Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

One of the lingering effects of the food price crisis of 2007-08 on the world food system is the proliferating acquisition of farmland in developing countries by other countries seeking to ensure their food supplies. Credit: Bigstock

By Baher Kamal
MADRID, Oct 22 2021 (IPS)

“Imagine that the land your family has worked for generations is suddenly stripped away from you, purchased by wealthy companies or governments to produce food or bio-fuels or simply as a profitable investment for other people, often far away. You watch on helplessly as vast tracts of land are cleared for mono-culture crops and rivers are polluted with run-off and chemicals.”

Unfortunately, this is happening all around the world – in particular in Africa, Latin America, Asia, Oceania and Eastern Europe.

Perhaps this is one of the most appropriate introductions to the worldwide extended practice of ‘land grabbing’, as mentioned by a global grassroots organisation, founded in 1989 to prevent the disappearance of local food cultures and traditions, and “counteract the rise of fast life and combat people’s dwindling interest in the food they eat, where it comes from and how our food choices affect the world around us.”

 

What is land grabbing?

Land grabbing is a practice consisting of the purchase or lease of large tracts of fertile land by public or private entities, a phenomenon that rose significantly following the 2007-2008 world food economic crisis, describes the Slow Food organisation.

"Imagine waking up one day to be told you’re about to be evicted from your home—being told that you no longer have the right to remain on land that you’ve lived on for years. And then, if you refuse to leave, you will be forcibly removed. For many communities in developing countries, this is a familiar story"

Today land grabbing involves millions of hectares, equivalent to an area as big as Spain, and it continues to spread relentlessly, it adds.

“Transferring large parcels of agricultural land away from local communities threatens food sovereignty and their very existence. It also jeopardises the environment and biodiversity by favouring intensive monoculture farming reliant on fertilisers and pesticides.”

Maybe you would like to know that, since its beginnings, Slow Food has grown into a global movement involving millions of people in over 160 countries, working to ensure that everyone has access to good, clean and fair food.

“One of the lingering effects of the food price crisis of 2007-08 on the world food system is the proliferating acquisition of farmland in developing countries by other countries seeking to ensure their food supplies.”

In other words, land grabbing is the practice of large-scale land acquisitions: the buying or leasing of large pieces of fertile land by private corporations or state-owned companies, governments, and individuals.

 

Who are land-grabbers?

Such private corporations, including the so-called “vulture funds”, are financial, business holdings dedicated to making large profits from buying agricultural lands, forests, real estate properties, mines for the extraction of all sorts of materials that are indispensable for large industries, mostly based in rich countries, in particular for giant technological corporations.

Let alone vast extensions of lands acquired or leased in developing countries, for the purpose of cultivating and exporting highly profitable commercial crops. Also of forests, to be exploited by timber industries.

The practice of land grabbing as used in the 21st century refers to large-scale land acquisitions or leasing for periods ranging between 25 years to 99 years, following the 2007–08 world food price crisis.

Through it, the purchasers pay an amount of money per hectare, and sometimes a portion of the food produced from such fertile soils.

In most cases the grabbing operations are done under a legal umbrella.

 

The impacts

The consequences of these practices are harsh.

In the case of grabbing farming lands, they imply the depletion of soil fertility, the use of huge amounts of often scarce water resources —water grabbing—, the pollution of both soils and water courses with chemicals, the shrinking of local farming, the expropriation of a high number of hectares, all this, among others, leading an increasing food insecurity in developing countries and, thus, their growing dependence of food imports.

 

What extension?

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) estimated in 2009 that between 15 and 20 million hectares of farmland in developing countries had changed hands since 2006.

The estimated value has been calculated for IFPRI’s 2009 data to be 15 to 20 million hectares of farmland in developing countries, worth about 20 billion-30 billion US dollars.

For its part, the Land Portal reports that ‘investments’ made by investors within their home country and after stripping these out found only 26 million hectares of transnational land acquisitions which strips out a lot of the Asian investments.

Other reports inform that Brazil, with 11 percent, is among the largest developing countries targeted, followed by Sudan with 10 percent.

 

Who are the big grabbers?

GRAIN or the international non-profit organisation that works to support small farmers and social movements in their struggles for community-controlled and biodiversity-based food systems, says that the United States, the United Arab Emirates and China all constitute around 12 percent of these deals, followed by India with 8 percent; the UK with 6 percent; South Korea with 5 percent; South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Malaysia all with 4 percent.

Meanwhile, estimates cited by Wikipedia concerning the scope of land acquisition, published in September 2010 by the World Bank, showed that over 460,000 square kilometres or 46,000,000 hectares in large-scale farmland acquisitions or negotiations were announced between October 2008 and August 2009 alone, with two-thirds of demanded land concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa.

It also provides citations indicating that investors can be generally broken down into three types: agribusinesses, governments, and speculative investors. Governments and companies in Gulf States have been very prominent along with East Asian companies.

And that many European- and American-owned investment vehicles and agricultural producers have initiated investments as well. These actors have been motivated by a number of factors, including cheap land, potential for improving agricultural production, and rising food and bio-fuel prices.

Also that food-driven investments, which comprise roughly 37 percent of land investments worldwide, are undertaken primarily by two sets of actors: agribusinesses trying to expand their holdings and react to market incentives, and government-backed investments, especially from the Gulf states, as a result of fears surrounding national food security.

 

The truth about land grabs

Should all this not be sufficient, here is another explanatory introduction to the human impact of land grabbing as cited by Oxfam America:

“Imagine waking up one day to be told you’re about to be evicted from your home—being told that you no longer have the right to remain on land that you’ve lived on for years. And then, if you refuse to leave, you will be forcibly removed. For many communities in developing countries, this is a familiar story.”

In the past decade, adds Oxfam, more than 81 million acres of land worldwide—an area the size of Portugal—has been sold off to foreign investors. Some of these deals are what’s known as land grabs: land deals that happen without the free, prior, and informed consent of communities that often result in farmers being forced from their homes and families left hungry.

 

The global rush for land is leaving people hungry

Oxfam also explains that the 2008 spike in food prices triggered a rush in land deals.

“While these large-scale land deals are supposedly being struck to grow food, the crops grown on the land rarely feed local people. Instead, the land is used to grow profitable crops—like sugarcane, palm oil, and soy—often for export.”

In fact, it goes on, more than 60 percent of crops grown on land bought by foreign investors in developing countries are intended for export, instead of for feeding local communities. “Worse still, two-thirds of these agricultural land deals are in countries with serious hunger problems.”

Further to all the above, some questions arise. For instance, when developing countries’ rulers intend to formulate laws preventing land grabbing? What international laws have to say? And why are mainstream media all over the world not reporting about such a dramatic issue?… Why this heavy curtain of silence?

A farmer with her child in the outskirts of Kathmandu, Nepal, 2019. Credit : Forus

By Sarah Strack
PARIS, Oct 22 2021 (IPS)

Public development banks have committed to ramp up action to tackle climate change, to protect biodiversity, to promote human rights, to align their investments with the SDGs and the Paris Agreement, and to create spaces of dialogue with civil society, farmers, indigenous peoples, and communities affected by the projects that they, as banks, finance.

These words have been said in the beautiful setting of Rome’s Villa Aurelia and laid down in colorful ink on the website of the Finance in Common initiative. But will the banks really walk the talk?

