Global
-
A Free and Diverse Media is Essential to Protecting Democracy in the 21st Century
By Danny Sriskandarajah
Images of protestors flooding the streets – whether in Caracas, Bucharest, Istanbul or Washington DC – send a powerful message to those in power, especially when they are plastered across newspaper front pages. In far too many countries, the response has been to shut down the space for citizens to organise and undermine the ability for dissent to be reported. Even in the most mature of democracies, the ability of citizens to organise and mobilise, and the freedom of journalists to report when they do, are being undermined. In an era of rising populism and spreading curbs on fundamental freedoms, we need to do more to protect civic rights and press freedom.
Read on: Inter Press Service
-
Are Rising Attacks On Human Rights Defenders The ‘New Normal’?
By Mandeep Tiwana
At CIVICUS, a global civil society alliance working to strengthen citizen participation, we receive bad news of attacks on compatriots every day. In the past few years, with nauseating regularity, we’ve heard from colleagues who’ve been arbitrarily imprisoned, had their organisations’ starved of resources or have had their life’s work to create just, inclusive and sustainable societies ridiculed by crafty politicians.
Read on: Inter Press Service
-
As global tensions rise, the UN stands on the sidelines
By Mandeep Tiwana
It’s tempting to lay the blame for unresolved conflicts at the UN’s door but the reality is that the UN can only deliver when it has the support of member states and the buy-in of citizens.
Read on: Jerusalem Post -
As NGOs speak out, expect clampdowns to grow
By David Kode
Across the globe, from East Africa to eastern Europe, there is a trend of increasing attacks on non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that support reforms governments are opposed to.
Read on: Open Global Rights
-
Can INGOs push back against closing civic space? Only if they change their approach.
By Danny Sriskandarajah
Civil society is facing a sustained, multi-faceted, global onslaught. According to the CIVICUS Monitor, fundamental civic freedoms are being severely restricted in an unprecedented number of countries. The operating environment for civil society organisations is becoming more hostile across the world and many of us in the organised bits of civil society – including in the biggest INGOs – are looking for ways to respond. But, those who want to ‘save’ civic space need to tread carefully.
Read on: From Poverty to Power
-
CIVICUS: #WhyWeMarch
On Saturday, 21 January 2017, millions will gather in Washington D.C. and in hundreds of other cities around the world to take part in the Women’s March. CIVICUS stands in solidarity with the demonstrators who in the spirit of democracy, seek to honour the champions of human rights, dignity, and justice, and reject the sexist and bigoted rhetoric used during the US election against minorities and excluded groups.
Globally, the sister marches carry a message of solidarity in celebration of our multiple, diverse and intersecting identities and reject all forms of patriarchy and the discriminatory systems that support them worldwide. We will not rest until women have parity and equity at all levels of leadership in society.
-
Civil Society Meeting Calls for Solidarity, Radical Change to Deal with Global Crises
By Amy Taylor
Our strategies have failed us. We can no longer respond to the crises facing us in the same way. We have to be more radical, more creative — together — to build the future we want. This was one of the resounding messages to emerge from a key global gathering of more than 700 leading thinkers, influencers and doers from more than 100 countries in Suva, Fiji in early December.
Read on: Inter Press Service
-
COP28: ‘To truly end the fossil fuel era, bold visions must now turn into historical action on the ground’
CIVICUS speaks with Kaisa Kosonen, Senior Policy Advisor at Greenpeace Nordic, about the outcomes of theCOP28 climate summit and the vital role played by civil society in setting the agenda for fossil fuel phase-out. Kaisa was Greenpeace International delegation’s lead at COP28.
What were the opportunities for civil society to influence the negotiations at COP28?
I think the biggest influence civil society made was in agenda setting. Fossil fuel phase-out was never an official agenda item at this COP, but we managed to make it the number one topic for the global stocktake, and the main benchmark for success.
Within the United Nations (UN) space at COP28 civil society was guaranteed a certain level of participation and access. However, areas dedicated to civil society, such as side event and press conference rooms and pavilions for civil society organisations, were noticeably separated from negotiation areas, government press conferences and media zones.
On top of this, a unique aspect of COP28 was the record number of fossil fuel lobbyists who participated, securing more passes than all delegates from the 10 most climate-vulnerable nations combined. This influx of lobbyists introduced a different dimension of economic influence to the summit.
Were climate activists, both local and international, able to exercise their right to protest?
Greenpeace chose to focus its activities exclusively within the UN area, known as the blue zone. Within this area, protests were allowed if prior permission had been sought and granted. However, we encountered increased constraints and a lot of back-and-forth this time, with some unfounded wordsmithing on banner texts. Other groups also mentioned that their protests were redirected to less relevant locations and some activists experienced an atmosphere of intimidation.
It is crucial that the UN Secretariat and security safeguard civil society spaces in COPs. Freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly should not be subject to negotiation with the host country’s presidency.
What’s your assessment of the COP28 final declaration?
