climate change

• GHANA: ‘Work in the corner of your community has a potential to cause change at the top’

  Following a year marked by massive mobilisation on the climate emergency, CIVICUS is interviewing civil society activists, leaders and experts about the main environmental challenges they face in their contexts and the actions they are taking. CIVICUS speaks with Perk Pomeyie, a climate organiser, environmental advocate and artivist affiliated with the Ghana Youth Environmental Movement (GYEM), a youth-led environmental group that advocates and campaigns for a sustainable environment and a just world for the current and future generations. GYEM seeks to build an inter-generational network to find solutions to environmental challenges and confront the climate crisis. It focuses on bottom-up solutions and encourages the co-production of knowledge through participatory approaches.

  Perk has recently been selected to take part inCIVICUS’s Youth Action Lab, a pilot co-creation initiative that works on year-long projects with grassroots youth activists based in the global south to support their movements and help them become more resilient and sustainable by building solidarity and networks, strengthening capacities, engaging with policy processes and facilitating resources to support their movement.

  

   

  Can you tell us more about the work that you do?

  My work is part of the broader work of GYEM, a leading youth-led grassroots movement in Ghana. GYEM works by organising and coordinating young people from different backgrounds and empowering them with the tools, techniques and technology to run disruptive campaigns on environmental issues. GYEM addresses key ecological challenges such as poor waste management, various forms of pollution, deforestation and the impacts of climate change in different communities and regions of Ghana. It specialises in running high-impact training for non-violent direct action (NVDA) campaigns, which target state actors and decision-makers from both the government and business sectors.

  GYEM is composed of a youth-led Steering Group that mobilises logistics creatively, forging partnerships with other grassroots activists and community-based organisations to influence environmental change from the bottom up. It employs digital organising via social media and other NVDA tactics to deliver campaigns that challenge the status quo and offer both transformational and incremental community-led solutions that bring together scientific and Indigenous knowledge systems. GYEM also hosts the largest annual youth-led environmental summit in Ghana, Power Shift, which brings together grassroots activists from across the country to share ideas and collaborate on campaigns in various parts of Ghana.

  We do much of our work in collaboration with several other organisations, including Rocha Ghana, an environmental civil society organisation (CSO) focusing on practical conservation interventions in important ecological habitats and improving the ability of target communities to adapt to current trends in climate change; the Green Africa Youth Organisation, a youth-led gender-balanced advocacy group that focuses on environmental sustainability and community development; 350 Ghana, a leading environmental grassroots CSO affiliated to 350.org, aimed at mobilising and empowering young people in partnership with key stakeholders to champion the need to reduce our carbon emissions and promote renewable energy systems; and WaterAid Ghana, a CSO focused on providing people with clean water, decent toilets and sanitation.

  I am based in Accra, Ghana’s capital, but I work with diverse communities in different locations depending on the environmental challenge being addressed. Some of these include low-income groups who reside in informal settlements and are disproportionately affected by the impacts of plastic pollution and flooding. Another group I work with are frontline communities who face the impacts of climate change, such as drought, water stress and food insecurity. I also work in high schools and university campuses with student volunteers, aged between 12 and 25, who are passionate about the environment and require training and capacity to take action. Finally, I engage with CSOs working on various Sustainable Development Goals nationwide. Most of these are youth groups with leaders and members between 18 and 35 years old, working on initiatives and projects in areas such as conservation, plastic recycling, water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and climate mitigation and adaptation.

  What have been the biggest successes you have achieved?

  We have had several high-profile victories. In 2016, the government backtracked on a project, proposed in 2013, to build a coal-powered plant in a community called Ekumfi Aboano. The plant was going to pose health and environmental risks to the people there, and especially to children and women. We designed campaign messages, organised the community for NVDA and marched repeatedly. As a result, the government engaged GYEM in a discussion and halted the coal plant project in 2016.

  Secondly, in 2016, WaterAid Ghana approached GYEM in search of support to create awareness of WASH-based climate adaptation interventions. They wanted young people to design a campaign to draw the government’s attention to WASH issues in local communities and informal settlements, and tackle them as part of adapting to climate change. I contributed with my design work and communication strategies to a year-long campaign that reached more than 10,000 young people. This resulted in the National WASH Forum, which brought together local communities and political actors to work jointly towards the goal of addressing WASH problems as part of climate adaptation strategies.

  In 2018, I worked with other activists in an urban poor settlement in an area called Pokuase, to raise awareness about a water source in the community that was being threatened by road construction and other building work. This water source was vital because it served the community during the dry season. For the first time, attention was drawn to the impact of human activities on the river.

  Did you take part in the global climate mobilisations in 2019?

  Yes, in late 2019 I championed the first #FridaysforFuture and #SchoolClimateStrike campaigns in the northern region of Ghana. I organised and coordinated strikes in Damongo and Tamale. I designed creative graphics and campaign materials, which attracted more than 200 schoolchildren and young people to these global campaigns. This was important because it was the first time that children and young people in that part of Ghana came out in large numbers to raise their voice on the impacts of climate change and demand urgent action from their leaders. Northern Ghana is currently experiencing the worst impact of climate change in the form of droughts and food insecurity.

  Ours was one of the many #FridaysforFuture events that were held in Ghana. I think we’ve been successful in mobilising because we’ve used innovative approaches. Personally, I’ve used my skills in design thinking and graphic design and my expertise in non-violent communication and direct action. I communicate to reach my target on various social media platforms, while also mobilising communities for action on the ground with context-relevant messages to address specific environmental challenges.

  Before that, in March 2019, I helped bring together hundreds of grassroots activists from Ghana and activists from the International Youth Climate Movement from other parts of Africa, to campaign for climate justice and urgent climate action, during the United Nations (UN) Africa Climate Week. I think this has been so far the most important achievement of my work as an activist. This high-profile conference was hosted in Accra and was attended by African governments, international organisations and business leaders. During this week, I coordinated an NVDA training session for hundreds of young people, while leading a mass rally of about 300 activists to the summit venue to deliver a strong message to heads of governments, businesses and stakeholders of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to act on the climate emergency.

  I consider this as an important achievement because as a grassroots activist in Ghana, this was the first time I gained a strong personal conviction that my work in the little corner of my community has a potential to cause change at the top, if supported with the right tools, capacity and resources.

  What support do activists like you need from international actors, including international civil society?

  Personally, my work is self-financed. I use some income from my part-time self-employment as a graphic designer to support my activism. I design marketing materials for individuals and campaign banners for CSOs and get paid for it. I use a percentage of this to fund my work. Sometimes, family and friends also donate to support my work if I make a request. I have also financed my work through crowdfunding to help coordinate and implement projects and high-profile campaigns. So one area in which activists like me need support is in generating sustainable resources.

  We also need more opportunities to connect and network with other activists from the global south who may share similar solutions to particular challenges in their respective contexts, to interact with multiple actors and to learn to navigate complex policy processes in the areas in which we work.

  Civic space in Ghana is rated as ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with the Ghana Youth Environmental Movement through itsFacebook page andblog, and follow@gyemgh on Twitter.

• GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: ‘Every person on the planet should have an equal opportunity to participate in decision-making’

  CIVICUS speaks with Andreas Bummel, co-founder and Executive Director of Democracy Without Borders (DWB) and the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly, about the deficits of the current global governance system and civil society’s proposals for reform.

  Founded in 2017, DWB is an international civil society organisation with national chapters and associates across the world, aimed at promoting global governance, global democracy and global citizenship.

  What’s wrong with existing global governance institutions?

  Global governance has rightly been described as a spaghetti bowl, and that’s because there is too much fragmentation, overlap, incoherence and opacity, with many parallel and siloed processes going on at the same time, involving who knows how many institutions, initiatives and projects.

• GLOBAL: ‘With a wealth tax on the biggest fortunes, extreme poverty can be eradicated’

  CIVICUS speaks about climate change, global inequality and the need for redistribution with Adrien Fabre, a France-based climate economistand founder of Global Redistribution Advocates (GRA).