Over 500 public development banks gathered on the occasion of the Finance in Common summit on October 19-20, just days ahead of the G20 summit and COP26.

Ahead of the summit, many civil society groups mobilized to push public development banks to put people’s interests first and to not fall back into the old economic paradigm of perpetual growth.

On paper, we seem to all agree that transformative change towards sustainability and resilience is paramount, but does the development finance community really have what it takes to change the status quo? We know that our current global challenges cannot be fixed by the time the banks gather again next year.

But we demand from public development banks to not pat each other on the back. The time has come to show results. As expressed by one panelist: “the diagnosis is there, the studies are there, now what we really need to do is put all this into action”.

Therefore, next year, we hope to see not only announcements by headquarter-based high-level representatives in grey suits, we would love to hear from those on the ground, how the projects have delivered for them, and for their communities; and what we can learn from that to make the bank’s investments better in the future.

Public development banks need to create inclusive spaces of dialogue with civil society and groups usually excluded from the decision-making table. Actions need to be visible and interactions transparent.

Meeting the current challenges requires bold action, new partnerships and a renewal in trust. As civil society leader and Forus’ Chair, Iara Pietricovsky, from Brazil, said in the opening session “the respect of people and the environment is not negotiable, if we want to leave no one behind,” and “no one can tackle these challenges alone or from an ivory tower”.

Next year, the Finance in Common summit will he hosted by the African Development Bank, and civil society organizations from the region already have a message to share. “In the African context, we need public development banks to listen to communities and to include civil society in all the steps of the decision-making process,” says Julien Comlan Agbessi, representative of REPAOC, the West African NGO Platforms Network.

“We represent thousands of civil society organizations that work on development. They know the challenges and needs of the communities, our door is open to discuss ways in which we can collaborate.”

In their final communiqué, the Finance in Common coalition said that in 2022, they will be “setting up of an ad-hoc working group with interested CSOs (…) to institutionalize dialogue at the local, national and international levels.”

“We are ready to engage from tomorrow to see this strengthened dialogue become a reality. Because each day that passes without thinking together with civil society on how to tackle the immense current challenges is a missed opportunity to fulfill the banks’ promise of delivering first and foremost for the people and for our planet.

Sarah Strack is Director of Forus – a global network of civil society organizations representing over 22,000 NGOs

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

COVID-19 cancelled out the last 12 years of advancements in finding and treating people with TB. Credit: Jeffrey Moyo/IPS.

By Morounfolu Olugbosi
JOHANNESBURG, Oct 21 2021 (IPS)

Before COVID-19 came along, tuberculosis (TB) was a primary focus of health authorities in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2019, approximately 1.4 million people were diagnosed with TB in the region, but epidemiologists estimated that 1 million more had TB but were neither diagnosed nor treated.

The scope and intensity of the global TB epidemic is fueled by antiquated and inadequate TB drugs, most of which were developed more than 50 years ago. But, given how contagious TB is, we need to find and treat many more people. It is a disease that strikes impoverished communities the hardest, and those same communities can be hard to reach with healthcare services.

And then came COVID-19, the only infectious disease that killed more people than TB in 2020. The regional numbers have held steady this past year, according to the World Health Organization, but a deeper dive shows that more attention is needed.

Dr.Morounfolu (Folu) Olugbosi

In Nigeria, my home country and Africa’s largest country by population, nearly three out of every four cases of TB were missed. Ethiopia, Africa’s second largest country, fared better, missing less than one out of every three cases. Kenya, a hub for international development in East Africa, missed almost half its TB cases. South Africa—where I work and which has one of the heaviest burdens in the world of drug-resistant TB infections, TB/HIV co-infections, and all TB infections in total—missed 40% of its cases in 2020.

Earlier this year, researchers analyzed how public health resources previously dedicated to addressing TB were allocated instead to handling the COVID-19 pandemic. The drop in cases of TB that were reported and treated at that time indicated that many more infections were slipping through the cracks of the world’s badly overstressed healthcare system. The researchers concluded that COVID-19 cancelled out the last 12 years of advancements in finding and treating people with TB.

Last month, a new report found that the number of people treated for TB in 2020 declined by 18%. Even more troubling, the number of people treated for the worst cases of drug-resistant TB strains declined by 37%–even with 41 countries in varying stages of evaluating and implementing a new regimen for these cases that my organization developed.

These diseases do not come at you in single file, patiently waiting their turn for a chance to wreak havoc. COVID-19 decimated the TB response because that response was weak and vulnerable. Now, we still have to handle another year of COVID-19 along with a resurgent TB

Like all strains of TB, drug-resistant TB can be easily spread by a cough or a sneeze—and it’s far more difficult to cure. In some regions, as many as 40% of new TB cases are drug resistant.

In 2018, the United Nations General Assembly held a high-level meeting on TB attended by more than 1,000 people—including the president of Nigeria and 14 other heads of state. At the meeting, pledges amounting to US$13.5 billion annually were made to help governments find and treat TB patients, with an additional US$2 billion pledged to boost the research and development efforts needed to develop new cures, and new ways of diagnosing infections. We are less than halfway to meeting these pledges, and as a result, TB has increased in strength in sub-Saharan Africa and other regions of the Global South.

As bleak as all this sounds, 2021 is on track to be much worse. Initial estimates from epidemiologists point to a lack of direct response to TB in projecting an escalation of missing TB cases. Even though both COVID-19 and TB are respiratory infections, TB lost whatever sunlight it may have once had.

There are some countries that have managed to keep moving forward though. Zambia, which missed one third of its estimated TB cases in 2020, may actually diagnose and treat a larger share of its TB caseload in 2021. But these success stories are few and far between. All too often, when the going gets tough, programs that tackle diseases of poverty fall by the wayside.

These diseases do not come at you in single file, patiently waiting their turn for a chance to wreak havoc. COVID-19 decimated the TB response because that response was weak and vulnerable. Now, we still have to handle another year of COVID-19 along with a resurgent TB.

It’s time to strengthen our resolve and tackle all of the diseases that afflict our most vulnerable communities—at the same time. TB has shown us that no one is safe if a contagious infection is thriving—regardless of whether we look for it or not.

 

Dr.Morounfolu (Folu) Olugbosi is the Senior Director, Clinical Development, TB Alliance. He works with the clinical development of products in the TB Alliance portfolio and helps to oversee clinical trials in TB endemic countries and heads the South Africa office.

The world’s governments plan to produce around 110% more fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, and 45% more than consistent with 2°C. Credit: Bigstock

By Bruno Kappa
NAIROBI, Oct 21 2021 (IPS)

In a time when the world’s scientific community sounds louder, and stronger than ever, the alarm about the fast growing climate crisis and its destructive impacts, governments still plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030.

The information comes from the 2021 Production Gap Report, which has been elaborated by leading research institutes and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and was released on 20 October.

Over the next two decades, governments are collectively projecting an increase in global oil and gas production, and only a modest decrease in coal production. Taken together, their plans and projections see global, total fossil fuel production increasing out to at least 2040, creating an ever-widening production gap

It finds that despite increased climate ambitions and net-zero commitments, governments still plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than what would be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

The gap report, first issued in 2019, measures the gap between governments’ planned production of coal, oil, and gas and the global production levels consistent with meeting the Paris Agreement temperature limits.

Two years later, the 2021 report finds the production gap largely unchanged despite the quickly growing climate emergency.

