With Climate Change, Government Apathy, Who Should Kerala’s Fishworkers Turn To?

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Climate Change, Climate Change Justice, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Human Rights, Labour, Natural Resources, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Trade & Investment

Opinion

Fishworkers are often invisible in discussions about climate change, yet they are at the heart of food security, feeding millions while struggling to feed their own families. Their fight for survival is not just about tradition or livelihood—it’s about justice. Shouldn’t their futures be at the forefront of climate justice debates?

The iconic Chinese fishing nets along the Kerala coast offer a picturesque scene that draws tourists from around the world. However, the fishworkers that have used them for centuries livelihoods are in peril. Credit: Aishwarya Bajpai/IPS

The iconic Chinese fishing nets along the Kerala coast offer a picturesque scene that draws tourists from around the world. However, the fishworkers that have used them for centuries livelihoods are in peril. Credit: Aishwarya Bajpai/IPS

KOCHI, India, Oct 10 2024 (IPS) – Every morning before dawn, fishworkers along the shores of Kochi, Kerala, head out to sea, casting their nets in the shadow of the iconic Cheenavala—the Chinese fishing nets that have become a symbol of their community. I witnessed this time-honored tradition, once a reliable means of survival, now a daily gamble, a fight against unpredictable seas and shrinking fish populations. 

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed how vulnerable they are; despite being classified as essential workers, they were left without the protections they needed.

And now, as climate change tightens its grip, these fishworkers find themselves on the front lines of a new crisis. Rising sea temperatures, erratic weather, and depleting fish stocks have pushed them further into despair, forcing them to navigate a future as uncertain as the waters they depend on.

Martin, a fishworker from Kochi, Kerala, who smiled and invited me on his boat, has been fishing for over 25 years, reflecting on the mounting hardships. After a while explaining to me about the huge boat and the process of fishing, he said, “In these difficult times, when the government should be supporting us after generations of families have relied on fishing, we are left with nothing and are desperate for help. We purchase our tools and equipment for fishing, yet there’s no assistance from the government for education or healthcare.”

Fishworkers face uncertain future due to climate change and a lack of support from government. Credit: Aishwarya Bajpai/IPS

Fishworkers face uncertain future due to climate change and a lack of support from government. Credit: Aishwarya Bajpai/IPS

Martin continued, “Five to six people work on a boat, and money has to be given to the owner as well. We have started to rely on tourism now, where we invite tourists, especially foreigners, onto our boats (private property) to explain our craft and fishing process, for which we sometimes get compensated. Some are generous, and some are not! This used to be the only way of earning in the rough season (Monsoon Fishing Ban), but now, after the climate change, this has become the only source of income for us.”

Kochi, once known as Cochin, was a major global trading hub. It drew merchants from Arabia and China in the 1400s, and later the Portuguese established Cochin as their protectorate, making it the first capital of Portuguese India in 1530.

Today, the city’s rich architectural heritage, along with the iconic Cheenavala (Chinese fishing nets), are major tourist attractions. Fishermen here use these Chinese fishing nets as a traditional method of fishing.

Believed to have been introduced by the  Chinese explorer Zheng He from the court of Kublai Khan, these iconic nets became a part of Kochi’s landscape between 1350 and 1450 AD. The technique, which is quite impressive to witness, involves large, shore-based nets that are suspended in the air by bamboo/teakwood supports and lowered into the water to catch fish without the need to venture out to sea. The entire structure is counterbalanced by heavy stones, making it an eco-friendly practice that preserves marine life and vegetation, relying solely on natural materials without harmful gadgets.

Once a vital tool for sustaining the livelihoods of Kochi’s fishworkers, the traditional Cheenavala fishing nets have now become a symbol of a deepening crisis. Climate change, particularly the warming of the Arabian Sea, has drastically reduced fish populations.

Ironically, the government profits from promoting this iconic symbol even as the seafood industry faces closures, with four export-oriented fish processing units shutting down in Kerela in recent months due to the shortage of fish. This stark contrast highlights the growing disconnect between tradition and survival in the face of climate change.

The walls of Kerala are adorned with graffiti advocating for fishworkers and marine biodiversity. In Kochi, a mural reads, “Save the largest fish on Earth,” calling attention to the need for conservation. Credit: Aishwarya Bajpai/IPS

The walls of Kerala are adorned with graffiti advocating for fishworkers and marine biodiversity. In Kochi, a mural reads, “Save the largest fish on Earth,” calling attention to the need for conservation. Credit: Aishwarya Bajpai/IPS

Despite the Chinese fishing nets being a major tourist attraction, the government has shown little or no interest in preserving them. The process started in 2014 when a Chinese delegation, led by Hao Jia, a senior official of the Chinese embassy in India, met with Kochi’s then-mayor, Tony Chammany, to help renovate the nets and proposed constructing a pavement along Fort Kochi beach.

KJ Sohan, former mayor of Kochi and president of the Chinese Fishing Net Owners’ Association, expressed his support for the Chinese initiative to preserve the traditional fishing nets. He emphasized that such large nets, rooted in ancient techniques, are unique to this region. However, he also highlighted the significant governmental neglect of these nets. Insurance companies refuse to cover them, and they need to be replaced twice a year, which incurs substantial costs.

The Tourism Department later instructed the Kerala Industrial and Technology Consultancy Organisation (KITCO) to refurbish 11 of these nets and allotted 2.4 crore rupees (24 million), along with teakwood and Malabar for the repairs.