  GRA is a civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes public debate about three global redistribution policies that enjoy wide public opinion support worldwide – a global wealth tax, a global climate plan and a global climate assembly – and advocates towards political parties in several countries to incorporate these into their agendas and programmes.

  What inspired you to become a climate economist and found GRA?

  I started my PhD in economics with the goal of understanding humanity’s problems and proposing solutions. I always wanted to give voice to every human, so I naturally specialised in running surveys. Then, in the context of the Yellow Vests protests that began in 2018, I surveyed French people about their attitudes towards climate policies. This sparked interest at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which called on me to conduct a similar survey in other countries. I seized the opportunity to ask people questions they had never been asked before, such as whether they supported a global tax on millionaires to finance low-income countries. I was amazed by the levels of support: more than 70 per cent in every country!

  I ran complementary surveys in Europe and the USA. I tried asking questions differently and tested policies in which the respondents would lose money, but the results were the same: people in western countries were willing to lose a few dozen euros per month to end climate change and global poverty. Furthermore, the support is sincere: you can read this scientific article or my Twitter thread for details.

  Now, if there is such strong support for global redistribution, why doesn’t anyone propose it or defend it in public debate? To advocate for global redistributive policies to transfer resources or power from high to low-income countries I launched GRA in April 2023.

  What are your proposals?

  We have three main proposals to promote wealth redistribution, environmental sustainability and global cooperation to address pressing global challenges. The first is a global wealth tax on individual wealth exceeding US$5 million, with half of the tax proceeds distributed to lower-income countries.

  This tax would spare 99.9 per cent of the world’s population, who have wealth below US$5 million. And if the tax were just two per cent, it would collect one per cent of the world’s GDP, which is more than the GDP of all low-income countries, home to 700 million people, combined. Our proposed tax schedule is moderate: two per cent for fortunes above US$5 million, six per cent for those above US$100 million and 10 per cent for those above US$1 billion. A tax of two per cent is far lower than the interests, rents and dividends such a fortune generates.

  Our second proposal is a global climate plan aimed at combatting climate change through a worldwide carbon emissions cap, implemented by a system of global emissions trading, and financing a global basic income.

  This plan would enter into force as soon as signatory countries cover 60 per cent of global carbon emissions. Participating countries would enforce a cap on carbon emissions, decreasing each year and down to net zero emissions after three decades, in line with the temperature target. Each year, emissions permits would be auctioned to firms that extract fossil fuels or import them from non-participating countries, making polluters pay. To cover the cost of emissions permits, firms would increase fossil fuel prices, which would in turn encourage individuals and businesses to change their equipment or adjust their habits, eventually reducing carbon emissions. The revenues from carbon pricing would fund a global basic income estimated at US$50 per month for each person over 15.

  This plan would bring a massive redistribution from countries with a carbon footprint higher than the global average – like OECD countries – to those with a lower-than-average carbon footprint, including most of Africa, South and Southeast Asia and Latin America. It includes mechanisms to encourage participation by all countries, such as a tariff on goods imported from non-participating countries in proportion to their carbon content, a provision allowing middle-income countries such as China to opt out from the mutualisation of revenues to guarantee that it would not lose from the plan while ensuring that it decarbonises with the same carbon price, and a provision facilitating the participation of subnational entities like California or the state of New York even if the federal level does not participate.

  The wealth tax and the climate plan would each redistribute one per cent of the world’s GDP from high to low-income countries every year. Extreme poverty can be eradicated. The average income in a country like the Democratic Republic of the Congo would double following the transfers.

  Our third proposition is that of a global climate assembly, comprised of representatives elected through proportional representation in participating nations, tasked with drafting a comprehensive treaty to address climate change globally. Before even the beginning of that experiment in democratic governance at the global scale, the assembly would bring a radical change, as the election campaign would foster a global public debate on climate justice.

  Please check our website for details: each policy has its own advocacy campaign, with a fully-fledged policy proposal, a petition and a video.

  Who are you targeting these proposals at, and how are you working to get the message across?

  We are targeting our campaigns at policymakers, scholars, civil society and lay people. Many scholars have endorsed our proposals. GRA is a member of civil society networks in each of our policy domains, and we are hoping that key CSOs will endorse our proposals. We have already met with cabinet members of various governments, including Brazil, Colombia, France, Germany and South Africa, as well as many European Union (EU) politicians. And we are sending dozens of emails every day to get more meetings. Once we get a book on our climate plan and the scientific article finished and published, we will reach out to the public. We will publish an open letter in widely read newspapers, calling on world leaders to discuss global redistributive policies at the United Nations (UN), the G20 and climate summits.

  Hopefully, we will get media attention and the movement will grow. It will help if well-known personalities, including celebrities, endorse our proposals. But it will take a social movement to make change happen, perhaps a global demonstration. Our hope is that a large coalition of political parties, CSOs and labour unions throughout the world endorse some common policies towards a sustainable and fair future – ours, or similar ones. This will likely strengthen the parties of the coalition and help them win elections. Our research shows that progressive candidates would gain votes if they endorsed global redistributive policies.

  What are the prospects of these proposals being implemented in the near future?

  Our proposals are getting more and more endorsements every day. The African Union just called for a global carbon price and will defend this idea in international negotiations.

  But our proposal that receives the largest support is the global wealth tax. The next European Parliament elections will be held in June 2024, and left-wing parties will campaign on a European wealth tax. We have proposed that one-third of this European wealth tax would be allocated to lower-income countries outside Europe, and there are good chances that some parties will take this forward. A petition in favour of a wealth tax has recently been signed by 130 members of the European Parliament, and politicians from all parties on the left and centre endorse our proposal. However, a majority in the European Parliament would not suffice, as this proposal would require unanimity at the Council of the EU, that is, the approval of each EU government.

  However, three things can help. First, Brazil will chair the G20 in 2024, and we hope that President Lula, along with other leaders, will put pressure on global north states for global redistribution. Second, it would help if US President Joe Biden included wealth taxes on the agenda of his re-election campaign. Third, the campaign for the 2024 European Parliament elections could create momentum for some countries to move forward, even if the EU does not.

  I am optimistic that wealth taxes will be implemented – perhaps not in 2024, but within the next decade. However, I fear negotiations might end up being overseen by the OECD, resulting in a disappointing agreement, as happened on international corporate taxation. Negotiations on international taxation must be hosted by the UN, not the OECD. And regarding the content of the negotiations, we should be vigilant of three elements: the exemption threshold, which should not exceed US$5 million; the tax rates, which should be progressive and not too low; and the distribution of revenues, a substantial part of which must go to low-income countries.

  Civil society mobilisation will be key to promoting the global wealth tax, making it a central campaign issue and turning it into effective international policy. You can help by signing our petitions, donating, or volunteering for GRA. GRA is also hiring, so feel free to contact us!

  What are your hopes and expectations regarding the upcoming COP28 climate summit?

  COPs sometimes bring good surprises. Last year, high-income countries finally accepted the principle of a fund to compensate vulnerable countries for the loss and damage from climate change, after 30 years of demands from the developing world.

  But I don’t expect any good news this year, as the upcoming COP28 in Dubai is chaired by the CEO of the United Arab Emirates’ state oil company. More generally, I do not expect much from COPs because its decisions are made by consensus, so countries like Saudi Arabia can block any meaningful proposal. This is what led to the current system of nationally determined contributions: while all countries supposedly share the common goal of limiting global warming to ‘well below 2°C’, there are no binding commitments, no harmonised policies, no agreement on burden-sharing, and the sum of countries’ voluntary pledges is inconsistent with the common goal.

  To break the deadlock, states with ambitious climate goals should start negotiations in parallel with the UN framework. I think the EU and China should start bilateral negotiations. If they put forward something like the global climate plan that we propose, countries that would benefit from it would surely accept it, and more than 60 per cent of global emissions would be covered. This would put enormous pressure on other countries to join, and particularly other OECD countries such as the USA.

  ---

  Get in touch with Global Redistribution Advocates through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@GlobalRedistrib and@adrien_fabre on Twitter.