“Over the next two decades, governments are collectively projecting an increase in global oil and gas production, and only a modest decrease in coal production. Taken together, their plans and projections see global, total fossil fuel production increasing out to at least 2040, creating an ever-widening production gap.”

Commenting on the report, the Executive Director of UNEP, Inger Andersen, said: “The devastating impacts of climate change are here for all to see. There is still time to limit long-term warming to 1.5°C, but this window of opportunity is rapidly closing.”

The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at COP 21 in Paris, on 12 December 2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016. Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.

 

The 15 major producers

The 2021 Production Gap Report provides country profiles for 15 major producer countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The country profiles show that most of these governments continue to provide significant policy support for fossil fuel production.

“The research is clear: global coal, oil, and gas production must start declining immediately and steeply to be consistent with limiting long-term warming to 1.5°C,” warned Ploy Achakulwisut, a lead author on the report and a Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) scientist.

“However, governments continue to plan for and support levels of fossil fuel production that are vastly in excess of what we can safely burn.”

 

The report’s main findings include:

. The world’s governments plan to produce around 110% more fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, and 45% more than consistent with 2°C. The size of the production gap has remained largely unchanged compared to our prior assessments.

. Governments’ production plans and projections would lead to about 240% more coal, 57 percent more oil, and 71 percent more gas in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

. Global gas production is projected to increase the most between 2020 and 2040 based on governments’ plans. This continued, long-term global expansion in gas production is inconsistent with the Paris Agreement’s temperature limits.

. Countries have directed over 300 US billion dollars in new funds towards fossil fuel activities since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic — more than they have towards clean energy.

“Early efforts from development finance institutions to cut international support for fossil fuel production are encouraging, but these changes need to be followed by concrete and ambitious fossil fuel exclusion policies to limit global warming to 1.5°C”, says Lucile Dufour, Senior Policy Advisor, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

“Fossil-fuel-producing nations must recognise their role and responsibility in closing the production gap and steering us towards a safe climate future,” said Måns Nilsson, executive director at SEI.

The report is produced by the Stockholm Environment Institute, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Overseas Development Institute (ODI), UNEP, and E3G, the independent European climate change think tank aimed at translating climate politics, economics and policies into action.

More than 40 researchers contributed to the analysis and review, spanning numerous universities, think tanks and other research organisations.

Kawthar, 13, takes notes while attending Grade 3 at a UNICEF-supported self-learning centre in Al-Hasakeh, northeast Syria. She says she always wanted to be like other children and grab her bag and go to school like other children. With Education Cannot Wait assisted schooling, this dream has become a reality. © UNICEF/ Syria 2020/ Delil Souleiman

By Alison Kentish
DOMINICA, Oct 21 2021 (IPS)

In war-torn Syria, the support of Education Cannot Wait (ECW) – the United Nations global fund for education in emergencies and protracted crises – is bringing positive, life-changing educational opportunities tailored to children like 11-year-old Ali.

Ali, who lives in Raqqa with his two siblings and parents, has to work to help support his family. He and his brother did not attend school. Ali heard about registration for ECW-supported educational activities near the industrial area in which he works. They are part of courses being offered in three centres in the city – alongside psychosocial support for children who have experienced war for most of their lives.

Ali initially registered his siblings in the ECW-supported programme but held out himself for fear of losing his job. The centre proposed a flexible learning schedule – one that would allow the brothers to work and attend classes. Programme officials had to convince his family and employers at the industrial centre that school is essential for children’s development. Now he is part of a class of 16 children from the area who attend classes from 7:30 am to 10:00 am. After class, they go to work.

Ali’s story is one of the many stories of vulnerable children and adolescents embroiled in Syria’s protracted conflict that ECW’s investments are helping bring back to school in partnership with education partners on the ground. ECW’s multi-year response in Syria was initiated in 2017 through an initial investment which was further expanded into a Multi-Year Resilience Programme which will continue until 2023 with a cumulative budget of US$45 million.

Yasmine Sherif, the Director of Education Cannot Wait, says too many children and adolescents in Syria have only seen the brutal reality of war, forced displacement, and the hardship of living in areas affected by armed conflict in their short lives.  Credit: Education Cannot Wait (ECW)

“Too many children and adolescents in Syria have only seen the brutal reality of war, forced displacement, and the hardship of living in areas affected by armed conflict in their short lives. For them, education is a beacon of hope. It is an opportunity to thrive and become positive changemakers to rebuild their communities and ensure a more peaceful and prosperous future for all,” said Yasmine Sherif, the Director of Education Cannot Wait. “Working together with our partners on the ground, ECW is dedicated to fulfilling the right to a quality education for the most vulnerable girls and boys in Syria.”

“Save the Children has key actor status in the education sector in Syria and has been involved since the inception of ECW’s multi-year response, providing sector-specific technical expertise and guiding in the development of a programme framework that is responsive to the extensive education needs of children in Syria,” Sara Dabash, Awards Officer for the ECW programme in Syria, told IPS.

Children and adolescents already suffering from the impacts of a decade-long war are also bearing the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly due to school closures and movement restrictions.

“The disruption of access to quality education for children has dramatically impacted learning and child well-being. In addition, lack of access to safe learning environments and continued isolation exposes children to higher risks of child labour, early marriage, and other negative coping mechanisms. The limited social interactions also compromise access to psychosocial support and other protection services,” Dabash said.

Emad, 9, who lives with a disability, shows his writing to his teacher to check if he is doing right in the class of Arabic subject in the ECW supported temporary learning space in Idleb, northwest Syria. © UNICEF/ Syria 2020

According to Dabash, blended learning options have been introduced, using devices such as mobile phones for remote learning. This option has its downsides as many children have limited to no access to phones or internet connections.

Figures provided by Save the Children put almost 7 million people in need of humanitarian education assistance. Children make up 97 percent of that number. Dabash says, however, that in the “determined locations of implementation within the ECW Programme in northeast Syria, Save the Children, with the support of its partners, has identified around 15,000 children as the most vulnerable and in need of education assistance.”

Since 2017, ECW is also partnering with UNICEF to provide quality education services for the most vulnerable children in the country.

“With funding from ECW, UNICEF provides children across Syria with opportunities to continue their learning through a holistic package of activities tailored to the needs of the children. To support learning, the package of activities generally includes providing learning supplies and psychosocial support through recreational activities. Where classrooms do not exist or continue to be unsafe or overcrowded, we establish new classrooms and rehabilitate existing ones,” Karen Bryner, Education Specialist and ECW Programme Manager in Syria, told IPS.

Bryner says the partnership provides training, teaching supplies and stipend payments to teachers.

The goal is to get as many girls and boys as possible enrolled and attending school regularly. According to UNICEF, ‘children have experienced psychological distress due to violence and instability. Many have missed years of education, with over 2.4 million currently out of school.’

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged that goal with intermittent school closures. However, Bryner says when face-to-face instruction was not an option, the ECW-supported students transitioned to electronic and paper-based distance education.

“Various modalities were used over the last year, including WhatsApp groups by teachers to deliver daily instruction where connectivity allowed; blended learning with face-to-face instruction two days a week and home-based learning (worksheets and assignments) for the other days, conducting lessons in smaller groups closer to children’s homes, and home delivery of biweekly learning packs and retrieval of students’ work by teachers,” she told IPS.