The COP28 outcome delivered a long-awaited signal on ending the fossil fuel era, along with a call to massively scale up renewables and energy efficiency this decade. But it fell short in some aspects, containing potentially dangerous distractions and loopholes. The lack of sufficient means to achieve the proposed goals raises questions about the practical implementation of the commitments. Real progress will be determined by actions taken on the ground.
Civil society played a crucial role setting the agenda at COP28, successfully steering the focus of world governments towards the urgent need for a fossil fuel phase-out aligned with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 degrees warming limit. This shift in attention, sustained for almost two weeks, marked an unprecedented achievement during a UN climate summit. There’s no way back now.
Despite its weak language, the declaration sent a clear signal that the fossil fuel era will come to an end. The practical requirement for ‘transitioning away from fossil fuels’ to achieve ‘net zero by 2050’, if implemented sustainably, would mean a near-complete phase-out of fossil fuels within the next three decades. To truly end the fossil fuel era, bold visions must now turn into historical action on the ground.
The call for countries to contribute to the phase-out in a ‘just, orderly, and equitable manner’ emphasises the responsibility of wealthy states to take the lead and support global south countries in their transition.
The operationalisation and initial capitalisation of the loss and damage fund also mark a turning point for global climate action – but only if it is built on.
In the year ahead, the fund must be set up so that funding can start flowing to those who need it. Permanent, predictable funds must be established to meet the growing needs, flowing from the countries and corporations that have contributed most to the climate crisis towards those that have contributed less but are disproportionately impacted on by its effects. We must prevent further losses and damages through a fast and fair fossil fuel phase-out.
What further steps need to be taken for the COP28 outcomes to have a tangible and positive impact?
With this COP28 outcome we now have new global benchmarks for aligning action with the Paris Agreement 1.5 degrees limit and climate justice. This crucial roadmap includes accelerating global emission cuts, increasing reliance on renewables and energy efficiency, expediting the transition away from fossil fuels, putting an end to deforestation and fostering the growth of climate finance. Focus must now shift to real action on the ground.
Over the next year, states face a critical period where they must formulate new national climate targets and plans to deliver their fair contributions to all these global goals. Simultaneously, countries need to collaboratively design the future landscape of international climate finance, moving beyond existing commitments to fill the growing gaps.
What are your thoughts on the choice of Azerbaijan as COP29 host?
The choice of Azerbaijan as the host for COP29 raises many concerns, given its economy’s very high reliance on oil and gas exports, and poor track record on human rights. The upcoming COP should primarily focus on delivering climate finance to those made vulnerable and lacking capacity, and on redirecting financial flows away from problems and towards solutions. Key to this is holding the fossil fuel industry and major polluters accountable for the damage they have caused, which won’t be easy with a host that’s highly invested in fossil fuels.
That said, as the history of this process shows, when a determined group of progressive countries come together to drive change, and they are supported by the global climate movement, breakthroughs can happen. So the priority now is to ensure that by COP29 next year, countries will have taken key steps to accelerate the fair and swift transition away from fossil fuels on the ground, and that they’re ready to take the bull by the horns and make polluters pay.
Get in touch with Greenpeace through itswebsite,Instagram andFacebook accounts, and follow@Greenpeace and@kaisakosonen on Twitter.
The opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the views of CIVICUS.
-
From Venezuela to US: People power
By Danny Sriskandarajah
Goldman Sachs’ decision to bailout the Venezuelan government has, unsurprisingly, attracted widespread global condemnation. The transnational firm stands to make a potential windfall profit as Venezuelans continue to face empty shelves and government water cannons daily. Usually it is international financial institutions (IFIs) such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) not transnational companies, which occupy the dubious space of government bailouts.
Read on: New Internationalist
-
GLOBAL ARMS TRADE: ‘By halting the supply of weapons, states can help prevent human rights violations’
CIVICUS discusses civil society efforts to control arms proliferation with Hine-Wai Loose, Director of Control Arms, a global civil society coalition with over 300 partners in all regions of the world.
Despite the extensive international effort that led to the 2013 Arms Trade Treaty, challenges remain in regulating the international arms trade and ensuring compliance with international law. Rising tensions only encourage increases in military spending, which is evidenced in the arms industry’s ongoing expansion. Civil society advocates such as Control Arms are pushing for disarmament, stronger arms controls and greater compliance and accountability.
Why’s disarmament important, and why’s it so difficult to achieve?
Disarmament can make a significant contribution to building global peace and security. When countries such as Russia and the USA agree to reduce the size of their nuclear arsenals through treaties such as the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, it fosters trust and cooperation between nations.
Disarmament and arms control measures also play a crucial role in protecting civilians caught in the crossfire of armed conflict or subjected to serious human rights abuses committed with guns, for instance. A good example of an instrument with the potential to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure during armed conflicts is the Declaration on Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas, the first international instrument to explicitly recognise that the use of explosive weapons in populated areas has serious humanitarian consequences.
Weapons are also an expensive business. Disarmament can free up resources that can be redirected to economic and social wellbeing.
However, when tensions between countries are as high as they are today, it is particularly challenging to advance disarmament and arms control treaties and norms. In these moments of elevated tensions there can be an increased risk of miscalculations or mistakes that could result in the threat or use of a nuclear weapon.
