jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-lhnqsi").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-lhnqsi").fadeIn(1000);});});
How COVID-19 and measures to curb its spread have amplified the vulnerabilities of civilians caught in conflict and raised new challenges for protection actors like humanitarian workers, peacekeepers, and human rights defenders was the subject of a May 28th IPI virtual policy forum. Co-hosting the event with IPI were the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the Permanent Missions of the United Kingdom, Estonia, Niger, and Canada to the UN.
“The health crisis is quickly becoming a protection crisis,” declared Natacha Emerson of OCHA. “Collective and urgent action is needed to strengthen the protection of civilians so that we can tackle the pandemic and safeguard humanity. For people already struggling to cope with conflict, displacement, and hunger, COVID-19 adds another layer of insecurity, and in conflict settings the virus can easily grab hold and overwhelm crippled health care systems with deadly consequences.”
IPI Senior Fellow Dr. Namie Di Razza, who heads IPI’s Protection of Civilians (POC) program, introduced the discussion with the observation that COVID-19 “has had major disruptive effects, but it has not stopped atrocities, violence and abuse. On the contrary, the pandemic has raised new protection concerns for humanitarian workers, peacekeepers, and human rights defenders.”
Ilze Brands Kehris, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that human rights violations were rapidly rising in conflict situations in the world, with parties to the conflicts exploiting the circumstances of the pandemic to their advantage, further endangering the most vulnerable people. “So it is in this time of global crisis that universal values and norms, as guaranteed in international law, need more urgent attention than ever, and it also directly engages the responsibilities of states and other duty bearers to uphold their obligations under the law.”
She said that people infected with COVID-19 or suspected of being infected were being stigmatized, attacked and denied medical assistance, and even media representatives who report on the virus were being targeted. “Efforts to fight impunity are significantly impacted [and] governments are focused on the health response, so investigations and trials are de facto put on hold,’’ she said. As a consequence, there could be a premature release of grave human rights violators under the pretext of decongesting prisons for public health reasons. “The UN system must do better in better protecting people in pulling together different mandates and operational activities into one coherent whole under one and the same understanding of protection, putting human rights at the center.”
Laetitia Courtois, Head of Delegation to the UN, International Committee of the Red Cross, said that her organization was used to dealing with epidemics, but never with a pandemic of this “scope and impact.“ She broke down ICRC’s major protection concerns, and outlined four “asks” that would serve to mitigate and alleviate the repercussions of COVID-19:
Heather Barr, Acting Co-Director, Women’s Rights Division, Human Rights Watch, said the COVID-19 crisis had become “a global crisis for women.” She said there had been “huge spikes” in gender-based violence; waves of restrictions, staff shortages and shutdowns at clinics that provide sexual reproductive services; loss of income and jobs for health care workers, 70 percent of whom are women; and widespread closures of schools for girls, which adversely affects rates of child marriage, pregnancy, and sexual violence.
She pointed to water and sanitation as an example of how COVID-19, gender, and preexisting crises “come together in a really harmful way. We all know that washing your hands is important, but often they can’t safely access toilets, latrines, and water points because of concerns about sexual violence, poorly designed camps, lack of freedom of movement for women and girls, and that’s really a crisis in this situation.” She added that long term recovery planning must be gender responsive and “has to think about what impact there’s been on women and how we repair that.”
Caitlin Brady, Director of Programme Development and Quality for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Save the Children, gave a stark account of the effects of epidemics on children, based on past experience. “Border closures and impacts on trade will increase economic hardship everywhere, of course, creating a range of risks, one of them hunger, malnutrition, and associated diseases, and vulnerability to sexual exploitation and abuse, as we saw in the West African Ebola response. We’ll see very weak health facilities, which are already directly targeted by armed groups or are collateral damage when explosive weapons are used in populated areas. Having to respond not just to existing illness and childbirth, but also to COVID-19 will increase excessive maternal and infant mortality.” She forecast that children would be subject to recruitment by armed groups and harsh labor like working in mines.