Kawthar, 13, hangs out with her cousin Juhaina outside her house in Ghwairan neighbourhood, Al-Hasakeh. Since 2019, she has benefitted from the self-learning programme, helping her catch up on the education she had missed due to displacement, her disability, and the financial challenges her family had. Credit: UNICEF/ Syria 2020/ Delil Souleiman

The story of 13-year-old Kawthar is a testament to the positive impact of ECW’s support for the most marginalised children Displaced five times and suffering from growth-related issues due to stunting, she could not walk to school, and her family could not afford transportation. Two years ago, Kawthar, originally from Al-Hasakeh City, enrolled in the ECW-supported self-learning programme implemented by UNICEF– a course that gives out-of-school children the tools to catch up to their peers. She also receives transportation to classes.

“I always wanted to be like all other children; to grab my bag and head to school; to read, write and learn,” says Kawthar. “I wish for all children to be able to go to school. And I certainly hope that nobody gets displaced anymore and that we all remain safe.”

According to UNICEF, with ECW funding, since November 2020, the self-learning programme has been able to reach 2,600 out-of-school children in Al-Hasakeh. Despite this progress, challenges remain to fulfil the right to inclusive, quality education for every child in Syria.

UNICEF states that there has been a 20 percent increase in the number of children in need of humanitarian assistance, and agencies will need scaled-up support as they continue to bring hope to Syria’s children.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Education Cannot Wait Annual Results Reveals the Devastating Impact of COVID-19 on Learning for Children in Emergencies and Protracted Crises
• Education Cannot Wait for Refugee Children in Crisis, says Yasmine Sherif
• Education Cannot Wait Investments Transform Children’s Lives in Somalia

Monika, a BRAC program participant in Bangladesh, operating a climate-adaptive livelihood based on floating agriculture. Credit: BRAC

By Julie Kedroske
NEW YORK, Oct 21 2021 (IPS)

As the United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as COP26, approaches (31 October -12 November in Glasgow, Scotland), climate action is more urgent than ever. Yes, we need climate change mitigation.

But for the people who are most marginalized, the impacts of climate change are already severe and worsening, necessitating an expansion of climate resilience interventions too.

Women, particularly in climate vulnerable countries in the Global South, are set to bear many of the worst impacts of the climate crisis. More than half of people displaced by climate change are women and girls, and climate shocks reduce women’s life expectancies more than men’s on average.

Poverty is increasing women’s climate vulnerability even further. Women are more likely to experience extreme poverty than men, and women in extreme poverty often lack the resources and tools to bounce back from the economic impacts of climate change, facing exclusion from social policies and programs.

Climate change will continue to exacerbate these inequalities, driving up to 132 million people into extreme poverty by 2030 due to rising food prices, health shocks, and natural disasters.

But these disasters are not “natural”. Climate change is human-made, and we as an international community can take the steps needed to support preparedness, mitigation, adaptation, and recovery efforts.

Countries can prevent the worst impacts of climate change on their most vulnerable populations through increased funding and focus on building climate resilience for those furthest behind in our current system, including women in extreme poverty.

But how can we make climate resilience policies and programs more inclusive and effective?

In our experience advising on interventions at the intersection of extreme poverty, gender inequality, and climate change at BRAC Ultra-Poor Graduation Initiative (UPGI), we have identified three key learnings.

First, policies and programs must actively seek to identify the most marginalized households to ensure their inclusion. To enable women in extreme poverty to build climate resilience, development actors must first reach them.

This population is often excluded from existing social protection programs, with 79 percent of the bottom quintile of earners in low-income countries receiving no social assistance whatsoever.

By specifically targeting people (predominantly women) in extreme poverty with a multi-step process tailored to local data, needs, and capacity, climate resilience programs can bring previously unreachable populations into government safety nets.

To empower marginalized households to build resilience specifically for climate shocks, interventions should factor in an analysis of which households are most climate vulnerable, combining this with other methods including an analysis of the enabling environment (including existing infrastructure, programs, policies, and social norms).

This is just one example of the ways development actors will need to consciously target excluded populations on the basis of both climate and socioeconomic vulnerabilities as climate shocks worsen.

Second, interventions must be adapted to local needs. For climate resilience interventions to have an impact on women in extreme poverty, they need to take into account local contexts, markets, and challenges.

For example, in drought-prone regions of Kenya, people in extreme poverty are especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change as many rely on raising livestock. Their livelihoods are threatened by worsening droughts, especially women and youth.

Between 2016 and 2019, the Government of Kenya and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) partnered with BRAC, CARE Kenya, and The BOMA Project on a climate-adaptive Graduation program in Kitui and Samburu provinces to strengthen the resilience of women, youth, and their households to climate shocks.

The program encouraged participants to maintain multiple sources of income and to save for economic and climate shocks to minimise their risk of losing livelihoods. As a result, over 80 percent of households had at least two income sources at the end of the intervention.

Worsening droughts threaten the livelihoods of women in the rural, ASAL regions of Kenya. Credit: BRAC/BOMA 2018

In Kairouan, Tunisia, women in extreme poverty are especially vulnerable to climate risks such as increased frequency and severity of extreme weather, changes in temperature and precipitation, and increased soil erosion.

To address these risks, the Tunisian government has partnered with IFAD and BRAC on a Graduation program identifying climate-adaptive, gender-sensitive livelihoods for participants that are designed for the local context and providing training on saving, diversifying incomes, and withstanding climate shocks.

By taking into account local climate vulnerabilities and challenges for women in extreme poverty, climate resilience programs can empower them to not only withstand climate shocks, but also build long-term livelihoods and savings which enable them to create a path out of the poverty trap and prevent them from falling back into it.

Third, constant learning through evaluation and iteration is crucial to impact. To develop and scale effective approaches which combat climate-induced poverty, the international community needs to increase their support and commit significantly more resources to evidence-based interventions.

Development actors and their research partners should also take an iterative approach, evolving programs over time based on findings from internal and external evaluations in parallel. By regularly reevaluating program design and delivery, implementers can not only improve impact at scale, but also become more responsive to changes in the local context.

This is particularly crucial for interventions aimed at building climate resilience for marginalized populations, as it enables programs to constantly adapt to climate impacts on programming.

At BRAC UPGI, we see every day how worsening climate shocks have the greatest impact on the people who contribute the least to climate change and have the fewest resources to recover from them.

This COP26, international actors, including multilateral institutions, governments, and civil society, need to not only increase climate spending, but ensure climate adaptation funds are spent more equitably, going to countries and populations which are most impacted and least equipped to withstand shocks.

To advance toward the Sustainable Development Goals and uphold obligations to their people, they need to back policies and programs which protect the people who are most marginalized from the worst impacts of the climate crisis and enable them to build resilience to endure future shocks by designing programs that meet their multidimensional needs.

Julie Kedroske is Acting Director of Technical Assistance, BRAC Ultra-Poor Graduation Initiative. Originally founded in 1972 as the Bangladesh Rehabilitation Assistance Committee and later known as the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee, BRAC’s operations have grown globally and with that growth, the organization is now simply known as BRAC.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Increased weather and climate variability is disrupting lives and economies in the continent;. Credit: Campbell Easton/IPS

By Baher Kamal
MADRID, Oct 20 2021 (IPS)

While Africa reportedly causes just 4 percent of global emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) —an acidic colourless gas with a density about 53% higher than that of dry air, causing climate change—, this vast continent, home to over 1.300 billion inhabitants in 52 countries, bears the heaviest brunt of 80 percent of the climate crisis destructive impacts.