Another major challenge is that states invest heavily in arms, using them as an insurance policy against uncertainty. As a result, the ever-expanding arms industry undermines efforts to create a more stable environment. Once tensions eventually subside, it will be difficult to reverse the arms industry’s increased capacity.
What’s the role of the arms industry in fuelling conflicts?
In the wake of the events of 7 October, the Wall Street Journal reported a six per cent increase in the value of US arms industry stocks, highlighting the inextricable link between the arms industry and the war machine.
According to the United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the arms industry has clear human rights obligations. But the industry is reluctant to accept responsibility for the impact of its products on human rights.
In western countries, the arms industry often claims to defend democracy, borders and human rights. If these claims were sincere, the arms industry would ensure its operations comply with human rights standards. This would be crucial to reducing the negative impact of arms production and distribution on global conflicts.
How does Control Arms work for effective arms control?
Control Arms was established to build an international coalition to support the negotiation of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This treaty aims to regulate the international arms trade, prevent the transfer of arms that could facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law and reduce the human suffering caused by irresponsible arms transfers.
Our first objective is amplifying the voices of civil society in the arms control dialogue. We aim to ensure that those affected by irresponsible arms transfers and those working on the ground are heard and included in deliberations on the international arms trade.
Our second objective focuses on strengthening the rules governing international conventional arms transfers. We seek to strengthen the ATT’s norms and rules by engaging directly with states and advocating for stronger regulations.
The third objective is to promote transparency and accountability in the global arms trade. An independent project of Control Arms is the ATT Monitor, through which an annual report assessing reports submitted under the ATT and providing valuable insights into the implementation of the treaty is produced.
We participate in multilateral forums, from the ATT Conferences of States Parties to the Human Rights Council, to raise awareness how real-world cases of arms transfers that are not in compliance with international law impact on civilians. We explain how arms transfers affect human rights and international humanitarian law in places such as Gaza, Myanmar and Yemen. We identify states involved in questionable arms transfers and seek to hold them accountable for their actions. Engaging in such advocacy is not always easy, and nor is it necessarily welcome, but it is essential to ensuring that multilateral deliberations are informed by reality and states are called to account for their actions.
What are the ATT’s key provisions?
The ATT places international humanitarian law and international human rights law at the centre of arms transfers decisions. Article 6 prohibits transfers contrary to a state’s obligations under international law, or in cases where a state party has knowledge at the time of the authorisation that the weapons would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity and grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
If the provisions of Article 6 do not apply, then before a state can transfer weapons it must undertake an assessment under Article 7. Under this assessment, an exporting state party is required without discrimination to ‘assess the potential’ that the weapons ‘would contribute to or undermine international peace and security’ or could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law. I am oversimplifying the risk assessment, but this is it in a nutshell.
Even states that have not joined the ATT still have obligations under international customary law, which includes countries such as the USA. The four Geneva Conventions and customary international law obligate all states to ensure respect for international humanitarian law. By ending their supply of items at risk of being used in conflict, major arms exporting states can help bring an end to serious violations of international humanitarian law and most importantly to the suffering being witnessed in places such as Gaza, Haiti, Myanmar and Sudan.
What are the challenges to the ATT’s effectiveness?
There are a range of challenges, and these largely concern compliance with the ATT. For example, some national courts refuse to deal with legal challenges to government decisions to transfer weapons, considering them a matter of government policy rather than law. This limits the ability of the judiciary to hold governments accountable for arms transfers that may violate international law. Another problem being encountered is that some states announce a suspension of arms transfers but continue to transfer weapons, ammunition and parts and components under contracts established before suspension was announced. A third example is when companies originally established in countries that have strict regulations set up offshore entities in countries with less stringent controls so they can continue to transfer weapons to questionable contexts.
What further agreements or regulations are needed?
A key area of focus in disarmament and arms control right now is the regulation of new and emerging technologies such as lethal autonomous weapons systems. Given the rapid development of new technologies, this focus on autonomy is entirely understandable.
Guns, however, remain the primary weapon of choice in everyday violence, organised crime and gender-based violence. Despite their impact, they are subject to limited international regulation, such as the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons. While this has helped states implement gun control legislation, a more systematic and rigorous approach is needed.
Unfortunately, the prevailing view, which has spread from the USA to other parts of the world, is that people have a right to bear arms. To prevent human rights abuses and violations committed with guns, states must enact robust legislation on gun ownership and control, and ensure it is backed by strong criminal penalties.
Get in touch with the Control Arms through itswebsite orFacebook andInstagram page, and follow@controlarms on Twitter.
-
Global assault on our basic freedoms signposts a dangerous return to the past
By Danny Sriskandarajah
Ask yourself these four questions. Can I criticise my head of state on Twitter? Can I join a human rights group to campaign for change? Can I take part in a peaceful protest outside government buildings? And can I do all of these things while knowing that my government will not just protect me but will actually enable my right to organise, speak out and take action on issues that matter to me?
If you answered “yes” to all of these questions, then congratulations. You are in the very lucky, and sadly very tiny, minority of people who live in the 26 countries which, today, have “open” civic space.