The authorities had initially refused to release funds directly, requiring the owners to start the refurbishment first, with promises of staggered payments. It has recently come to light that the boat owners, many of whom took out high-interest loans to begin the renovation, are now in financial distress as they have yet to receive the promised government funds, despite completing the work over a year ago.

A Chinese fishing net on the coast of Kochi, Kerala (India). Credit: Aishwarya Bajpai/IPS

A Chinese fishing net on the coast of Kochi, Kerala (India). Credit: Aishwarya Bajpai/IPS

Many took out loans and installed new coconut timber stumps, but even after nearly finishing the work, they are still waiting for the funds. This has left the fishworkers in debt while authorities cite GST-related issues for the delay. The owners argue they are exempt from the tax.

Fishworkers, both men and women, are often invisible in discussions about climate change, yet they are at the heart of food security, feeding millions while struggling to feed their own families. Their fight for survival is not just about tradition or livelihood—it’s about justice. If the government continues to turn a blind eye, Kerala’s fishworkers may have no choice but to seek support elsewhere, from international bodies, non-governmental organizations, or global climate finance mechanisms. Their struggles must be recognized, and their voices amplified in the push for climate justice.

Kerala’s fishworkers are not just battling the seas—they are fighting for their future. Without immediate action and meaningful support, we risk losing not only their livelihoods but an entire way of life. If the government cannot rise to the occasion, the world must step in to ensure that these communities do not slip into obscurity.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Strategic Patience can Mitigate Conflict Between Israel & Iran

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Middle East & North Africa, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

President Masoud Pezeshkian of Iran addresses the general debate of the General Assembly’s 79th session in September 2024. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

WASHINGTON DC/OXFORD, Oct 9 2024 (IPS) – How will Israel respond to Iran’s recent ballistic missiles barrage? “Strategic patience” is the best course. Israel has its hands full with Hamas and Hezbollah. Now is not the time to escalate a new major war with Iran, which could have nuclear implications.

Israeli intelligence is still chafing from its failure to preempt Hamas’ attack on October 7, which killed 1,200 Israelis. In the year since Hamas attacked, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) launched operations that killed 41,000 Palestinians.

Its response has been brutal yet ineffective. Israel failed to capture the Hamas leader, Yahya Sinwar or gain the release of more than 100 Israeli hostages. A humanitarian catastrophe led to the starvation and displacement of more than 2 million people.

The IDF since taken a big step to redeem its tarnished reputation by deterring Iran’s missiles strikes. The “iron dome” repelled 190 ballistic missiles fired by Iran last week. Israel repelled another attack on April 13 involving 300 missile and attack drones, which caused little damage.

Iran was embarrassed by the sequence of events, which went far beyond its failed missile attacks. I know from Javad Zarif, Iran’s former foreign minister, that Persian pride is important to Iranians. Iran faced many setbacks in the past year. President Ibrahim Raisi died in a fiery helicopter crash.

Masoud Pezeshkian, who supports engagement with the United States, gained a plurality of the popular vote and became Iran’s president. The outcome was a rebuke to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime.

No event affected Iran more than the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. Nasrallah was a friend of and served as Iran’s most steadfast proxy for more than 30 years. Nasrallah was killed in an air strike in Beirut by 2,000 pound-bunker buster bombs that devastated the Southern Beirut neighborhood of Dahiyeh.

The air strike was another indignity following Israel’s sabotage of Hezbollah pagers and walkie-talkies that killed scores of Hezbollah commanders and disabled its communications system.

Hezbollah’s mythical reputation for battlefield prowess was shattered. Hezbollah was the most significant of Iran’s proxies in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Nasrallah fought ISIS, defended Bashar al-Assad in Syria’s civil war, and did the regime’s dirty work around the world.

Fearing his own assassination, Khamenei was removed to a secure location. He emerged in time for Friday prayers to defend Iran’s missile strikes on Israel as “correct, logical, and lawful” and to condemn Israel’s “astonishing crimes”.

Nasrallah’s death was a big blow to the Iranian regime. Iran was further humiliated by the assassination of Ismail Haniya, a senior Hamas figure staying in an official guest house while attending Raisi’s funeral in Tehran.

Netanyahu warned that no place in the Middle East is safe from Israel’s security services. He was right. In addition, economic sanctions have taken their toll on Iranians. Sanctions relief is a distant dream as the US and G7 allies tighten the screws on Iran’s economy.

Israel-Iran relations are at a fork in the road. President Joe Biden has urged Netanyahu to consider “alternatives” to attacking Iranian nuclear sites or destroying Iran’s oil infrastructure. There is an alternative conflict escalation.

Netanyahu and Khamenei should consider a new approach now that the shadow war is out in the open. Diplomacy would require assurances from Israel that it won’t launch a first strike against Iran. In turn, Iran must guarantee that its nuclear program won’t be weaponized.

Discreet discussions with the International Atomic Energy Agency would advance safeguards, including spot inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites and the reactivation of electronic surveillance. For sure, Israel will continue operations in Gaza. Israel will hunt Sinwar until he is eliminated. It cannot countenance another October 7.

In Lebanon, Israel has succeeded in killing Nasrallah and eliminating half of Hezbollah’s 150,000 missiles. Its ground operation in Southern Lebanon cannot be open-ended. Having a failed state on Israel’s northern border would result in continued instability and risk.

Regional progress would be impossible with a new front between Israel and Iran. Strategic patience means that Israel would bide its time until there is an opportunity for diplomatic progress. Diplomacy and de-escalation are preferable to war without end.

David L. Phillips is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Security Studies Program and a Visiting Research Scholar at Oxford University.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

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