See some of the most outstanding climate crisis negative consequences for Africa, as cited by a major multi-organisation report: The State of the Climate in Africa 2020, elaborated by World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), the African Union Commission, the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) through the Africa Climate Policy Centre (ACPC), UN agencies, and international and regional scientific organisations and released on 19 October 2021:

An estimated 12 percent of all new population displacements worldwide occurred in the East and Horn of Africa region, with over 1.2 million new disaster-related displacements and almost 500,000 new conflict-related displacements

. Climate change contributed to mounting food insecurity, poverty and displacement in Africa last year;

. Climate indicators in Africa during 2020 were characterised by continued warming temperatures, accelerating sea-level rise, extreme weather, and climate events – such as floods, landslides and droughts;

. Increased weather and climate variability is disrupting lives and economies in the continent;

. By 2030, an estimated 118 million extremely poor people on the continent will be exposed to drought, floods and extreme heat, which will hinder progress towards poverty alleviation and growth;

. In sub-Saharan Africa, climate change could further lower gross domestic product (GDP) by up to 3 percent, by 2050. This presents a serious challenge for climate adaptation and resilience actions because not only are physical conditions getting worse, but also the number of people being affected is increasing;

. Changing precipitation patterns, rising temperatures and more extreme weather contributed to mounting food insecurity, poverty and displacement in Africa in 2020, compounding the socio-economic and health crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic;

. Another under-reported consequence is the rapid shrinking of the last remaining glaciers in Eastern Africa, which are expected to melt entirely in the near future, signals the threat of imminent and irreversible change to the Earth system.

In fact, only three mountains in Africa are covered by glaciers: the Mount Kenya massif, the Rwenzori Mountains in Uganda, and Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania. “Currently, their retreat rates are higher than the global average, and “total deglaciation” could be possible by the 2040s, WMO warns.

Mount Kenya is expected to be deglaciated a decade sooner, it adds, which will make it one of the first entire mountain ranges to lose glacier cover due to human-induced climate change.

The report underlines a double-edge estimate: the investment in climate adaptation for sub-Saharan Africa would cost between 30 to 50 billion dollars… each year… over the next decade, or roughly two to three per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

By the way, and talking this figure: did you know that the world largest military powers have spent in 2020 around 2,000 billion dollars on killing machines and weapons of mass destruction?

 

More Facts and Figures:

. Temperatures: The 30-year warming trend for 1991–2020 was higher than for the 1961–1990 period in all African sub-regions and significantly higher than the trend for 1931–1960.

. Africa has warmed faster than the global average temperature over land and ocean combined. 2020 ranked between the third and eighth warmest year on record for Africa, depending on the dataset used.

. Sea level rise: The rates of sea-level rise along the tropical and South Atlantic coasts and Indian Ocean coast are higher than the global mean rate, at approximately 3.6 mm/yr and 4.1 mm/yr, respectively. Sea levels along the Mediterranean coasts are rising at a rate that is approximately 2.9 mm/yr lower than the global mean.

. Glaciers: Their current retreat rates are higher than the global average. If this continues, it will lead to total deglaciation by the 2040s. Mount Kenya is expected to be deglaciated a decade sooner, which will make it one of the first entire mountain ranges to lose glaciers due to human-induced climate change.

. Precipitation: Higher-than-normal precipitation – accompanied by flooding – predominated in the Sahel, the Rift Valley, the central Nile catchment and north-eastern Africa, the Kalahari basin and the lower course of the Congo River.

. High impact weather events: There was extensive flooding across many parts of East Africa. Countries reporting loss of life or significant displacement of populations included the Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Uganda, Chad, Nigeria (which also experienced drought in the southern part), Niger, Benin, Togo, Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, Cameroon and Burkina Faso. Many lakes and rivers reached record high levels, including Lake Victoria (in May) and the Niger River at Niamey and the Blue Nile at Khartoum (in September).

. Food insecurity: The compounded effects of protracted conflicts, political instability, climate variability, pest outbreaks and economic crises, exacerbated by the impacts of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, were the key drivers of a significant increase in food insecurity. A  desert locust invasion of historic proportions, which began in 2019, continued to have a major impact in East and the Horn of Africa in 2020.

. Food insecurity increases by 5–20 percentage points with each flood or drought in sub-Saharan Africa. Associated deterioration in health and in children’s school attendance can worsen longer-term income and gender inequalities. In 2020, there was an almost 40 percent increase in population affected by food insecurity compared with the previous year.

. Displacement: An estimated 12 percent of all new population displacements worldwide occurred in the East and Horn of Africa region, with over 1.2 million new disaster-related displacements and almost 500,000 new conflict-related displacements. Floods and storms contributed the most to internal disaster-related displacement, followed by droughts.

Questions are asked whether the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) agreement to force the world’s biggest companies to pay a fair share of tax will benefit the global South. Credit: Hugo Ramos/Unsplash

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Oct 20 2021 (IPS)

An agreement between 136 countries aimed at forcing the world’s biggest companies to pay a fair share of tax has been condemned by critics who say it will benefit richer states at the expense of the global South.

A deal agreed on October 8, and which covers around 90% of the global economy, includes plans for a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15%.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which led negotiations on the agreement, has said it will help end decades of countries undercutting each other on tax.

But independent organisations campaigning for fairer global taxes and financial transparency argue it will rob developing countries of revenues needed to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, ultimately pushing millions more people into poverty.

Matti Kohonen of the Financial Transparency Coalition (FTC) civil society group told IPS: “In principle, a global minimum corporate tax is a good idea, but only if the rate is right and implemented properly. Under this deal, the main beneficiaries are the OECD – which led the negotiations – and its largest members.”

Calls for a global minimum corporate tax rate have grown in recent decades amid increasing scrutiny on the tax practices of multinationals.

The OECD deal, which has an aspirational implementation date of 2023, is designed to set a floor on corporate taxation and stop companies shifting profits to countries with the lowest tax rates they can find.

The OECD says the minimum global rate would see countries collect around USD150 billion in new revenues annually, and that taxing rights on more than USD125 billion of profit will be moved to countries where big multinationals earn their income.

But independent groups say the agreement falls far short of what is needed for a fair global corporate taxation system and has ignored the needs and wishes of developing nations, which rely more heavily on corporate tax than richer states.

According to OECD research Corporate Tax Statistics: Third Edition (oecd.org), in 2018, African countries raised 19% of overall revenue from corporate taxation as opposed to 10% among OECD states.

Critics point out that the 15% floor agreed to is well below the average corporate tax rate in industrialised countries of around 23%, potentially creating a ‘race to the bottom’ as countries cut their existing corporate rates.

It is thought a number of developing states had wanted a higher minimum global rate.

Civil society groups critical of the agreement also have concerns over many exemptions in the deal – there is a ten-year grace period for companies on some aspects of the agreement, and some industries such as extractives and financial services, are exempt.

Meanwhile, they highlight, only 100 of the world’s largest companies would be affected by part of the agreement aimed at getting highly profitable multinationals to pay more taxes in countries where they earn profits. Moreover, the minimum global tax will only apply to companies with a turnover of more than 750 million USD, which would exclude 85-90% of the world’s multinationals.