• Grassroots Organising Points the way in Fight Against Rising Repression

  By Lysa John, CIVICUS Secretary General

  This article is part of a series on the current state of civil society organisations (CSOs), which will be the focus of International Civil Society Week (ICSW), scheduled to take place in Belgrade, April 8-12. 

  “I never thought it would get so big and I think it is amazing.”

  The words of a 16-year-old Swedish teenager who skipped school to protest outside her government’s inaction on climate change. Greta Thunberg is marvelling at how, in just a few short months, her solitary protests outside Sweden’s parliament, have inspired and united hundreds of thousands of young people and others across the globe into a powerful, growing grassroots movement for climate change action.

  Read on: Inter Press Service

• ITALY: ‘Accusing activists of vandalism is much easier than implementing renewable energy policies’

  CIVICUS speaks with Gabriella Abbate of Last Generation about climate activism and its criminalisation in Italy, a country that has recently experienced both drought and devastating floods.

  Last Generation is an international network of climate activists using civil disobedience to compel governments to address the climate emergency by enabling citizen participation and financially supporting the global south as a primary victim of climate change that it hasn’t caused.

  Why are climate protests on the rise in Italy?

  Italy is heavily affected by climate and ecological crises: it experienced 310 climate disasters in 2022 alone, one of the main reasons behind them being the use of fossil fuels. The Italian government’s funding of fossil fuels has been steadily increasing, reaching €2.8 billion (approx. US$3 billion) between 2019 and 2021 and comprising 90 per cent of Italy’s total investment in fossil energy. Italy is the world’s sixth largest fossil energy lender, ahead even of Russia and Saudi Arabia.

  In reaction to these energy policies, transnational activist networks including Last Generation, Extinction Rebellion and Scientists Rebellion are organising climate protests throughout Italy. They all use nonviolent civil disobedience tactics such as roadblocks, soiling with washable and vegetable-based paint and gluing. Last Generation is currently protesting to demand that the Italian government immediately cease public funding for fossil fuels and respect the agreements made by European Union member states in the 2030 climate and energy framework to increase the share of renewable energies, improve energy efficiency and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

  What challenges are climate protesters facing in Italy?

  A major challenge has been the criticism of our ways of protesting and the way we have been portrayed by the media. I think it is much easier to present someone as a vandal than to try to understand the root causes of the anger driving their action. The media and the state strongly exploit people’s lack of awareness regarding the innocuous materials used in the actions, such as vegetable charcoal, which leads to plenty of misinformation. However, more and more people are still joining our movement, perhaps driven by personal fear of the climate catastrophe, but also due to the realisation that the label of ‘eco vandalism’ is only a facade to mask the problem and that the negative consequences of our actions are minor and superficial.

  On the other hand, the consequences of our activism being portrayed as violent and as acts of vandalism have been profound. There are currently three Last Generation activists facing trial for spraying the Senate building in Rome. They’re accused of ‘criminal damage’ and risk up to three years in prison. Never mind that the paint they used in the protest was washable.

  In April, the Italian government introduced a new law specifically to punish climate actions seen as damaging monuments or cultural sites with fines ranging from €20,000 to €40,000 (approx. US$21,500 to US$43,000) and possible imprisonment for those caught in the act. In this regard, it should be noted that an essential part of Last Generation’s activism is to draw attention to one’s responsibility for one’s choices, which ends up accentuating the consequences of the actions we take. We take responsibility by not running away after an action, and this puts us in an even riskier position. Another tool used by the Italian state is indictment for ‘criminal conspiracy’, a charge historically used against the mafia.

  The Italian government criminalises climate activists because by doing so it can continue avoiding its responsibilities regarding the wellbeing of its citizens. Accusing activists of vandalism is much easier than implementing renewable energy policies.

  How does Last Generation support activists so they can continue mobilising for climate action?

  Last Generation supports prosecuted activists by using funds from donations to pay their legal fees and hire experts to help them navigate court proceedings. We also share information about their cases on social media to gather international solidarity and support.

  How do you connect with the global climate movement?

  Last Generation is part of the A22 coalition, an international network of nonviolent civil disobedience campaigners, all of which demand their governments adopt measures to address ecoclimate collapse. The coalition was established in 2022 and it already includes at least 10 different campaigns advocating with governments in Europe, the Pacific and the USA.

  Within the coalition we share not only strategies and best practices but also victories, such as that obtained in the Netherlands last month. In April, following months of continuous campaigning by our Dutch allies, Schiphol Airport decided to ban private jets and night flights from 2025. It is setting new rules that establish clear limits on noise and emissions and has dropped plans to build an additional runway.

  This network is a great source of support. We help each other increase the visibility of our campaigns. It has certainly helped us attract more people to Non Paghiamo il Fossile (We Don’t Pay for Fossil) and other environmental campaigns in Italy and beyond.

  ---

  Civic space in Italy is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Last Generation through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@ultimagenerazi1 onTwitter.

• ITALY: ‘The constitution now contemplates the interests of future generations’

  CIVICUS speaks with Edoardo Zanchini, National Vice President of Legambiente Onlus, about the recent legislative vote that introduced environmental protections in the Italian Constitution, and civil society’s role in making it happen.

  Established in 1980, Legambiente Onlus is an Italian civil society organisation (CSO) that works towards a clean and liveable environment by monitoring environmental issues, diagnosing problems and offering solutions, denouncing environmental crimes and seeking to hold those responsible to account, running sensitisation campaigns and educational projects, and advocating with policy makers.

  

  What is the significance of the recent constitutional amendment that mandates the state to safeguard ecosystems and biodiversity?

  It’s very important because it elevates the protection of the environment, biodiversity and ecosystems to the constitutional level. Before this amendment, the Italian Constitution did not explicitly recognise environmental protection as a fundamental value. The new text of Article 9 establishes the principle of environmental protection ‘in the interest of future generations’, a reference to the concept of sustainable development, according to which natural resources cannot be exploited in an unlimited way – that is, without taking into account that they are finite and how this will affect those who will come after us.

  A change to Article 41 also establishes that economic initiatives cannot be carried out in a way that could create damage to health or the environment. Before, the only constitutionally recognised restrictions were those related to security, freedom and human dignity.

  Wording was also introduced regarding the ‘protection of animals’, and this was the only point around which there were strong disagreements: pressure from hunters’ associations was strong and led to a compromise.

  Do you view the amendments as a civil society victory?

  Yes, it was a victory for the CSOs that have long been committed to the defence of ecosystems, the landscape and biodiversity. These amendments would not have been introduced if it hadn’t been for the growing awareness of the importance of these values and the increasing interest in their defence. And that awareness is the result of sustained civil society work.

  It has been a long road to reach today’s great consensus on environmental issues. And consultations with environmental CSOs in the amendment process were a key factor in that they helped put pressure on political parties to make the right decision.

  The fact that nobody openly campaigned against the amendment proposal is very telling: it shows there is a broad consensus, stronger than any political divide, around values that are recognised as being in the general interest, even as part of the identity of local communities and Italy as a whole. Aside from the strong conflict around the protection of animals, it got to the point that those who have an interest in pollution continuing to be allowed or overlooked were very careful not to take part in any controversy.

  Do you see the constitutional change in Italy as part of a European trend?

  In recent years several European countries have amended their constitutions to explicitly include and strengthen environmental protection. In all countries there is a strong consensus around this perspective, with an increasing public demand for information on environmental issues and increasingly active citizens who take it upon themselves to get informed, visit protected areas and valuable landscapes, and organise to demand their preservation for future generations. Environmental associations from all over Europe have been working together for many years on issues such as natural resource protection, the push towards a circular economy and the battle against climate change. 

  We also frame our initiatives and campaigns in the context of our membership of regional and global networks such as the Climate Action Network, which includes over 1,500 CSOs in more than 130 countries in every global region, the European Environmental Bureau, which is the largest network of environmental CSOs in Europe, with over 170 members in more than 35 countries, and Transport & Environment, Europe’s leading clean transport campaign group.

  What needs to happen next, both in terms of implementation and further policy development?

