest ambition in marine protection, the Philippines and coastal communities around the globe now have an ever-greater need for financing and technical resources. Brian O’Donnell, Director, Campaign for Nature, explained that the only available assessment of the cost of 30×30 on a global scale is now five years old.

“According to the assessment, it would cost about USD 100 billion a year to implement 30×30 both on land and in the sea and at the time of the assessment, only about USD 20 billion was being spent, leaving an USD 80 billion annual shortfall,” he explained.

“Not only do we need to ensure we get more money into this space, but that money is delivered efficiently and effectively to the people, communities, and countries where biodiversity is and those who are safeguarding it.”

O’Donnell said that, despite ongoing challenges in mobilizing financial resources, there is some notable progress. He spoke about the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in 2022, which includes a target for wealthy nations to provide at least USD 20 billion annually in international biodiversity finance to developing countries by 2025, increasing to USD 30 billion by 2030.

This target aims to help developing countries implement their biodiversity strategies and action plans, particularly those in Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States. But O’Donnell said there is a need to change how things are done, as, unfortunately, much of the financing to developing countries is coming in the form of loans and short-term financing.

In all, he encouraged partnerships and collaboration in raising much-needed resources, such as the Oceans 5, which is dedicated to protecting the world’s five oceans. Oceans 5 is an international funders’ collaborative dedicated to stopping overfishing, establishing marine protected areas, and constraining offshore oil and gas development, three of the highest priorities identified by marine scientists around the world. Bloomberg Philanthropies is a founding partner of Oceans 5.

Looking ahead, there is optimism that by the time delegates settle down for the 11th Our Ocean Conference in 2026 in Kenya, the global community will have moved the needle in their efforts across finance, policy, capacity building, and research towards marine protected areas, sustainable blue economy, climate change, maritime security, sustainable fisheries, and reduction of marine pollution.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Mexico Bans GM Corn Cultivation in Constitutional Reform: Action Follows Trade Ruling That Ignored Evidence of Genetic Contamination

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Civil Society, Economy & Trade, Food and Agriculture, Food Systems, Headlines, Health, Indigenous Rights, Latin America & the Caribbean, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Michael Farrelly, AFSA

CAMBRIDGE, MA., Apr 30 2025 (IPS) – On March 17, Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum signed into law a constitutional reform banning the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) corn. The action followed a December ruling by a trade tribunal, under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement, in favor of a U.S. complaint that Mexico’s 2023 presidential decree, with broader restrictions on the consumption of GM corn, constituted an unfair trade practice by prohibiting the use of GM corn in tortillas.

The Mexican government publicly disagreed with the ruling, claiming that the three arbitrators had failed to consider the scientific evidence Mexico presented in the yearlong case. But the government chose to comply, rescinding the three specific parts of the decree deemed to limit future GM corn imports. Still, the government left intact the decree’s measures phasing out the use of the herbicide glyphosate, establishing a protocol for tracking GM corn imports into the country, and banning the cultivation of GM corn in the country.

The constitutional amendment enshrines that last measure in a more permanent manner. While GM corn has faced planting restrictions for more than a decade, the constitutional ban represents an important act of resistance and sovereignty, particularly in light of the flawed decision by the tribunal.

Trade panel fails to consider evidence

Corn is central to Mexico’s agriculture, cuisine, nutrition, and culture. Mexico is the center of origin for corn, where the crop was domesticated thousands of years ago. It remains at the core of the country’s farming, diet, and culture. As President Sheinbaum acknowledged in approving the constitutional ban on GM corn cultivation, “Sin maiz no hay pais” – without corn there is no country.

In defense of Mexico’s 2023 decree, the panel acknowledged that the government presented scientific evidence from qualified and reputable sources of “risks to human health arising from the direct consumption of GM corn grain in Mexico, and risks to native corn of transgenic contamination arising from the unintentional, unauthorized, and uncontrolled spread of GM corn in Mexico.” (That evidence is summarized in an extensive publication from Mexico’s national science agency.)