The fact that countries will have to waive digital services taxation rights, which are important sources of revenue for some developing states, is also problematic. And there are concerns that in many cases extra tax paid by corporations ‘topping up’ their tax bill to 15% will go to countries where they are headquartered. In many cases, this will be in already rich nations such as the US, UK, and Europe.

Chenai Mukumba of the Tax Justice Network Africa advocacy group told IPS: “We have an opportunity to reform the global tax system to make it right for global south countries, but we are settling for so much less. This is a lost opportunity to balance the scales, to put fairness at the centre of the system.”

The deal could have a negative effect on African countries, in particular, she pointed out.

Nigeria and Kenya have not signed up for the fair tax deal. Credit: Muhammadtaha Ibrahim Ma’aji/Unsplash

Kenya and Nigeria are among four countries that have not signed up for the deal.

“A lot of African countries currently have corporate tax rates of 25-30%. If the minimum rate is 15%, there is a great incentive for companies to shift profits elsewhere,” Mukumba said.

“Kenya hasn’t signed up to the deal because it is trying to raise revenue from its digital services taxation rights. It may end up buckling to the pressure [to join the deal],” she added.

OECD impact assessment studies for the deal published in 2020 https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/economic-impact-assessment-webinar-presentation-october-2020.pdf showed that developing nations would gain as much as 4% extra corporate tax revenue.

The organisation told IPS this month (OCT) that it is now expecting those extra revenues to be even higher because of changes to the agreement since last year.

However, studies Pillar 1 impact assessment – 04.10.21 FINAL (oxfamireland.org) by the global aid group Oxfam estimate that 52 developing countries would receive around only 0.025 percent of their collective GDP in additional annual tax revenue under the redistribution of taxing rights.

The group also says a 25% global minimum corporate tax rate would raise nearly USD 17 billion more for the world’s 38 poorest countries – which are home to almost 39% of the global population – as compared to a 15 percent rate.

Speaking just after the agreement between the 136 countries was reached, Oxfam said in a press release that the deal was “a mockery of fairness that robs pandemic-ravaged developing countries of badly needed revenue for hospitals and teachers and better jobs”.

It added: “The world is experiencing the largest increase in poverty in decades and a massive explosion in inequality, but this deal will do little or nothing to halt either.”

Despite the criticism, OECD officials are adamant that the agreement will benefit developing nations.

They point out that it does not affect any state’s national corporate tax rates, and that the 10-year grace period only applies to a very small amount of income – 5% of the carrying value of a firm’s tangible assets and payrolls in a jurisdiction.

Grace Perez Navarro, Deputy Director of the OECD’s Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, told IPS: “The global minimum tax is aimed at stopping tax competition that is causing a race to the bottom in corporate tax rates.

“It does not require countries that have higher rates than 15% to lower their corporate tax rate, it just ensures that those countries will be able to collect at least 15%, no matter what type of creative tax planning a multinational comes up with.

“It will also reduce the incentive of multinationals to artificially shift their profits to low tax jurisdictions because they will still have to pay a minimum of 15%.”

She added: “It will also relieve the pressure on developing countries to offer excessive, often wasteful tax incentives while providing a carve-out for low-taxed activities that have real substance. This means that developing countries can still offer effective incentives that attract genuine, substantive foreign direct investment.”

But Mukumba said the problem is not that the deal will not bring any extra revenue to developing nations, but that richer nations will get much more out of it.

“Developing nations want a global corporate tax minimum, they have pushed for it in the past. They will get revenue under this deal, yes, but nowhere near as much as richer nations will get out of it,” she said.

This is problematic at a time when many developing nations are struggling with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and need revenue.

“This [deal] will mainly support recovery efforts in the G7 countries instead of developing countries which have been most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and are more in debt, preventing them from generating enough revenues to recover from the crisis and ultimately throwing millions more people into extreme poverty,” said Kohonen.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• The ARC Model: Proactive Disaster Risk Financing for a More Resilient Africa
• OECD Tax Reform Proposal Could Be Better

By Rosi Orozco
MEXICO CITY, Oct 20 2021 (IPS)

They call it the Tlaxcala-New York Route. Between one end and the other, there are 2547 miles. An infamous road that today is one of the most important channel for human trafficking gangs. And a route seemingly impossible to destroy because of its million-dollar profits.

Rosi Orozco

The victims traveling along this route from Mexico to the United States experience in their bones what experts call “the globalization of organized crime”, one of the biggest obstacles to ending this crime.

The route is longer than itself. Sometimes it starts in South America, where victims are lured with dream jobs or a love story in Mexico. And it has a stopover in Mexico’s smallest state, Tlaxcala, where human traffickers kidnap their victims to prepare them for their journey north to the United States.

The worst part is in the next 2547 miles, which includes several horror stops throughout Mexico. The victims will be raped on table dances, brothels, bars, even trailer boxes and roadside tents.

If they survive and show endurance, at least 500 of them will be forced to cross illegally into the United States every year.

In New York, the exploitative clients will be of all nationalities: Mexicans, Americans, Europeans, Asians, Africans… sex tourists who will take back home a piece of humanity as a souvenir.

They are even likely to record those rapes and the videos will end up on porn sites with untraceable IP addresses that profit from a $97 billion a year industry. And when the authorities want to rescue one of those victims, two questions will overwhelm them. Where do we start? What is the origin of all this?

Since the beginning of the 21st century, organized crime has demonstrated that they know how to go global and evade the isolated efforts of individual countries. Their modus operandi imposes a new vision: if traffickers think internationally, justice must think globally. The “10 Days of Anti-Trafficking Activism” event was dedicated to that task.

Between July 26 and August 6, survivors, activists, and decision-makers debated online and face-to-face in Washigton, Miami and Mexico City for more than 240 hours on how to face the new challenges that impose this old crime and how to stay one step ahead.

Jeremy Vallerand, Rescue Freedom CEO, reminded us that human trafficking is a social problem that is not natural but created by human beings, so it is up to us to end it.

The Executive Director of Global Sustainability Network (GSN), Asmita Satyarthi, called for a global count of victims — there are about 25 million people in human trafficking networks and 30% of them are children.

Héma Sibi, CAP International’s Advocacy Coordinator, asked that we all demand a change of laws at an international level. New laws that punishes exploitative clients, not people who are forced into prostitution.

Chancellor Minister Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, youth leaders such as Alina Luz —Miss Universo Argentina 2020, influencers such as Valentina de la Cuesta, magistrates, mayors, legislators, and more joined events and conferences that can be consulted at www.hojaenblanco.org and the conclusions indicate the way to effectively fight human trafficking.

It is urgent to create international laws that punish trafficking as a crime against humanity. To train police officers with the capacity to investigate this crime beyond national borders. To establish international agreements for financial intelligence units to return to the victims’ money obtained by traffickers, whatever country they are in.

Pivotal actions must go beyond prosecution. More and better prevention campaigns must be created to build bridges between rich and developing countries because that is where the exploiting clients and the exploited person are. National campaigns are no longer enough. The challenge is to build messages thinking about the origin and destination of the victims.

We need more determined participation of society to train new activists with a global perspective and place this topic on the world agenda with the same urgency as other problems faced by humanity, such as climate change or the equitable distribution of food.

Above all, there is an urgency to pass the megaphone to those who have a story that must be heard, because each victim in silence means the loss of a missing ally in the fight against this crime.