It was imperative, she said, that school feeding programs be maintained even if the schools themselves were closed. “Yes, the pandemic is a public health emergency, but it’s exacerbating existing protection crises and patterns of marginalization. It’s important that while countries try to respond to the epidemic, they continue with commitments to address child protection and other humanitarian needs.”
Koffi Wogomebu, Senior Protection Adviser, UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA), said that steps to curb the virus like limitations on the ability to travel into the field were inadvertently impeding the peacekeeping mission’s POC work. “I just want to say that COVID-19 itself did not constitute a physical violence against civilians falling under our POC mandate, but it is seriously having direct and indirect consequences on the protection of civilians. Measures taken to protect public health such as scaling back activity to prevent the spread of the disease are certainly posing a serious risk to the protection of civilians.”
He said too that the 14 armed groups in the Central African Republic, despite the UN Secretary-General’s call for a global ceasefire, were exploiting the lockdown situation to advance their own aims. “We believe that they take advantage of the fact that we are no longer moving a lot to within their territory, and in doing so, they are committing some serious human rights violations.” In addition, he said, there was an “anti-MINUSCA sentiment” arising out of the misperception that it was the responsibility of the UN mission to slow the spread of the virus and produce a remedy. “This has a put another pressure on the mission,” he said.
James Roscoe, Acting Deputy Representative of the United Kingdom to the UN, said that the UK, working with other countries, had made four pledges in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak. He listed them as supporting an effective health response led by the World Health Organization (WHO); reinforcing resilience in the most vulnerable countries; pursuing treatments and vaccines; and helping to “shore up” the global economy. As for POC and the COVID-19 crisis, he said, the United Kingdom would work to expedite access and needed equipment and to guarantee “unfettered humanitarian access.”
In concluding remarks, Gert Auväärt, Deputy Permanent Representative of Estonia to the UN, lamented that some conflict parties have “sought to take advantage of the situation, and regrettably it has provided a pretext to adopt repressive measures for purposes unrelated to the pandemic.” The main message, he said, was that “we need more protection, not less.”
Mohammad Koba, Deputy Permanent Representative of Indonesia to the UN, observed that “what is more important now with the spread of coronavirus already and international cooperation is to support those who are most vulnerable to the virus, particularly in armed conflict.” Furthermore, he reiterated that Indonesia “fully support[s] the call for the immediate global ceasefire. It is an extremely important call for all parties to the conflict, to focus on the handling the impact of COVID-19, provide respite for civilians, facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and offer space for continued diplomacy.”
Abdou Abarry, Permanent Representative of Niger, remarked that “one of the unfortunate unintended consequences of COVID-19 is the worldwide alarming increase of gender-based violence and violence against our children,” which exacerbated existing inequalities “particularly in African countries where women constitute the majority of the work force.” He said that direct and indiscriminate attacks on schools had deprived over one half million African children of education. “An attack on education is an attack on the future,” he declared. Looking ahead, he said that when a safe and effective vaccine would be developed, “let it be the people’s vaccine, available to all. This would be a cornerstone of the POC agenda.”
Richard Arbeiter, Deputy Permanent Representative of Canada to the UN, commended participants for ensuring that the just concluded POC week “was not a casualty of COVID-19 as well.” He praised the POC community’s work, saying that “the POC community is very sophisticated and it has evolved over twenty years. I am amazed by how quickly all parts of this community has been able to identify and analyze the situations locally and what that means globally for all of us. [Panelists] had ground-truth reality recommendations, both to acknowledge what is working, where the gaps and inequalities have been exacerbated as well. It’s really quite something to stand back from it and see how quickly and ably we are able to figure out what needs to change in order for those that are most vulnerable to receive the support that they need.”
Dr. Di Razza moderated the discussion.