The trade tribunal dismissed concerns about such risks in its ruling, essentially giving itself a pass on reviewing the scientific evidence of human-health risks by arguing that Mexico had not conducted an approved risk assessment “based on relevant scientific principles,” a reference to prevailing international codes for such processes.

The panel also failed to evaluate the risks to native corn. Mexico presented strong evidence that GM corn has cross-pollinated native corn varieties, gene flow that threatens to undermine the genetic integrity of the country’s 64 “landraces” and more than 22,000 varieties adapted by farmers over millennia to different soils, altitudes, climates, foods, and customs.

The tribunal argued that no special protection from GM corn was needed because gene flow already takes place from non-GM hybrid varieties of corn, and GM contamination is no different from non-GM gene flow. “Mexico has not demonstrated how the threat to the traditions and livelihoods of indigenous and farming communities from GM corn is greater than the threat posed by non-native, non-GM corn,” the panel wrote. Cross-pollination from hybrid corn “could equally threaten the genetic integrity of native corn.”

Equating contamination from GM corn with that of hybrid corn is a serious misreading of the science and of Mexico’s culture. GMOs by definition – and by explicit definitions in the constitutional amendment – involve crossing species boundaries, introducing, for example, a gene from a bacterium into a corn plant to repel insects. In contrast, hybrid corn is produced by cross-breeding different corn varieties, the resulting offspring remaining pure corn, with no non-corn genes in its DNA.

Mexican farmers have a long history of developing some of their own cross-pollinated varieties, intentionally combining a native variety with a hybrid that has properties the farmer desires. Such cross-pollination has nothing in common with unwanted contamination from GM corn, imposed on farmers without their informed consent. They call it “genetic pollution.”

It can pose a long-term risk to native varieties. Transgenic traits do not always reveal themselves after contamination. That means farmers can unknowingly spread such contamination from their pollen year after year to other corn plants. Mexican researchers discovered such contamination in their 2013 survey of native corn varieties. Biotechnologist Antonio Serratos reported that some of the native varieties he found even within Mexico City had transgenic traits in their DNA.

“In Mexican fields, transgenic native maize is being created,” he told me at the time. ”If [GM] maize seeds are sold or exchanged, the contamination will grow exponentially. That is the point of no return.”

Seed-sharing under threat

The tribunal’s alternative recommendation for controlling unwanted gene flow suggested that “the informal seed exchange practices of indigenous and farming communities” was one of the “underlying issues” Mexico should address to prevent contamination instead of restricting imports.

Limiting seed-sharing is entirely at odds with the science of seed diversity and evolution, says researcher Erica Hagman, who helped prepare Mexico’s defense in the USMCA dispute. Mexico’s rich corn diversity is the direct result of millennia of adaptive practices by farmers in their fields. The tribunal’s suggestion that Mexico should limit such seed-sharing to prevent GM corn contamination runs counter to the practices of in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity.

Mexico’s constitutional ban on GM corn cultivation ensures that such misguided reasoning will not guide public policy. The amendment was strengthened by proposals from civil society that extended the ban to new genetically engineered seeds by banning any crops “produced with techniques that overcome the natural barriers of reproduction or recombination, such as transgenics.” This limits some of the new generations of genetically engineered crops.

While the constitutional reform does not include some of the original language restricting GM corn consumption, no doubt in deference to the trade ruling, the final version shows a clear preference for non-GM crops, leaving the door open to tighter regulation.

Tania Monserrat Téllez from the Sin Maíz No Hay País coalition called the reform “a major step forward for the defense of native corn varieties, the health of the Mexican population, and the protection of Mexico’s biocultural heritage associated with corn.”

Timothy A. Wise is the author of Eating Tomorrow: Agribusiness, Family Farmers, and the Battle for the Future of Food (New Press 2019) and a researcher at Tufts University’s Global Development and Environment Institute.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source