The “10 Days of Anti-Trafficking Activism” is one of those crucial events that help us begin to solve those questions that overwhelm us: Where do we start? What is the origin of all this? And by questioning ourselves, we will be able to find how to end those 2547 miles of suffering between Tlaxcala and New York.

So that one day, the seemingly impossible path to defeat will be a memory and the evidence that millions of dollars are not more powerful than millions of people fighting for a world without slavery.

The author is a human rights activist who opened the first shelter for girls and teenagers rescued from sexual commercial exploitation in Mexico. She has published five books on preventing human trafficking; she is the elected Representative of GSN Global Sustainability Network in Latin America.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Fires in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. 2020. Credit: Silas Ismael / WWF-Brazil

By Fran Price
NEW JERSEY, USA, Oct 20 2021 (IPS)

Governments agree that saving the climate means saving forests – but ambition and action fall short of what’s required.

First the good news: one of the forest goals agreed by governments, businesses and civil society organizations has been met.

In 2014, the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF) set out 10 goals for protecting and restoring the world’s forest. Its latest progress assessment focuses on Goal 7 – on making sure that reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation are part of a global climate agreement.

It’s one of the few goals that we can unequivocally say has been achieved. The Paris Agreement in 2015 enshrined the importance of forests in the international climate agenda. It also incorporated a mechanism to provide forest countries with financial incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, supporting sustainable forest management and enhancing forest carbon stocks (REDD+).

So far, so good. But agreements are one thing – what counts is how they’re put into practice. And on that front, the news isn’t so good.

Fran Price, WWF Global Forest Practice Lead. Credit: WWF

When it comes to forests, emissions trends are heading in the wrong direction, with deforestation and forest degradation continuing on a massive scale. And we’re already seeing the devastating impacts of climate change with ever more extreme forest fires, from the Amazon to Siberia to the Mediterranean – fires which themselves release vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

As the NYDF progress assessment shows, we need to do far more to harness forests’ huge potential to help us mitigate and adapt to climate change. Encouragingly, most countries now recognize the potential of forests in their latest official climate action plans, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs). But many don’t yet include quantified targets – and when they do, they are rarely ambitious enough.

Many tropical forest countries’ targets are conditional on receiving international climate finance – yet this isn’t happening on anything like the scale required. Although tropical forest countries have made strides in developing REDD+ programmes, payments for results have yet to materialize. Domestically and internationally, governments have committed about US$2.4 billion per year towards forest-related climate mitigation, which is around 0.5-5% of what’s needed – and is dwarfed by the subsidies that continue to flow into activities that cause deforestation.

A growing number of NDCs recognize the role of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) as forest custodians, which is a sign of progress. But at least half of IPLCs’ customary lands worldwide aren’t yet legally recognized – and where IPLC rights are legally recognized, they are often not enforced.

Marisela Silva Parra, local community leader and ‘environmental promoter’ conducts an environmental survey of the forest. In the municipality of Calamar, Guaviare Department, WWF-Colombia is working with a group of local community leaders (known as ‘environmental promoters’) with the aim of stopping deforestation, protecting and restoring remaining forest, and helping provide alternative sustainable livelihoods to local people. Credit: Luis Barreto / WWF-UK

In fact, this is true of forest governance more generally. Many countries now have policies that look good on paper, but they aren’t implemented or enforced strongly enough. At least 69% of deforestation driven by agriculture in recent years was illegal – but happened anyway.

So how do we turn things around? The arguments for conserving and restoring forests are well known, with the COVID-19 pandemic only reinforcing the link between the health of humankind and the health of the planet. We know the solutions too.

We need greater cooperation across landscapes, sectors and supply chains. Businesses need to eliminate deforestation and habitat conversion from their supply chains. Governments need to implement supportive legislation and incentives – both in forest countries, and in countries that consume products that drive deforestation. The finance sector has to redirect financial flows from activities that drive deforestation and into forest-friendly enterprises. The rights of IPLCs must be recognized and upheld, while smallholders and communities should receive support to build sustainable livelihoods.

The growing climate crisis adds urgency to all these imperatives. Back in 2015, WWF and others campaigned hard to ensure that the role of forests was recognized in the Paris Agreement. Achieving that goal was a big win. But now we need to go further.

The upcoming COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow is the most important since Paris. It will set the agenda for the coming make-or-break decade. Governments at COP26 must commit to more ambitious action on forests. They must increase the level of forest climate finance by an order of magnitude. Most of all, they must turn words into deeds.

Fran Raymond Price has spent her career working to protect forests and improve forestry around the globe. She joined WWF in June 2020 after 18 years at The Nature Conservancy (TNC), where she helped guide the organization’s adoption and promotion of responsible forest management and certification. She holds a master’s degree in forestry from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and a B.A. in History and Government from Cornell University. She began her forestry career as a Peace Corps community forestry volunteer in the Dominican Republic.

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is an international non-governmental organization founded in 1961 that works in the field of wilderness preservation and the reduction of human impact on the environment. It was formerly named the World Wildlife Fund, which remains its official name in Canada and the United States.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Erratic water supplies mean women in urban Zimbabwean cities, like Bulawayo, need to fetch water from water points. Studies have shown that while water, sanitation and hygiene are a women’s domain, they are not involved in water management. Credit: Ignatius Banda/IPS

By Ignatius Banda
Bulawayo, ZIMBABWE , Oct 19 2021 (IPS)

Each morning, Langelihle Tshuma checks her taps to confirm the water supply before preparing for the day ahead.

Despite living in the city, the married housewife and mother of four has become accustomed to what in most cities would be considered an essential service.

“We are used to it now,” she said, referring to water cuts in Zimbabwe’s second city of Bulawayo.

Water availability has become erratic in the city, with no clear schedule or fixed timetable to warn residents about when to expect dry faucets.

Tshuma joins scores of other residents to look for the nearest water point or the next house with a borehole in what is considered a middle-class suburb.

“It used to be kind of humiliating walking around the neighbourhood with buckets looking for water, but when you have young children, you learn humility to soldier on,” Tshuma told IPS.

While her experience is commonplace in this city of about 2 million people according to some estimates, it is but a microcosm of a global trend where women’s unpaid work includes fetching water, with women being left out in crucial decisions regarding water access, experts say.

There are concerns among researchers and experts that water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) issues have for years been regarded as a woman’s domain in developing countries, but that has not been reflected in the management of water resources.

A report launched last month by the Global Water Partnership (GWP) supported by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) says women remain excluded from global water management despite women being primary water decision-makers at the household level.

According to the research findings in the report titled Advancing towards gender mainstreaming in water resources management, “when women are involved in the management of water resources, their communities achieve much better outcomes, improved water systems and economic and environmental benefits.”  The research canvassed 23 countries.

The GWP notes that while women’s role in Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) was recognized three decades ago by the UN, there has been little progress as the sector remains male-dominated.

“Half of all countries reported limited or no achievement of gender objectives in their water management policies and plans,” said Darío Soto-Abril, Executive Secretary of Global Water Partnership (GWP).

“While some reasons for this low number might be a lack of robust data collection and monitoring tools, the number is still low enough for us to say: it’s past time for things to change,” Soto-Abril said.

As women such as Tshuma struggle to access and remain excluded from the decisions that bring water to their homes, experts note that gender mainstreaming is crucial to ensure commitment at the highest political levels for policy commitments is backed up by action.