  Now it will be necessary to update the regulatory framework to include protection measures that had so far not been considered. The new constitutional reference to environmental protection will also allow environmentalists to appeal against laws that are in contradiction with it. Of course, Italy will have to review all its regulations related to environmental impact assessments, which were established without taking into account the protection objectives that are now part of our constitution.

  Civic space in Italy is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Legambiente Onlus through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@Legambiente on Twitter. 

• Lettre ouverte de leaders militants aux délégués du Forum économique mondial

  Les leaders militants demandent aux délégués du Forum économique mondial de déclarer l’urgence climatique

  Nous sommes aux côtés – #StandTogether – des centaines de millions de personnes à travers le monde qui s’engagent en faveur de la justice climatique, de la transformation économique, de l’égalité, des droits humains, de l’environnement, de l’égalité entre hommes et femmes, et des droits des travailleurs, des enfants, des réfugiés, des peuples autochtones et des communautés confessionnelles.

  Afin de limiter le réchauffement climatique mondial à 1,5 °C, nous devons réduire de moitié les émissions mondiales d’ici 2030 et parvenir à zéro émission à l’horizon 2050.

  Nous pensons qu’il est temps pour les décideurs réunis lors de la réunion annuelle du Forum économique mondial à Davos de déclarer l’urgence climatique dans leurs pays et au sein de leurs entreprises et de prendre de toute urgence les mesures nécessaires en vue de protéger l’humanité et notre planète.

  Les gouvernements, les entreprises, les investisseurs et la société civile doivent collaborer sans attendre en vue de restructurer notre système économique d’ici la fin de la décennie, de mettre fin au chaos climatique, tout en luttant contre les inégalités et en faisant respecter les droits humains et le droit du travail.

  Afin de permettre une transition juste pour les travailleurs et les populations, nous devons:

  • Mettre un terme à l’exploration et à l’extraction des combustibles fossiles – En finir rapidement avec l’exploration, l’extraction et l’utilisation de ces combustibles ; les pays à hauts revenus doivent réaliser les réductions les plus rapides et les investisseurs doivent se désengager des combustibles fossiles.
  • Cesser de subventionner les combustibles fossiles – Redistribuer les 5,2 billions de dollars de subventions accordées à l’industrie des énergies fossiles pour financer les énergies renouvelables et renforcer les systèmes de protection sociale.
  • Faire payer les pollueurs – Fixer un prix justifié à la pollution et faire payer aux émetteurs le coût réel de leurs activités sur la santé humaine et l’environnement.

  Nous pensons qu’il est temps de construire un futur prospère, régénérant et plus équitable, qui fasse la part belle à l'égalité entre hommes et femmes et ne laisse personne de côté. Pour ce faire, les entreprises doivent se conformer à des lois respectant les droits humains et l’environnement, travailler de façon transparente et responsable afin de mettre en place des politiques de transformation et mettre en œuvre la diligence requise pour identifier leurs impacts préjudiciables, les rendre publics et y remédier.

  Sans ce leadership, le thème central de ce 50e Forum économique mondial à Davos, consacré aux « Parties prenantes pour un monde cohérent et durable », sonnera creux et nous ne parviendrons pas à réaliser les Objectifs de développement durable d’ici 2030.

  Alors que nous entamons cette décennie décisive, il est temps que les gouvernements et les entreprises réunis à Davos décident s’ils se mobilisent aux côtés de l’humanité pour notre avenir commun.

  ---

  350
  Amnesty International
  Business & Human Rights Resource Centre
  CIVICUS
  Global Call to Action Against Poverty
  Global Witness
  Greenpeace
  ITUC
  OXFAM

• MEXICO: ‘When climate activism threatens powerful interests, it is labelled on the same level as terrorists and drug traffickers’

  CIVICUS speaks about the role of civil society and its expectations for the upcoming COP28 climate summit with María Reyes, a young human rights and environmental activist from the Mexican state of Puebla.

  María is part of the Indigenous Figures (Futuros Indígenas) collective, made up of peoples, including young people, from Mexico and Central America. She participates in the global south division of Fridays for Future (FFF), an organisation that fights for environmental justice and advocates for action in the face of the climate emergency.

  What are Mexico’s main environmental problems?

  Generally speaking, Mexico is very vulnerable to the climate crisis. Water scarcity is a central issue, partly caused by droughts, but also by infrastructure problems, as many people do not have access to piped drinking water, and by very poor distribution and overexploitation of aquifers by private companies. If we add to the existing drought the fact that in many communities there are companies that obtain concessions through non-legal and non-transparent means and appropriate the little water that is left, the situation for people becomes unbearable.

  Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries to be an activist and environmental defender. In the southeast of Mexico there is a series of transnational extractive megaprojects, such as the Interoceanic Corridor and the ‘Mayan Train’, which threaten the environment through logging and water extraction, and displace wildlife, expropriate territories and resources, harm people and commit human rights violations. Local communities, particularly Indigenous communities, are criminalised when they oppose these megaprojects that are imposed on their territories without any consultation and without their consent or through the staging of rigged consultations.

• NAMIBIA: ‘There is only so much civil society can do when those in power support extractive companies’

  CIVICUS speaks with Rinaani Musutua of the Economic and Social Justice Trust (ESJT) about thee resistance of communities in the Okavango River Basin in Southern Africa against oil and gas exploration by the Canadian company ReconAfrica.

  Founded in 2012, ESJT is a civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes social and economicr ights in Namibia and has been part of the coalition mobilising against ReconAfrica’s extractivep roject.

  What are your concerns regarding ReconAfrica’s operations in the Okavango River Basin?

  The Okavango River Basin, known in Namibia as the Kavango, flows from Angola through northern Namibia and empties out into the Okavango Delta in northwest Botswana. We first heard that ReconAfrica, an oil and gas company headquartered in Canada, had a petroleum exploration licence there in 2020. We were never informed when it sought and obtained its exploration licence and environmental clearance certificate. We looked it up and found it strange that the company received its environmental clearance certificate on a public holiday in Namibia. This makes us wonder who authorised its operations.

  Communities in the Kavango region have never been consulted by ReconAfrica. This is worrying because, according to the law, to get to their environmental and clearance certificate companies must first consult with the people who live in the places they wish to operate in. But locals were never informed about the pros and cons of the project and had no idea what the project was about. Only recently did ReconAfrica hold one meeting with community members, after we complained. But even after this meeting, community members were confused about the project because the information provided wasn’t detailed or clear enough.

  ReconAfrica decided to apply for land rights after civil society activists and organisations started questioning its legitimacy to operate and occupy land in the region. Prior to this it claimed to have received permission from traditional chiefs, but when media and activists approached them, the chiefs denied it. As it stands, the company is illegally occupying communal land and should be charged for it, but the government doesn’t seem to care.

  How will local communities be affected if the project goes ahead?

  The Kavango region is home to many communities, including the Indigenous San, who make their living from farming and fishing, and many more that rely on the water that flows from the Okavango Delta. ReconAfrica’s activities threatens the habitat of several wildlife species and could potentially contaminate the water people and animals depend on.

  ReconAfrica has been drilling very close to the Omatako River, which is ephemeral due to the low average annual rainfall. It looks like there is not activity, but scientists have confirmed there is activity underneath the river.

  When the company was conducting its seismic surveys, many local communities complained that their homes and croplands were damaged due to negligence by drivers. When people complained, ReconAfrica used local people to manipulate community members into signing papers without explaining the content. It was later found that the signed papers gave the company the right to pass through their crops and because of this those affected haven’t been compensated for their loss.

  Unfortunately, works continue because our government supports the company. There is only so much civil society can do when those in power support extractive companies at the expense of local communities. 

  How is civil society mobilising against oil and gas exploration and drilling in the Kavango region?

  As civil society we have held public meetings to inform people about the potential danger of this project. ESJT teamed up with other Namibian CSOs to petition the government to halt ReconAfrica’s activities immediately. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Natural Resources Parliamentary Standing Committee on Natural Resources conducted an investigation but didn’t do such a good job because it failed to go to affected areas. Most of its meetings were held in town and people from the affected areas weren’t able to attend because they don’t have resources to travel to town.