Read on: Huffington Post
-
Global challenges, local responses
By Danny Sriskandarajah and Mandeep Tiwana
We are facing a global emergency of civic space. This is now a universal phenomenon, no longer restricted to autocracies and fragile democracies. While there is growing interest in the nature and impact of these restrictions, there is limited analysis of the deeper drivers of the phenomenon, and even less about how to support local responses.
-
How to Undermine Democracy – Curtail Civil Society Rights
By Cathal Gilbert, Dom Perera, and Marianna Belalba
Recent elections and referendums in a growing number of countries from Turkey to the USA and beyond are producing leaders and policies, which directly threaten some of the core principles of democracy. In an increasing number of established and fledgling democracies, we see ruling parties violating the fundamental freedoms to speak-out, rally behind a cause and get involved in a social movement.
Read on:Inter Press Service
-
It's time for G20 leaders to embrace civil society
By Cathal Gilbert
There is a growing list of critical problems in the G20's inbox, namely a faltering global economy, terrorist threats in a majority of G20 member states, and a patched-up climate change agreement. Solving these problems will take more than 20 heads of state and their economic ministers. The role of the private sector is widely acknowledged, but the power of civil society is often dismissed. Addressing these expensive and expansive issues requires the will and contribution of the people.
Read on: Al Jazeera
-
NACIONES UNIDAS: “Conseguir un sólido tratado mundial sobre los océanos sería nada menos que histórico”
CIVICUS conversa con Ellie Hooper, de Greenpeace Aotearoa, sobre el rol de la sociedad civil en las negociaciones en curso para elaborar un Tratado de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Océanos. Greenpeace es una red mundial de activismo ambiental que incluye 26 organizaciones nacionales y regionales independientes en más de 55 países de todos los continentes, así como un organismo de coordinación, Greenpeace Internacional, con sede en Ámsterdam, Países Bajos. Greenpeace utiliza la protesta pacífica y la comunicación creativa para poner en evidencia los problemas ambientales globales y promover soluciones para crear un futuro verde y pacífico.
¿Por qué es importante tener un tratado sobre los océanos?
Un tratado mundial sólido sobre los océanos podría revolucionar la forma en que los océanos son gestionados, poniendo fin a una gobernanza fragmentaria que no ha logrado proteger adecuadamente nuestro planeta azul.
Bien hecho, uno de los principales logros del tratado sobre los océanos sería la creación de zonas marinas protegidas en alta mar. Dentro de estas zonas estarían prohibidas actividades humanas destructivas como la pesca industrial y la minería. En la actualidad no existe ningún mecanismo legal para crear zonas totalmente protegidas fuera de las jurisdicciones nacionales, lo que se ha convertido en un verdadero problema. El océano enfrenta numerosas amenazas y para protegerlo necesitamos adoptar una visión holística que aborde múltiples factores de riesgo.
Conseguir un tratado sólido sería nada menos que histórico. Los científicos nos dicen que para evitar los peores impactos de la crisis climática y de biodiversidad al menos la tercera parte de los océanos del mundo deberían estar protegidos hacia 2030. Un tratado fuerte nos daría el mecanismo para hacerlo. El océano es un enorme sumidero de carbono y hasta este momento ha absorbido gran parte del calentamiento global. También alberga una biodiversidad asombrosa, produce el oxígeno que respiramos, estabiliza el clima y es fuente de alimento para millones de personas en todo el mundo.
En suma, mantener al océano sano es vital para nuestra supervivencia y para el funcionamiento de nuestro planeta. Pero cada vez más investigaciones demuestran que está decayendo. Para revertir esta situación tenemos que dar un paso adelante y protegerlo reduciendo las múltiples presiones que padece.
La ciencia demuestra que las áreas marinas totalmente protegidas son una de las mejores herramientas que tenemos para ayudar al océano a recuperarse y prosperar. Cuando se establecen en las zonas correctas –es decir, en lugares reconocidos por su alta biodiversidad, sus rutas migratorias o sus ecosistemas únicos– la salud del océano mejora y la vida marina florece. Esto tiene efectos positivos en todas las dimensiones, desde el número de criaturas que habitan el mar hasta la capacidad del océano para absorber carbono.
¿Por qué el proceso del tratado está llevando tanto tiempo?
Se trata de un esfuerzo de conservación enormemente ambicioso. Conseguir que un tratado sea aprobado implica que los países de todo el mundo se pongan de acuerdo con sus términos, lo cual no es una tarea fácil.
Aunque es decepcionante que los representantes de los Estados no hayan logrado cerrar el tratado en la última ronda de negociaciones celebrada en agosto, esto no significa que el acuerdo no vaya a producirse. En la última reunión se avanzó mucho, y los países mostraron más flexibilidad y comprensión de la urgencia. Se les acabó el tiempo, pero no perdemos la esperanza de que este acuerdo histórico esté a la vuelta de la esquina. Lo que hay que hacer ahora es lograr que los Estados se reúnan sin demora y resuelvan sus últimos desacuerdos.
¿Cómo han trabajado por el tratado la sociedad civil en general, y Greenpeace en particular?