.content .main .entry-header.w-thumbnail .cartouche {background: none; bottom: 0px;} h1.entry-title {font-size: 1.8em;}On May 27th, the government of Sweden and IPI co-organized their first annual ministerial level discussion on women, peace and leadership. Ministers of the governments of France, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, and Tunisia, as well as a former minister from Yemen met to discuss opportunities for supporting women’s participation in peacebuilding during this time of a global pandemic. Together with the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations and representatives from civil society, participants committed to continue in their efforts to support women’s rights and women’s full and effective participation in all peace efforts.
In the virtual roundtable, conducted under the Chatham House rule of non-attribution, discussants pointed out that crisis responses often pushed gender considerations to the side, but that maintaining focus on the women, peace and security (WPS) agenda and supporting women’s participation in peacebuilding was critical. Central to the discussion was the concern that restrictions imposed as part of the pandemic response placed a particular burden on women. Speakers identified the need for responses to the COVID-19 crisis that addressed women’s protection and security, as the majority of healthcare workers are women, and because women faced a heightened risk of gender-based violence and limited access to sexual and reproductive health services.
Participants agreed that the 20th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) should be marked by a clear commitment to include women in peace and security efforts at all levels. Speakers encouraged the international community to sustain the ambition of this anniversary year into 2021 and beyond.
The discussion concluded with recommendations for state and multilateral leadership on WPS, including to support the UN secretary-general’s recent call for global ceasefire, along with the African Union’s Silencing the Guns initiative. Participants underscored the need to lead by example and include women in national peace processes, as well as to ensure international actors consult with and implement ideas from women in decision-making processes.
IPI Non-resident Senior Adviser Sarah Taylor was the moderator. IPI Vice President Adam Lupel provided opening remarks. This event is part of a larger project on women, peace, and leadership under IPI’s Women, Peace and Security program.
This ministerial-level discussion will inform the planning of this year’s High-Level Women, Peace, and Leadership Symposium, organized by IPI and the government of Sweden, that will take place around the time of the opening of the 75th session of the UN General Assembly in September 2020.
A growing literature recognizes treaty secretariats and other international bureaucracies as distinctive actors in global environmental governance. These actors exhibit varying degrees of autonomy, authority and influence on environmental governance processes and outcomes. This chapter reviews recent scholarship on international bureaucracies and highlights the distinct ways in which they exert influence beyond their narrow functional mandates. More specifically, this chapter highlights how international bureaucracies influence governance processes by deriving authority from structural characteristics of the international system, exerting influence from their ability to deliver specific administrative and governance functions and leveraging their organizational autonomy. The chapter outlines empirical and conceptual gaps in our understanding of how international bureaucracies function in global environmental governance, and argues that the dynamics of change in world politics may open new pathways of influence for these actors moving forward.
A growing literature recognizes treaty secretariats and other international bureaucracies as distinctive actors in global environmental governance. These actors exhibit varying degrees of autonomy, authority and influence on environmental governance processes and outcomes. This chapter reviews recent scholarship on international bureaucracies and highlights the distinct ways in which they exert influence beyond their narrow functional mandates. More specifically, this chapter highlights how international bureaucracies influence governance processes by deriving authority from structural characteristics of the international system, exerting influence from their ability to deliver specific administrative and governance functions and leveraging their organizational autonomy. The chapter outlines empirical and conceptual gaps in our understanding of how international bureaucracies function in global environmental governance, and argues that the dynamics of change in world politics may open new pathways of influence for these actors moving forward.
A growing literature recognizes treaty secretariats and other international bureaucracies as distinctive actors in global environmental governance. These actors exhibit varying degrees of autonomy, authority and influence on environmental governance processes and outcomes. This chapter reviews recent scholarship on international bureaucracies and highlights the distinct ways in which they exert influence beyond their narrow functional mandates. More specifically, this chapter highlights how international bureaucracies influence governance processes by deriving authority from structural characteristics of the international system, exerting influence from their ability to deliver specific administrative and governance functions and leveraging their organizational autonomy. The chapter outlines empirical and conceptual gaps in our understanding of how international bureaucracies function in global environmental governance, and argues that the dynamics of change in world politics may open new pathways of influence for these actors moving forward.