  We have also written a lot of newspaper articles highlighting the dangers of ReconAfrica’s activity.

  Since we are not able hold public meetings all over Namibia, we are hopeful that these articles will reach people so they can stay informed.

  Together with other local and international CSOs we have released a joint statement calling on the Namibian government to examine the oil and gas exploration activities taking place in the Kavango region. We have also complained about ReconAfrica to the Canadian authorities authorities, who started investigating the company. What was disappointing, however, is that it did not investigate ReconAfrica’s environmental and human rights violations in the Kavango region, but only its potentially fraudulent stock market business.

  Unfortunately, it seems like our demands are falling on deaf ears. People have accused us of being against development. This makes it difficult for us to unite against ReconAfrica and the government, because they know we don’t have everyone’s full support.

  What kind of support from international civil society and the wider international community would help the movement?

  Fortunately,international organisations such as Re:wild have expressed support for our fight and brought awareness to what is going on in the Kavango region. Prince Harry Harry has also shown support for our fight against ReconAfrica and its activities.

  But beyond international support, we still need people in the Kavango region to also stand up and speak against this project. Right now, most people organising the resistance are based in Windhoek, Namibia’s capital. People in the Kavango region should mobilise so the government can see this is an urgent matter that affects them. We need resources to continue delivering workshops to inform people about the dangers of this project. Our work is limited because we aren’t adequately equipped.

  ---

  Get in touch with Economic and Social Justice Trust through its website or its Facebook page,and follow @esjtnam on Twitter.

• NETHERLANDS: ‘A strong sense of solidarity endures with those who are left-behind’

  CIVICUS speaks about snap elections taking place in the Netherlands on 22 November with Niels Hoogerheijde, Policy Advisor at Partos, the Dutch membership body for civil society organisations (CSOs) working in international development.

• NETHERLANDS: ‘We call on potential coalition partners to stand up for our country’s international reputation’

  CIVICUS speaks about thefar-right victory in the snap elections that took place in the Netherlands on 22 November with Niels Hoogerheijde, Policy Advisor at Partos, the Dutch membership body for civil society organisations (CSOs) working in international development.

  Did the election victory of the far right come as a surprise?

  It did come as a surprise. Usually the far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) achieves increasingly good results in the final days of the election campaign only to underperform on election day. This is what we expected to happen this time, so when we saw a PVV poll surge in the days prior to 22 November, we thought the numbers were inflated and its victory was not a realistic possibility – just as with previous elections. This year, however, the PVV did perform as the polls forecasted.

  The result may be viewed as part of a wider regional trend. As far as Europe goes, far-right politicians are using migration or blaming migrants for all the crises that their countries are going through. The government of Italy is led by Giorgia Meloni of Brothers of Italy. Support for Marine Le Pen’s National Rally is growing in France. Reform UK, the party launched by Nigel Farage, is also rising in the polls. The common denominator of all of these is the use of a negative narrative about migrants to win people over – and it is working.

  How have civil society and progressives reacted to the election results?

  The day after the election results were announced, there were various demonstrations across the country in favour of human rights and in solidarity with asylum seekers, LGBTQI+ people and particularly the Dutch Muslim community, who have been the PVV’s main target for years.

  The PVV has put forward despicable proposals that are not only unconstitutional but also truly inhumane. People, including in civil society, have strong fears about what could happen to Dutch Muslims, asylum seekers and other excluded groups if we get a government led by the PVV.

  In addition, there are worries about the Netherlands’ international reputation. The PVV wants a Dutch exit from the European Union and wants to abolish the entire budget for development cooperation.

  How much leeway would a coalition government led by PVV leader Geert Wilders have to implement its promised policies?

  Throughout the campaign – and his whole political career – Wilders has made outrageous and even unconstitutional promises of what he will do if elected. But we shouldn’t forget that he will not govern alone. He will need to reach agreements to form a working majority in parliament.

  What he is able to do will truly depend on the composition of the government. It is too early to tell because the elections were only three weeks ago. But the government formation process started that same week. Many things have happened since, involving many politicians. I think three parties on top of the PVV are bound to be involved in the new government in some way.

  It is very unlikely that the largest party in the current caretaker government, the conservative People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, will not have any role in the future government. It used to be the main ruling party, and even as a junior coalition partner, its presence will still be important. The other two relevant parties are the New Social Contract (NSC) and the Farmers and Citizens Party (BBB).

  We might see the formation of a majority coalition including the four of them, or a minority coalition government composed of only some of these parties, seeking the support of other parties on specific topics. For the moment, politicians from all parties are making statements on conditions to work with other parties. Such statements are all part of the negotiation process so they should not be taken at face value but with the strategic goals of the respective party in mind.

  What can be done to prevent regressive policies materialising?

  Wilders’ proposals range from the ridiculous to the outrageous. They include an entry ban for asylum seekers, the closure of mosques and Islamic schools and outlawing the Quran. In the past, he has also proposed to create a Ministry of Deportation, to introduce a tax on women wearing hijab and to shoot young criminals of Moroccan descent in the knees. All of this is very well documented and most of it is unconstitutional.

  His key issue, the one that has made him most popular, concerns migrants and asylum seekers. Wilders wants to shut down the asylum system and not let any new asylum seekers into the Netherlands. By doing this, the Netherlands would breach its obligations under international law to provide safe haven for refugees.

  It is crazy to think if he had received a majority of parliamentary seats, these policies would have already materialised. As he lacks such a majority, Wilders must negotiate with other parties. And this is where we and other civil society groups come in, talking with party representatives about policy priorities and people’s needs and concerns. Potential coalition partners can play a crucial role, which is why Partos is calling on the BBB and NSC to stand up for the Netherlands’ international reputation.

  We have always been an outward-looking country that prides itself on its international reputation and tries to uphold international law. The city of The Hague, the site of our national government, profiles itself as the capital of international law, peace and justice. If you are truly committed to those values, you cannot abolish development cooperation altogether or do away with international treaties. You must respect the rule of law, the Dutch Constitution and our country’s international commitments.

  ---

  Civic space in the Netherlands is rated ‘open’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Partos through itswebpage and follow @PartosNL onLinkedIn andTwitter.

• New paper on the restrictions facing climate change activists
  • Environmental activism is dangerous and too often deadly, and may worsen as the growing climate crisis fuels divides over access to natural resources
  • Millions of people have marched this year calling for an end to climate injustice yet around the world just 4 percent of the world’s population live in countries where governments are properly respecting the freedoms of association, peaceful assembly and expression according to the CIVICUS Monitor.
  • The annual United Nations climate change negotiations (COP), to be held in Madrid from 2 to 13 December  was meant to be the ‘People’s COP’ but was unable to find a home in Latin America, which remains the most dangerous region in the world to be an environmental defender

  Millions of people have taken to the streets in 2019 calling for an end to climate injustice but on the frontlines of the crisis and at the United Nations brave activists continue to be deliberately silenced.

  This new position paper ‘We will not be silenced: Climate activism from the frontlines to the UN’ details how people who speak out for climate justice are threatened and intimidated with violence, repressive laws, frivolous lawsuits and disinformation campaigns. Instead of responding to the demands of the climate movement for a more ambitious and just response to the climate crisis, governments are choosing to smother their voices.

  In October, when Chilean civil society called for the government to withdraw the military from the streets before hosting COP 25 the Piñera government instead responded by withdrawing overnight from hosting the pivotal meeting. Chile’s withdrawal reflects a worrying trend after Brazil earlier pulled out from hosting COP 25 and Poland, the host of COP 24, imposed restrictions on public mobilisations and limited the participation of accredited civil society.

  Civil society scrutiny and contributions to UN climate talks are vital in a year when millions of people have marched in the streets demanding an end to climate inaction. Recent developments in UN climate talks - including the erasure of the landmark IPCC 1.5 degree report from negotiations - under pressure from states including  Saudi Arabia - show the vital need for the COP 25 to be the first true ‘People’s COP’ - reversing the trends in closing space for civil society from the local to the global level.