La sociedad civil ha ejercido gran presión a favor de este tratado, y muchas organizaciones de todo el mundo han presionado para que se materialice en su mejor versión.
Greenpeace ha participado activamente en el proceso del tratado desde sus comienzos. Envía una delegación a cada ronda de negociaciones y ha llevado a cabo una campaña mundial de concientización sobre las amenazas que enfrenta el océano y sobre cómo un tratado podría contrarrestarlas. Hemos adoptado un enfoque doble, cultivando una opinión pública favorable al acuerdo al tiempo que seguimos trabajando entre bambalinas, hablando con ministros y otros funcionarios públicos en todas las regiones donde estamos activos.
Logramos que millones de personas de todo el mundo se unieran a la campaña por un tratado fuerte. Lo han hecho de diversas maneras, desde la firma de peticiones, el envío de cartas y la grabación de mensajes de video hasta la participación en movilizaciones. Mucha gente de todo el mundo está involucrada en el tema y su compromiso ha sido fundamental para llegar hasta aquí.
Para nosotros en Greenpeace Aotearoa, ha sido inspirador ver la cantidad de personas que están dispuestas a defender la protección de los océanos, y sabemos que sus voces han sido escuchadas. Sus repetidos llamamientos al liderazgo neozelandés para que diera su apoyo a un tratado fuerte llevaron a Nueva Zelanda a sostener una posición mucho más progresista en las negociaciones. Esa es la clase de poder que tiene la gente cuando actúa colectivamente. Cuando trabajamos juntos, podemos lograr auténticos cambios.
También nos hemos reunido regularmente con la delegación neozelandesa en las negociaciones del tratado, así como con el ministro de Asuntos Exteriores, y nos comunicamos constantemente con ellos sobre cómo debe ser el tratado para proteger al océano para las generaciones futuras.
¿Qué pueden hacer las organizaciones y activistas de la sociedad civil para que el tratado sea aprobado?
Las negociaciones del tratado deben reanudarse urgentemente. En la última ronda se acabó el tiempo para acordar todos sus términos, pero ya casi se ha logrado. Así que depende de los y las activistas y organizaciones de la sociedad civil seguir presionando a los líderes mundiales para que den prioridad a la reanudación de las negociaciones y la consecución del tratado. No queremos que quede relegado al último lugar de la agenda: es demasiado importante para ello.
En términos más prácticos, es clave seguir llamando la atención sobre la necesidad de este tratado. Puedes hacerlo compartiendo contenidos en internet, firmando petitorios o escribiéndole al ministro de Asuntos Exteriores de tu país para destacar lo importante que es conseguir este tratado. Ninguno de nosotros puede sobrevivir sin un océano sano, por lo que todos tenemos que contribuir a protegerlo.
Póngase en contacto con Greenpeace Aotearoa a través de susitio web o su página deFacebook, y siga a@GreenpeaceNZ y @EleanorRowena en Twitter.
-
NACIONES UNIDAS: “La sociedad civil ha sido excluida de las negociaciones del tratado global de los océanos”
CIVICUS conversa con John Paul Jose sobre el rol de la sociedad civil en las negociaciones en curso para un tratado de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) para la protección de la biodiversidad en alta mar. John es un activista medioambiental y climático de la India que actualmente es uno de los jóvenes embajadores de la Alianza por la Alta Mar (High Seas Alliance, HSA) y miembro del Consejo Asesor de Políticas Juveniles de la Alianza para los Océanos Sostenibles. La HSA es una red que incluye a más de 40 organizaciones de la sociedad civil (OSC) y a la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza. Su objetivo es crear una voz común y fuerte para la conservación de los océanos.
¿Cuál es la importancia del tratado propuesto?
El 71% de la superficie de la Tierra está cubierta por océanos, el 64% de los cuales son de alta mar. El océano regula el clima global y mantiene la vida en el planeta. Retiene gran parte de las emisiones de carbono históricas y acumulativas: el fitoplancton, los bosques marinos y las ballenas, en particular, desempeñan un papel importante en la retención del carbono en el océano. Sin embargo, el océano ha sido sistemáticamente ignorado en los esfuerzos para abordar la crisis climática y la pérdida de biodiversidad, que se han centrado casi exclusivamente en la tierra.
Dado que es un bien común global, la alta mar está regida en gran medida por la Organización Marítima Internacional, un organismo de la ONU creado en 1948 para regular la navegación, y por la Convención de la ONU sobre el Derecho del Mar, de 1982, y su organismo intergubernamental autónomo, la Autoridad Internacional de los Fondos Marinos, creada en 1994.
Pero la alta mar está experimentando amenazas sin precedentes que no estaban previstas cuando se alcanzaron esos acuerdos, tales como la acumulación de plásticos, residuos químicos e industriales, la acidificación, la minería de aguas profundas, la pesca de arrastre de fondo y, por último pero no por ello menos importante, los impactos generales del cambio climático. El aumento de las temperaturas y la sobreexplotación de hábitats y especies marinas aumentan el peligro de colapso de los océanos.