Although the EU’s readiness to respond to an unprecedented global crisis is laudable, our research findings confirm that after more than six decades of international development cooperation the ‘how’ of cooperation remains equally if not more important than the ‘what’. An effective international cooperation response to Covid-19 will in the first instance require urgent ‘damage control’. Yet its effectiveness ultimately rests upon critical inquiry into the ownership and sustainability of the response, necessitating a longer-term focus that justifies the policy domain’s existence as a dedicated area of public policy rooted in the requirements and priorities of southern partners.
This blog post is a part of a series of commentaries on the Covid-19 pandemic and the implications for the EU's global role.
Although the EU’s readiness to respond to an unprecedented global crisis is laudable, our research findings confirm that after more than six decades of international development cooperation the ‘how’ of cooperation remains equally if not more important than the ‘what’. An effective international cooperation response to Covid-19 will in the first instance require urgent ‘damage control’. Yet its effectiveness ultimately rests upon critical inquiry into the ownership and sustainability of the response, necessitating a longer-term focus that justifies the policy domain’s existence as a dedicated area of public policy rooted in the requirements and priorities of southern partners.
This blog post is a part of a series of commentaries on the Covid-19 pandemic and the implications for the EU's global role.
Although the EU’s readiness to respond to an unprecedented global crisis is laudable, our research findings confirm that after more than six decades of international development cooperation the ‘how’ of cooperation remains equally if not more important than the ‘what’. An effective international cooperation response to Covid-19 will in the first instance require urgent ‘damage control’. Yet its effectiveness ultimately rests upon critical inquiry into the ownership and sustainability of the response, necessitating a longer-term focus that justifies the policy domain’s existence as a dedicated area of public policy rooted in the requirements and priorities of southern partners.
This blog post is a part of a series of commentaries on the Covid-19 pandemic and the implications for the EU's global role.
The objective of the study is to provide an overview of the evolution of and the results achieved by EU development cooperation with Sub-Saharan Africa during the period 2013-2018. It aims to feed into further policy discussion and research inquiry, and complements the Dutch government’s regular reporting to parliament of results achieved in EU development cooperation.
The study, commissioned by the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, presents a structured literature review of EU development cooperation with Sub-Saharan Africa over the period 2013-2018. It addresses three main questions:
Policy commitments: What were the EU’s intentions as regards development cooperation with Sub-Saharan Africa during the period 2013-2018?
Funding: To what extent were these intentions reflected in allocation patterns during the same period?
Results: What do we know about the results of EU development cooperation with SSA during the period under review?
The objective of the study is to provide an overview of the evolution of and the results achieved by EU development cooperation with Sub-Saharan Africa during the period 2013-2018. It aims to feed into further policy discussion and research inquiry, and complements the Dutch government’s regular reporting to parliament of results achieved in EU development cooperation.
The study, commissioned by the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, presents a structured literature review of EU development cooperation with Sub-Saharan Africa over the period 2013-2018. It addresses three main questions:
Policy commitments: What were the EU’s intentions as regards development cooperation with Sub-Saharan Africa during the period 2013-2018?
Funding: To what extent were these intentions reflected in allocation patterns during the same period?
Results: What do we know about the results of EU development cooperation with SSA during the period under review?
The objective of the study is to provide an overview of the evolution of and the results achieved by EU development cooperation with Sub-Saharan Africa during the period 2013-2018. It aims to feed into further policy discussion and research inquiry, and complements the Dutch government’s regular reporting to parliament of results achieved in EU development cooperation.
The study, commissioned by the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, presents a structured literature review of EU development cooperation with Sub-Saharan Africa over the period 2013-2018. It addresses three main questions:
Policy commitments: What were the EU’s intentions as regards development cooperation with Sub-Saharan Africa during the period 2013-2018?
Funding: To what extent were these intentions reflected in allocation patterns during the same period?
Results: What do we know about the results of EU development cooperation with SSA during the period under review?