  For more information and interview requests please contact:

  Lyndal Rowlands (English)
  Natalia Gomez Peña (English, Spanish)

  Download: English | Spanish

• NORWAY: ‘On top of being environmentally irresponsible, deep-sea mining is unlikely to be profitable’

  CIVICUS speaks with Martin Sveinssønn Melvær, Materials and Industry Lead at the Bellona Foundation, about the bill recently passed by Norway’s parliament to allowcommercial-scale deep-sea mining.

  The Bellona Foundation is an independent civil society organisation that seeks to meet climate challenges by identifying and implementing sustainable environmental solutions.

  What’s wrong with commercial-scale deep-sea mining, and what should be done about it?

  The main problem with deep-sea mining is that it is starting up too fast, without fundamental knowledge about impacts on biology, ecosystems and carbon sinks. It entails a high risk of severe environmental consequences such as massive carbon emissions, the degradation of fish stocks and the extermination of potentially key species – including some that, for all we know, could have provided a cure to the next pandemic.

  Exploration and mining should be banned until the science base is sufficient to understand their impacts and how to mitigate them, and until preservation areas have been established. If science turns out to show that deep-sea mining can be done responsibly, it should be allowed to proceed, but it would still have to be strictly regulated.

  A second problem is the way deep-sea mining has been pushed in Norway. The government vastly exaggerates the amounts of mineral resources in Norwegian waters. The Geological Survey of Norway has stated that the Norwegian Offshore Directorate’s estimates have not been done according to established standards and they are exaggerated and therefore misleading. Independent experts have supported this claim and pointed out that if a private company had used a similar method to the Offshore Directorate, it would have qualified as fraud.

  A third problem is timing. The rush to allow deep-sea mining is based on a gross miscalculation. Seabed minerals are presented as a solution to the shortage of metals needed for the green transition. But forecasts by the International Energy Agency and other serious sources indicate that the mineral bottleneck, in which mineral supply will have problems meeting demand, will last about 10 or 15 years, while the most optimistic estimates indicate that commercial seabed mining in Norwegian waters will only be able to start between 15 and 25 years from now. The technology needed for deep-sea mining is still very immature and history shows that it takes many years of development to move new technology to an industrial scale. At Bellona, we believe the solution to the mineral bottleneck is not deep-sea mining but a strong focus on circularity combined with more sustainable mining practices on land.

  Why has the Norwegian government rushed to allow commercial-scale deep-sea mining?

  It’s difficult to understand why the Norwegian government would rush this process. My impression is that it’s overly eager to find a new industry that can create jobs as the oil industry declines, not realising, or not wanting to realise, that on top of being environmentally irresponsible, deep-sea mining is unlikely to be profitable. Even the main Norwegian oil company, Equinor, has warned against deep-sea mining and referred to the precautionary principle, which calls for the adoption of precautionary measures when scientific evidence about an environmental or human health hazard is uncertain and the stakes are high.

  Something that should also be factored in is strong pressure by Offshore Norge, the oil industry’s lobbying organisation. Although the main oil companies have not shown much interest in deep-sea mining, Offshore Norge has promoted it very actively. You could call it ‘petroholism’. Our government is used to giving the oil industry everything it wants.

  How have Norwegian environmental organisations advocated against the bill?

  We have participated in public hearings and drawn media attention to the major knowledge gaps and flawed governmental process. We have met with politicians and presented the facts, and although many politicians have listened, the government managed to gather enough support to pass the bill.

  Thanks to our advocacy, the bill passed in a slightly improved version that requires parliament to approve the first mining licences before mining can start. This gives us further space for continuing advocacy. We will keep fighting to stop licensing when time comes for parliament to discuss their approval.

  How have key stakeholders reacted to the new law?

  There has been a lot of criticism of the Norwegian process from various sources. Norwegian companies such as Morrow Batteries have signalled that they don’t want seabed minerals, while others, such as Storebrand Asset Management, have directly criticised the process.

  At the European level, many have reacted strongly. European Parliament members have voiced criticism. Two famous French activists, alongside actor Lucas Bravo, have criticised the process and travelled to Norway to protest. An online petition by Avaaz gathered more than 550,000 international signatures.

  Deep-sea mining should be stopped until current knowledge gaps have been filled. We encourage everyone to support a global moratorium on deep-sea mining.

  ---

  Civic space in Norway is rated ‘open’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Bellona through itswebsite or Facebook page, and follow it onTwitter andInstagram.

• Nuevo documento sobre las restricciones que sufren los activistas que luchan contra el cambio climático
  • El activismo ambiental es peligroso y, con demasiada frecuencia, mortal. Esto puede empeorar a medida que la creciente crisis climática agrava el acceso a los recursos naturales.
  • Millones de personas han marchado este año pidiendo el fin de la injusticia climática, pero en todo el mundo solo el 4 por ciento de la población mundial vive en países donde los gobiernos respetan adecuadamente las libertades de asociación, reunión pacífica y expresión, según el Monitor CIVICUS.
  • Aunque la COP 25, que se celebrará en Madrid del 2 al 13 de diciembre, debía ser la "COP de la gente", no pudo encontrar un hogar en América Latina, que sigue siendo la región más peligrosa del mundo para defender el medioambiente

  Millones de personas salieron a las calles en 2019 pidiendo el fin de la injusticia climática, pero en la primera línea de la crisis y en las Naciones Unidas, valientes activistas continúan siendo silenciados deliberadamente. Este nuevo documento de posición "Silenciando a los Testigos: activismo climático desde la primera línea hasta la ONU" detalla cómo las personas que hablan por la justicia climática son amenazadas e intimidadas con violencia, leyes represivas, juicios frívolos y campañas de desinformación. En lugar de responder a las demandas del movimiento climático por una respuesta más ambiciosa y justa a la crisis climática, los gobiernos eligen sofocar sus voces.

  En octubre, cuando la sociedad civil chilena pidió al gobierno que retirara a los militares de las calles antes de la COP 25, el gobierno de Piñera respondió cancelando de la noche a la mañana esta reunión central. El retiro de Chile como anfitrión de la COP refleja una tendencia preocupante,  después de que Brasil decidió no alojar la COP 25 y Polonia, la anfitriona de la COP 24, impuso restricciones a las movilizaciones públicas y limitó la participación de la sociedad civil acreditada.

  El escrutinio por parte de la sociedad civil y las contribuciones a las conversaciones sobre el clima de la ONU son vitales en un año en que millones de personas marcharon por las calles exigiendo el fin de la inacción climática. Los recientes desarrollos en las negociaciones climáticas de la ONU, incluida la eliminación del histórico informe de 1.5 grados del IPCC de las negociaciones, bajo la presión de estados como Arabia Saudita, muestran la necesidad vital de que la COP 25 sea la primera 'COP de la gente', y que se reviertan las tendencias del cierre del espacio cívico para la sociedad civil desde el nivel local hasta el global.

  Para obtener más información y solicitudes de entrevistas, comuníquese con:

  Lyndal Rowlands (Inglés)

  Natalia Gomez Peña (Inglés, Español)

  Descargue:  Español | Inglés

• Observations on the quest to build back better

  SDG Knowledge Hub’s interview with Mandeep Tiwana, Chief Programmes Officer

  • Five years since the passage of the SDGs, the impulse in many quarters is still to scale up existing approaches, rather than to push for fundamental changes in how our societies and economies function to better realize rights.
  • In addition, there are worrying signs that COVID-19 emergency restrictions could be used as a smokescreen for a broader crackdown on dissent, which would undermine accountability for the 2030 Agenda.
  • Countries that appear to have done better are ones that have empathetic leaders who have been inclusive in their policy responses and have involved civil society in decision making.

  The SDG Knowledge Hub spoke with Mandeep Tiwana, Chief Programmes Officer at CIVICUS, about his assessment of responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and impacts on the 2030 Agenda. Mandeep highlights the persistence of “MDG mindsets” and an increase in censorship and surveillance. He also suggests five ways to build a better post-pandemic world.