Por eso es urgente elaborar un tratado mundial sobre la biodiversidad más allá de las jurisdicciones nacionales: un Tratado de Alta Mar. Esto proporcionaría la base legal para la conservación de los ecosistemas marinos y la protección contra la extinción de innumerables especies aún por descubrir. En la actualidad apenas está protegido el 1% de la alta mar, y el tratado pretende llegar al 30% para 2030.
Esto sería el equivalente del Acuerdo de París para los océanos. Mediante la conservación marina y el uso sostenible de los recursos marinos, podrá preservar el ciclo del carbono. Al crear zonas marinas protegidas, contribuirá a la restauración de los hábitats marinos y a la reposición de los recursos marinos de los cuales muchas comunidades de todo el mundo dependen para su subsistencia. Además, contribuirá a la resiliencia climática global. Una vez que entre en vigor, muchas prácticas perjudiciales para el océano dejarán de existir dentro de las zonas protegidas.
¿Por qué se está demorando tanto el proceso del tratado?
Han pasado 15 años desde que comenzaron las negociaciones, pero en muchos aspectos del tratado ha faltado cooperación. Las diferencias tendrían que resolverse en el período entre sesiones, y debería finalizarse pronto un tratado que incluya todos los aspectos en los que se ha llegado a acuerdos, dejando espacio para futuras enmiendas a medida que se vayan resolviendo las diferencias en torno de los elementos más controvertidos. Y las conferencias intergubernamentales deberían celebrarse con más frecuencia.
Un elemento que se está debatiendo es la distribución equitativa entre los Estados de los recursos genéticos marinos, que son esenciales para las industrias farmacéutica, cosmética, agrícola y otras. El actual énfasis en el reparto de beneficios es una ilusión, ya que no sabemos lo suficiente sobre dichos beneficios, pues gran parte del océano permanece inexplorada. Pero es un dato de la realidad que diez países acaparan el 71% de la pesca mundial y el 98% de las patentes de códigos genéticos de vida marina en alta mar. La avaricia y la falta de voluntad de esos pocos países para compartir los beneficios y su tecnología y conocimientos sobre el mar, y la evidente preocupación que esto genera entre los países menos poderosos, son algunas de las grandes razones del estancamiento.
También está estancada la definición de los criterios para las evaluaciones de impacto ambiental y la implementación de áreas marinas protegidas. Lo que está en juego son los intereses de las industrias mineras de aguas profundas y de pesca industrial.
Sin embargo, el proceso del tratado ha tenido mucho éxito en convocar al debate y abrir negociaciones. Por el momento, más de 100 Estados se muestran fuertemente comprometidos con el tratado en su forma actual y algunos, como Costa Rica, están dando ejemplo avanzando a nivel regional, abriendo así nuevas vías para la conservación.
Es probable que el tratado se finalice en la próxima sesión, por lo que habría que hacer más esfuerzos para financiar a las delegaciones de países del sur global para que se expresen con una voz más fuerte y aporten más equilibrio a las negociaciones.
¿Cómo han abogado por el tratado la sociedad civil en general, y la HSA en particular?
Desde su creación, la HSA ha abogado por la protección de por lo menos el 50% de los océanos, involucrando a tomadores de decisiones, expertos y actores de la sociedad civil. Ahora estamos enfocados en sostener el impulso de las conferencias intergubernamentales, ya que estamos ante una oportunidad única para conseguir un tratado legalmente vinculante que proteja el planeta cambiando la forma de gobernar la alta mar. Este proceso ha creado mucha conciencia sobre la importancia de la alta mar, por lo que gobiernos que antes no estaban familiarizados con el tema ahora apoyan un tratado sólido.
Dicho esto, es importante subrayar que solamente los Estados pueden ser partes del tratado, por lo que las voces no estatales no tienen cabida en las negociaciones. Las negociaciones del tratado son en gran medida un debate a puertas cerradas que excluye a la sociedad civil y a la comunidad de expertos. Muchos de nosotros ni siquiera podemos presenciar las negociaciones en directo. y sólo accedemos a los documentos una vez que se han cerrado las discusiones.
También existen claras desigualdades entre Estados. Muchos Estados con recursos limitados traen delegaciones muy pequeñas y carecen de los conocimientos necesarios para participar de forma productiva en los debates. Sería muy importante para todas las partes involucradas que la sociedad civil pudiera aportar su experiencia al proceso.
¿Qué pueden hacer la sociedad civil y el activismo ambiental para lograr la adopción del tratado?
Hay límites claros a lo que podemos hacer para acelerar la adopción del tratado. Creemos que es crucial contar con un tratado lo antes posible, y es mejor tener uno incompleto que no tener ninguno. Por ello, los Estados deben avanzar en todos los temas en los que se ha llegado a acuerdos y diseñar un proceso de enmiendas para integrar otros temas y preocupaciones de las partes interesadas en el futuro.
Las OSC y el activismo pueden contribuir al proceso trayendo a la mesa diversas perspectivas. Dado que las negociaciones actuales son debates cerrados entre Estados, a los que no acceden la sociedad civil, los científicos y el sector privado, sólo podemos hacerlo mediante una labor de incidencia con Estados receptivos que sí están sentados a la mesa.