  Read full interview in SDG Knowledge Hub

• Outcomes & reflections from the UN Human Rights Council

  Joint statement at the end of the 41st Session of the UN Human Rights Council

  By renewing the mandate of the Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), the Council has sent a clear message that violence and discrimination against people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities cannot be tolerated. It reaffirmed that specific, sustained and systematic attention is needed to address these human rights violations and ensure that LGBT people can live a life of dignity. We welcome the Core Group's commitment to engage in dialogue with all States, resulting in over 50 original co-sponsors across all regions. However, we regret that some States have again attempted to prevent the Council from addressing discrimination and violence on the basis of SOGI.

  This Council session also sent a clear message that Council membership comes with scrutiny by addressing the situations of Eritrea, the Philippines, China, Saudi Arabia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This shows the potential the Council has to leverage its membership to become more effective and responsive to rights holders and victims. 

  The Council did the right thing by extending its monitoring of the situation in Eritrea. The onus is on the Eritrean Government to cooperate with Council mechanisms, including the Special Rapporteur, in line with its membership obligations. 

  We welcome the first Council resolution on the Philippinesas an important first step towards justice and accountability. We urge the Council to closely follow this situation and be ready to follow up with additional action, if the situation does not improve or deteriorates further. We deeply regret that such a resolution was necessary, due to the continuation of serious violations and repeated refusal of the Philippines – despite its membership of the Council– to cooperate with existing mechanisms. 

  We deplore that the Philippines and Eritrea sought to use their seats in this Council to seek to shield themselves from scrutiny, and those States who stood with the authorities and perpetrators who continue to commit grave violations with impunity, rather than with the victims.

  We welcome the written statement by 22 States on Chinaexpressing collective concern over widespread surveillance, restrictions to freedoms of religion and movement, and large-scale arbitrary detention of Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. We consider it as a first step towards sustained Council attention and in the absence of progress look to those governments that have signed this letter to follow up at the September session with a resolution calling for China to allow access to the region to independent human rights experts and to end country-wide the arbitrary detention of individuals based on their religious beliefs or political opinions.

  We welcome the progress made in resolutions on the rights of women and girls: violence against women and girls in the world of work, on discrimination against women and girls and on the consequences of child, early and forced marriage. We particularly welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Girls under its new name and mandate to focus on the intersections of gender and age and their impact on girls. The Council showed that it was willing to stand up to the global backlash against the rights of women and girls by ensuring that these resolutions reflect the current international legal framework and resisted cultural relativism, despite several amendments put forward to try and weaken the strong content of these resolutions. 

  However, in the text on the contribution of developmentto the enjoyment of all human rights, long standing consensus language from the Vienna Declaration for Programme of Action (VDPA) recognising that, at the same time, “the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights” has again been deliberately excluded, disturbing the careful balance established and maintained for several decades on this issue. 

  We welcome the continuous engagement of the Council in addressing the threat posed by climate changeto human rights, through its annual resolution and the panel discussion on women’s rights and climate change at this session. We call on the Council to continue to strengthen its work on this issue, given its increasing urgency for the protection of all human rights.

  The Council has missed an opportunity on Sudanwhere it could have supported regional efforts and ensured that human rights are not sidelined in the process. We now look to African leadership to ensure that human rights are upheld in the transition. The Council should stand ready to act, including through setting up a full-fledged inquiry into all instances of violence against peaceful protesters and civilians across the country. 

  During the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial and summary executions, States heard loud and clear that the time to hold Saudi Arabia accountable is now for the extrajudicial killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. We recall that women human rights defenders continue to be arbitrarily detained despite the calls by 36 States at the March session. We urge States to adopt a resolution at the September session to establish a monitoring mechanism over the human rights situation in the country. 

  We welcome the landmark report of the High Commissioner on the situation for human rights in Venezuela; in response to the grave findings in the report and the absence of any fundamental improvement of the situation in the meantime, we urge the Council to adopt a Commission of Inquiry or similar mechanism in September, to reinforce the ongoing efforts of the High Commissioner and other actors to address the situation.

  We welcome the renewal of the mandate on freedom of peaceful assembly and association. This mandate is at the core of our work as civil society and we trust that the mandate will continue to protect and promote these fundamental freedoms towards a more open civic space.

  We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Belarus. We acknowledge some positive signs of re-engagement in dialogue by Belarus, and an attempted negotiation process with the EU on a potential Item 10 resolution. However, in the absence of systemic human rights reforms in Belarus, the mandate and resolution process remains an essential tool for Belarusian civil society. In addition, there are fears of a spike in violations around upcoming elections and we are pleased that the resolution highlights the need for Belarus to provide safeguards against such an increase.

  We welcome the renewal of the quarterly reporting process on the human rights situation in Ukraine. However, we also urge States to think creatively about how best to use this regular mechanism on Ukraine to make better progress on the human rights situation.

  The continued delay in the release of the UN databaseof businesses engaged with Israeli settlements established pursuant to Council resolution 31/36 in March 2016 is of deep concern.  We join others including Tunisia speaking on behalf of 65 states and Peru speaking on behalf of 26 States in calling on the High Commissioner to urgently and fully fulfil this mandate as a matter of urgency and on all States to cooperate with all Council mandates, including this one, and without political interference.

  Numerous States and stakeholders highlighted the importance of the OHCHR report on Kashmir; while its release only a few days ago meant it did not receive substantive consideration at the present session, we look forward to discussing it in depth at the September session. 

  Finally, we welcome the principled leadership shown by Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, in pursuing accountability for individual victims of acts of intimidation and reprisalsunder General Debate Item 5, contrasting with other States which tend to make only general statements of concern. We call on States to raise all individual cases at the interactive dialogue on reprisals and intimidation in the September session. 

  Signatories:

  1. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
  2. DefendDefenders (the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
  3. Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
  4. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
  5. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
  6. International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
  7. Center for Reproductive Rights 
  8. ARTICLE 19
  9. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
  10. Human Rights House Foundation 
  11. CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
  12. Franciscans International 
  13. Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
  14. Amnesty International
  15. Human Rights Watch
  16. International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) 
• Pacific Island leaders are tightening the screws on press freedom, dissent

  By Josef Benedict, CIVICUS  civic space research officer. 

  It’s not only climate change and rising sea levels that threaten the lives and well-being of Pacific Islanders. Rising levels of official intolerance of dissent and free speech across the region poses a threat to the well-being of their democracies.
  Read on: Asian Correspondent

• PAPUA NEW GUINEA: ‘If we allow seabed mining everyone is at risk’

  Following a year marked by massive mobilisation around the climate emergency, CIVICUS is interviewing civil society activists, leaders and experts about the main environmental challenges they face and the actions they are taking. CIVICUS speaks withJonathan Mesulam, spokesperson for the Alliance of Solwara Warriors and a campaigner on issues relating to experimental deep-sea mining, climate change and logging in Papua New Guinea (PNG).

  The Alliance of Solwara Warriors is an anti-mining alliance of local communities in areas affected by deep-sea mines in PNG and across the Pacific. It has organised theresistance  against seabed mining since 2009, when the controversial deep-sea mining project Solwara 1 was proposed to mine mineral-rich hydrothermal vents on the floor of the Bismarck Sea. The alliance also launched alegal case against the project in PNG's courts. In November 2019, the company behind Solwara 1, Nautilus, was declared bankrupt and it is uncertain if the project will continue.

  

  Can you tell us about the Alliance of Solwara Warriors and how it was formed? What are its main objectives and why is it opposed to seabed mining?

  The Alliance of Solwara Warriors was formed in 2016 by representatives of communities along the Bismarck Sea who are threatened by seabed mining. The members of the Alliance also include the Papua New Guinea Council of Churches, international and local environmental civil society organisations (CSOs), educated elites, local community-based organisations and a few politicians who support the call to ban deep-sea mining. Our main objective is to ban deep-sea mining in PNG waters and the Pacific and we also call for the cancellation of exploration and mining licences.

  Seabed mining is a new frontier for the mining industry and is very risky as our understanding of the seabed is very limited. The first discovery of deep-sea minerals was in 1979 and we have no idea how the seabed ecosystem operates. If we allow seabed mining, then we may just call for the end of humanity, as the complexity of the food chains on which humans depend will be affected, putting human life at risk. I think we should all stand in solidarity to ban deep-sea mining in our area because the sea has no boundaries and when the marine ecosystem is affected, everyone everywhere is at risk.