También podemos hacer campaña para aumentar la presión sobre el proceso, introduciendo los temas que aborda el tratado en la agenda del movimiento global por el clima y generando participación ciudadana. Recursos como el Treaty Tracker de la HSA brindan información útil sobre el tratado y las negociaciones. Esta información debe llegar a todo el mundo y empoderar a la gente para que exija a los líderes mundiales que finalicen el tratado, y para que pidan a sus propios gobiernos que los escuchen en el proceso de formación de política ambiental.
Un tratado proporcionaría una base legal para la acción, pero incluso en su ausencia, Estados, comunidades y empresas pueden actuar para proteger la alta mar. Muchos países ya tienen áreas marinas protegidas dentro de sus jurisdicciones nacionales, y mediante procesos de participación pública pueden establecer más. La sociedad civil debe participar en estos procesos, pero no debe estar limitada por las fronteras nacionales. Ya es hora de que traspasemos las fronteras y aboguemos también por los bienes comunes globales.
Póngase en contacto con la Alianza por la Alta Mar a través de susitio web o su página deFacebook, y siga a@HighSeasAllianc y a@johnpauljos en Twitter.
cambio climático
-
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
-
OLYMPICS: ‘This was supposed to be a unifying event, but the reality is always more complicated’
CIVICUS discusses the political, economic, social and human rights implications of the recent Olympic Games with UK-based academic, journalist and author David Goldblatt, whose latest book isThe Games: A Global History of the Olympics.
The Olympics have long been a global celebration of sport and unity, but recent editions have sparked intense debate about their impact on human rights. While the Paris 2024 Games sought to highlight gender inclusivity, environmental initiatives and urban development, they also generated significant controversies. The exclusion of Russia and Belarus but not Israel and the displacement of people from excluded groups raised questions about consistency, fairness and respect for human rights. As the focus shifts to Los Angeles 2028, concerns remain about the lasting effects of the extensive security measures put in place for the Games.
What are the Olympics for, and why are they important?
The purpose of the Olympic Games has evolved over time. In the original model conceived by Pierre de Coubertin in the late 19th century, they were a neo-Hellenic celebration of Victorian athletic amateurism and a space for personal diplomacy among the elite. More than 120 years on, both sport and society have changed, and so has the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) vision of the Games. Today, they are a cosmopolitan celebration of humanity through sport.
Since abandoning amateurism in 1992, the IOC has linked the Games to several international issues, including support for universal human rights, international peace-making through the idea of an Olympic Truce, environmental sustainability with a focus on carbon neutrality and progressive urban development. Whether it succeeds in all these areas is another matter.
The Olympic Games have also made significant progress in terms of gender inclusiveness, as they are no longer a male-only event. In recent years, there have been particular efforts to include more women as competitors and in television coverage, with Paris 2024 the first gender-equal Olympics. However, the issue of how transgender athletes should be treated remains unresolved, with highly controversial cases such as the Algerian boxer whose gender was questioned. This is a global sports problem, not just an IOC problem, and there isn’t a clear way out.
The Games are supposed to be a unifying event, but the reality is always more complicated. The fact that Belarus and Russia were banned from taking part while Israel was accepted caused a great deal of controversy. It also seemed the focus of the event wasn’t on the athletes. Apart from global stars like Simone Biles and Léon Marchand, much of the attention was given to rapper Snoop Dogg, which is questionable for a multi-billion-dollar sporting event. The Games seem to be moving away from de Coubertin’s original vision and turning into a commercial television spectacle.
What were the 2024 Olympics criticised for?
The exclusion of Belarus and Russia raised questions of consistency, particularly in the light of Israel’s participation. While Israel argues it hasn’t violated international law and should therefore be treated differently to Russia, most of the world – and particularly the global south – disagrees. The IOC needs to rethink its criteria for participation, as there will always be ongoing conflicts and there should be clear rules about who can and can’t participate.
Despite these problems, France handled protests reasonably well. Compared to the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, where pro-Iranian, pro-migrant worker and pro-LGBTQI+ protesters were severely repressed, pro-Palestinian protesters were allowed to make a statement with their T-shirts and flags. And it was definitely better than the 2008 Olympics in China, where there was no room for any kind of protest, even as the human rights situation was getting worse.
Paris 2024 also showcased a diverse, multicultural and multiracial France, both through its athletes and in the opening ceremony. This display of diversity drew criticism from conservative groups and the French far right. But one thing is clear: once the Games began, attention shifted away from these issues, making it difficult for them to gain media visibility.
What is your overall assessment of the event?
It’s a complex assessment. One of the biggest problems with the Olympics is that they tend to cost much more than is budgeted for. But Paris 2024 managed to keep the budget under control. France aimed for a more modest Olympics, with a budget of around US$9 billion, making it one of the cheapest editions compared to London, Rio and Tokyo. Half of the money came from public funds and the rest from IOC sponsorship and ticket sales.