  Environmental and legal groups have urged extremecaution around seabed mining, arguing there are potentially massive – and unknown – ramifications for the environment and for nearby communities, and that the global regulatory framework is not yet drafted, and is currently deficient.

  How has the campaign against seabed mining progressed? What have you achieved?

  The campaign against seabed mining has been very challenging and at times we almost lost hope because of the heavy presence of Nautilus, the company behind the Solwara project, at the project site for the last eight years. However, there has been growing opposition from coastal communities, local and international CSOs and churches, especially the Catholic and Lutheran churches. An environmental law firm, the Centre for Environment and Community Rights, filed a legal case and we were able to stop this project from going into full-scale mining operation. Every concerned individual and organisation has played a very important role in their respective areas of work, such as finance, the environment and politics, to stop this project.

  During the Pacific Islands Leaders Forum, held in Tuvalu in August 2019, the Pacific Island leaders also called for a 10-year moratorium on deep-sea mining. But that is not what we wanted. We arecalling for a total ban on deep-sea mining.

  What challenges has the alliance faced in recent years?

  Funding activism is a big challenge. To travel to a community to talk to people you need to pay for a bus. You have to raise funds to enable mobility and communication. The second major challenge is capacity development. As members of an alliance we deal with that by distributing challenges; we then help each other and strategise in our workshops so that we can learn from each other. Networking helps with this a lot, and the support of partners such as Bismark Ramu Group, Caritas PNG and the PNG Council of Churches.

  We have also received a lot of support from CSOs and individuals outside the country. People and organisations including Sir David Attenborough, the Deep Sea Mining Campaign, Mining Watch Canada and Caritas New Zealand, just to name a few, have really supported the campaign in terms of funding, providing information on the campaign and lobbying with banks and financers not to support such a project. As a result, we have seen positive results in our work on the ground.

  Another challenge we face is that some people in the community support deep-sea mining, and this creates division. We have had to work hard at times to really convince people that this project is not good. It's only through persistent, dedicated work and making information available so that people have all the facts, not just the perspective that the company wants people to know, that people will really support you. Once people know the truth, then you get the support.

  What is the state of civic freedoms – the freedom of association peaceful assembly and expression – in Papua New Guinea?

  The media in PNG is controlled by the state and they only publish stories that are good for the government. Sometimes our stories are not covered, and we end up publishing them through social media. The right to the freedom of association in PNG really depends on the kind of issues that are being addressed. On some very sensitive issues, the police will not allow people to organise and take part in protests. Our ability to carry on our work alsodepends on the kind of companies we are dealing with. Some companies have spent millions of Kina – the PNG currency – to stop environmental human rights defenders, and going against them is obviously risky.

  Civic space inPapua New Guinea is rated as ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor

  Get in touch with the Alliance of Solwara Warriors through itsFacebook page.

• Paris Climate Agreement comes into force: A review of the UN's Climate Change Conference in Marrakech (A.K.A. COP22)

  One year since the historic Paris Climate Change Agreement, over 20,000 leaders from government, business and civil society met in Marrakech, Morocco for the 22nd Conference of the Parties (COP22). The two week conference reviewed progress on implementation, produced additional commitments and examined the relationship between the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals. 

  In the beginning, there was a lot of enthusiasm with the ratification of the Paris agreement in a record time just before the negotiations started. However, in the third day of the Conference participants were hit by the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States. Despite reassuring remarks on the resilience of the Paris Agreement and the possibility of leadership on the local and regional levels, concerns and uncertainty about the future of climate cooperation were present throughout the event.

• PHILIPPINES: ‘Climate change is no longer theoretical. It is a fact of life and a threat to our lives’

  CIVICUS speaks about the impacts of climate change and the response of climate activism with Ronan Renz Napoto, founder and executive director of Balud, a youth-led movement from the Philippines that promotes ecological consciousness by engaging with and empowering young people.

  Why did you become a climate activist?

  What made me a climate activist was the trauma of living through one of the strongest-ever recorded super typhoons in the world’s history. Almost 10 years ago, on 8 November 2013, super typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) hit the Philippines. It provoked a lot of global discussions on how climate change was affecting the global south, particularly the Philippines and Southeast Asia.

  The typhoon caused enormous damage and killed more than 6,000 people. We lost relatives and friends, our homes were destroyed and our livelihoods were compromised.

  Because typhoons usually hit around this time of year, now we are all anxious again. We are constantly reminded of how our lives and livelihoods were affected, and of how nothing changed for the better despite our efforts and the global media coverage we got.

  We have continued to experience similarly destructive typhoons. Extreme weather events have affected our farmers’ crops and diminished the catch of our fishers. Climate change has resulted in greater food insecurity and poverty.

  In the Philippines, climate change is no longer theoretical. It is a fact of life and a threat to our lives. Before the typhoon we had dreams and hopes for the future, but we have had to push them aside to focus on surviving and fighting back.

  What is climate activism focusing on in the Philippines?

  We want to hold polluters accountable for their emissions and for the neglect of their climate responsibilities. In the Philippines, environmental defenders are often threatened and risk their lives when protecting our resources from corporations’ greed. To hold them accountable for their emissions, numerous organisations and activists have submitted a landmark petition to the Philippines’ Commission of Human Rights. The next step should be to force them to decrease their emissions drastically and eventually stop emitting carbon.

  We push for reparations so that communities are properly compensated, and for funding for adaptation. The transition to renewable energy sources must be a just transition, ensuring that communities’ vulnerability to disaster decreases. Otherwise catastrophes will hit over and over, and the response will continue to be reactive, limited to responding to what has happened instead of producing proactive and preventative solutions. It’s not enough to go help communities after the disaster has happened – disasters must be prevented from happening.

  But the resources of the Philippines are limited, so we will need external support. Since this crisis is the global north’s doing, it is only right for them to support our adaptation.

  We want global north governments to acknowledge their responsibility for their pollution and its effects on the global south. If you look at emissions data, you will find the Philippines contributes very little compared to the big polluters of the global north. But the biggest impacts of their pollution are being felt in the Philippines and the rest of the global south. This is unfair.

  But it’s not just our issue; it is a global issue. What has happened – and continues to happen – in the Philippines is an experience shared with many other countries, particularly in the Pacific, where people are very susceptible to sea level rise, typhoons and cyclones.

  That’s why the leaders of nine small island states have gone to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the United Nations’ maritime court, to ask it to determine if carbon dioxide emissions absorbed by the oceans can be considered pollution, and if so, what obligations countries have to prevent it.

  Why is it important to have carbon dioxide emissions absorbed by oceans recognised as pollution?

  In an archipelagic country like the Philippines, which is surrounded by waters, livelihoods depend on the bounty of marine resources. Whatever comes into the ocean that is not part of its natural ecosystem is bad. Pollution of our marine sanctuaries, oceans and beaches translates into health risks and economic losses. It affects sea life and therefore our food security.

  Carbon dioxide is a pollutant, but it is not specifically mentioned in international law on maritime pollution, and as long as it is not recognised as such, it creates no obligations for states.

  Will you take part in the upcoming COP28 climate summit?

  I don’t think I will be taking part in COP 28 since it is far away, expensive and very hard to get funding for. I think this will be the case for most climate activists in the Philippines. Unsurprisingly, one of our main concerns is getting a good amount of representation in the ongoing discussions on climate change. Apart from the lack of funding, it is always hard to get into global climate discussions because there is not a dedicated space for us.

  However, I look forward to seeing planned actions being implemented. So far, the results of the summits have been mostly about acknowledging concerns and making statements. Now it’s time to ensure that decisions are operationalised and states – particularly the rich and powerful ones that are part of the problem – are held to account. We cannot continue planting trees on one side while allowing them to cut down trees on the other side. That way we’ll never make any substantial progress.

  ---

  Civic space in the Philippines is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Balud through itsFacebook page, personalemail andLinkedIn.