Another positive aspect of Paris 2024 was that, unlike many other Olympic Games, it was explicitly linked to an existing urban development project. The only other notable case was Barcelona 1992, which was integrated into a wider urban plan. While the Paris model was not as comprehensive as Barcelona’s, it definitely stood out. Development plans focused on Saint Denis, France’s poorest region, with new public transport links and social housing in the Olympic Village expected to benefit the area.
However, the extent to which these developments will contribute to a greener, more equitable Paris is still under debate. Houses in the Olympic Village are likely to be sold at prices local people can’t afford, and it’s not clear that the new jobs will benefit the people of Saint Denis. It’s likely to end up with a process of gentrification similar to what happened in Vancouver and London, where most of the housing is now owned by the Qatar Investment Authority and sold at prices locals can’t afford.
What was the environmental cost of these Olympics?
Paris made considerable efforts to reduce its carbon footprint. Although we don’t have the final data yet, it’s likely to be a significant improvement on previous editions – with the sole exception of Tokyo, where the COVID-19 pandemic prevented many people travelling. The Paris venues were powered by renewable energy, high environmental standards were applied to the construction of the Olympic Village and car use in the city was severely restricted during the event.
However, air travel is still a problem. Hosting an international event such as the Olympics involves people travelling from all over the world and results in a very large carbon footprint, estimated at 1.5 million tonnes or more. Attempts have been made in the past to offset this by planting forests or investing in renewable energy, but the carbon credit market has proved ineffective. We must ask whether it’s justifiable to burn as much carbon as a Caribbean island consumes in a year just to host a global sporting event and transport dressage horses. Yet this is an issue no one in the global sports industry or any other major international event is willing to address.
Were there any major human rights concerns?
There are at least two major areas of concern. One is the large number of unhoused or poorly housed people evicted from the city in the run-up to the Games. At least 12,500 migrant workers and residents of temporary camps were moved to other parts of France, far from their communities and jobs. This number is likely to have increased in recent months and the situation remains a tragedy.
Clearing the streets to create the illusion that there isn’t a housing problem before staging a global event is simply wrong. But this wasn’t the first time – there have been similar evictions in Tokyo and even more in Rio. With Los Angeles 2028 on the horizon, we can expect an even higher number of evictions given the city’s large unhoused population.
Civil society organisations advocating for the unhoused made their voices heard in the run-up to the Games, with much media coverage. But once the spectacle began, they struggled to make headlines and advocacy was quickly overshadowed by the sport.
Another human rights issue concerns the extensive security measures for the Paris Olympics, which involved a complex process of zoning Paris, with strict policing and rules about who could enter certain areas near the venues. If you lived in one of these areas, you needed a QR code. It was a very complicated and intrusive system, but for all the grumbling, it worked reasonably well. More worrying was the use of artificial intelligence, CCTV cameras and facial recognition technology to control crowds, raising questions about privacy and the long-term use of these measures.
The French government and police promised to dismantle all these special security measures after the Games, but there is reason for scepticism. Similar measures were introduced for previous Olympics, such as Athens 2004 and London 2012, and remain in place today. And the enormous amount of money spent on Rio’s various police and paramilitary forces for riot control ahead of the 2016 games wasn’t returned either.
What are your expectations for the next Olympics?
We’re going to have another four years of global warming, so Los Angeles 2028 is going to be very hot. Extreme heat could have a significant impact on events and spectators, as seen at Tokyo 2020, where a marathon had to be cancelled due to the weather.
The high number of unhoused people in Los Angeles is another major concern. While Mayor Karen Bass has plans to address the ‘issue’, the situation is likely to worsen in the run-up to the Games, with multiple evictions, as we’ve seen in Paris.
On the positive side, Los Angeles 2028 has promised to be a car-free Olympics. It’s difficult to see how this could be achieved in a country with such a strong car culture. But Los Angeles has public transport and a light rail network, so it’s a question of getting locals out of their cars and onto trains and buses. Whether this ambitious goal can be achieved remains to be seen, but it could be an opportunity for a lasting change in habits and more sustainable urban development.
Civic space in France is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Follow@davidsgoldblatt on Twitter.
-
Promoting prosperity means starting with the basics
By Danny Sriskandarajah
Emerging challenges such as the impending rise of automation calls for new and innovative solutions. Yet sometimes, new problems can also call for old solutions. This is the case with universal basic income, an old idea, which has gained recent renewed interest by experts and policymakers – an idea which could help reduce equality and, by reducing economic insecurity, also promote empowered citizens. Two years into Agenda 2030, the world is changing in ways that would have been hard to predict when the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were being agreed. From populist and protectionist politics, to rising inequality and climate change inaction, the changing political and economic landscape calls for bold and brave solutions.
-
Reclaiming civic space: global challenges, local responses
By Danny Sriskandarajah and Mandeep Tiwana
From attacks on human rights defenders to limits on civil society’s work, we are facing an emergency on civic space. As evidence from the CIVICUS Monitor suggests, threats to civic freedoms are no longer just happening in fragile states and autocracies, but also in more mature democracies. While there has been growing attention on how to respond to this phenomenon, we believe there needs to be more attention on underlying drivers and on supporting local responses. Civic space can’t be “saved” from the outside.
Read on: Open Global Rights
Página 1 de 2
- 1
- 2