“If there is good news, it is that there’s been a slight improvement compared to the baseline in 2017,” said Joakim Harlin, UNEP’s chief of Freshwater Ecosystems.

“The ability to integrate gender considerations in water policies is not related exclusively to levels of development – it’s also a question of having the political will to change cultural norms,” Harlin said.

Cultural norms have embedded the images of women and not men fetching water in urban municipalities of many developing countries.

“Women have been cast in roles as water carriers instead of water managers,” the GWP research notes.

“In many developing countries, women are the de facto water decision-makers in households. Research suggests that when women are involved in the management of water resources, their communities achieve better economic and environmental benefits. As the world’s population grows and climate change intensifies water scarcity, women are key to providing more sustainable access to this finite resource,” the report adds.

However, more still needs to be done along with increasing women’s participation in decision-making positions in line with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), says Liza Debevec, Senior Gender and Social Inclusion Specialist at the Global Water Partnership.

“It is not just about increasing women’s representation in councils and committees or coming up with a new general legal framework on gender protection, however important those actions are,” Debevec said.

“It is also about integrating gender issues in all policies in a cross-cutting manner, linking water to other relevant policy areas,” she said.

However, political will is seen as central to ensuring women are involved in policy-making decisions regarding water resources in line with the Integrated Water Resources Management Support Programme under Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG6), which seeks clean water for all.

“Political will is urgent. At the top political level, we need a strong commitment to gender mainstreaming, or we’ll be swimming upstream,” Soto-Abril told IPS.

“Political will makes the practical actions successful. Some countries need more data, so they need to do a gender analysis. Others need to financially support the implementation of gender-sensitive practices and introduce accountability mechanisms,” she said.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Where on Earth is a Water-Secure World?
• Mounting Scramble for Coronavirus Vaccines in Zimbabwe

By Nora McKeon
ROME, Oct 19 2021 (IPS)

‘COVID 19 has multiplied hunger and malnutrition challenges. We need transformative action!’ The first speaker at the UN Committee on World Food Security’s (CFS) 49th Plenary Session, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, turned the spotlight on the disastrous impacts of the pandemic that have afflicted communities around the world for close to two years.

Nora McKeon

He was echoed by the presenter of the 2021 edition of the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World for whom ‘COVID is only the tip of the iceberg’, while keynote speaker, Jeffry Sachs, emphasized the multifaceted nature of the crisis, with chronic poverty and conflict at the center.

Delegation after delegation took the virtual floor to share their concerns: Kenya speaking for the Africa Group, Colombia, Cuba, Costa Rica, Norway, Morocco, Peru, Spain, Indonesia, Mexico, Malaysia, Mali, Cape Verde, South Africa, Uganda, Saint Lucia and more. The impacts of Covid 19 on food security and nutrition are heavy and lasting. The vulnerable are the most effected, within and between countries. Covid has deepened and exacerbated existing structural fragilities and injustices in our food systems. Its causes are multisectoral and cannot be treated in a siloed way.

‘Multilateralism, solidarity and cooperation are key to the way forward’, the President of ECOSOC added, and ‘the CFS is a unique multilateral forum because it brings all the actors together in the name of the right to food’. The text adopted at the end of Day 1 summarized all of these contributions, and deepened concern by drawing attention to the possibility of recurrent pandemics.

With this kind of an opening one could have expected a standing ovation when it was proposed, the following day, that the CFS put together a globally coordinated policy response to the impacts of COVID 19 on food security and nutrition and a proposed precautionary approach towards possible future shocks of this kind.

This proposal was a long time in the building. For a year and a half the CFS’s Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism (CSM) had been documenting the experience and proposals of its constituencies and communities and bringing this evidence from the ground into the global debate. Earlier this year an informal ‘Group of Committed’ governments and other CFS participants had come together to push for the CFS to take determined action. How could it fail to live up to its mandate in the face of the most serious threat to global food security the world has faced since the 2007-2008 food crisis?

Just a week before CFS49 the Group of Committed had held a seminar where evidence and proposals for global policy action were presented by national governments, regional and local authorities, small-scale food producers, the urban food insecure, along with UN agencies, the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, and the CFS’s own High-Level Panel of Experts.

The seminar demonstrated that action is being taken by different actors and authorities at local, national and regional levels, while UN agencies have developed and adopted relevant policy instruments and programmes in their respective sectors. What has been missing thus far is a way of putting the different perspectives and initiatives together into a multisectoral, multilaterally coordinated approach. Filling this gap was the proposal that was put on the table in CFS49.

‘We need a globally coherent and coordinated response to support governments’ efforts and the CFS is the appropriate place for this to happen,’ the Ambassador of Mali had exhorted in his opening address.

So what about the standing ovation? The proposal was supported by countries from the Global South led by African countries, the most affected by injustice in access to vaccines, dependency on food imports, and indebtedness, but including also Mexico, Peru, Morocco, the CSM and the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. ‘This is the place to deal with COVID!’ he said. ‘It is the priority food issue today. It wasn’t addressed by the UN Food Systems Summit. The CFS has the mandate and the tools, and the other UN agencies are highly committed to cooperate.’

But, incredibly and unacceptably, the proposal did not pass. It was blocked on specious, procedural grounds by a steamroller coalition of big commodity exporters who push back on any possible limitation that might be placed on global trade in the name of human rights, equity, environmental concerns: the US, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Russia. The EU, shamefully, was silent.

The implications for inclusive multilateralism, democracy, the needed radical transformation of our food systems are severe. ‘A key barrier to transformation is interference from corporations,’ stated the delegate of Mexico. ‘Governments need to assume their role as agents of change, regulators of food systems, and protectors of the planet, but we can’t do it alone. Global attention is needed and the CFS is the right place for it.’

But The CFS is being held hostage. The arrogance with which a few are ignoring reality, evidence and urgency is leading to an unacceptable increase in the violation of the human rights of the many. Patience is wearing thin. ‘If I’m in this room it’s to honor the concerns of those most affected in my region,’ a member of the Group of Committed asserted in the aftermath of the session.

And the people of her region, along with others from around the world, are raising their voices ever more loudly, as in the counter mobilization to transform corporate food systems organized last July in parallel to the Pre-Summit of the UNFSS [hyperlink]. Radical food system transformation is being built from the ground up and the CFS, however handicapped, is the most resounding global echo chamber for people’s claims.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

The IMF and G20 concluded their Annual Meetings without real solutions to debt crises, fiscal austerity and financing shortfalls across the Global South. Credit: hrw.org

By Bhumika Muchhala
NEW YORK, Oct 19 2021 (IPS)

Last week’s annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and G20 finance ministers illustrated that despite a historic debt crisis sweeping across developing countries and their urgent need for external financing for health and economic recovery, global economic institutions governed by rich countries do not possess the political will to deliver meaningful solutions. The inadequacy of the G20’s debt relief framework, which has failed to restructure sovereign debt since its inception, stands without change or any fresh effort to mobilize private sector participation in debt relief.

Despite the broad call to recycle SDRs from rich to poor countries, the few countries that made commitments to do so are employing a conditional loan mechanism which will further drive fiscal consolidation measures in low-income countries.

Deprived of the policy independence and vaccines that allow advanced economies to enact massive fiscal stimulus programs and open their economies, many developing countries are facing a cycle of deflation and despair.

The IMF’s flagship World Economic Outlook (WEO) confirms the entrenchment of global divergence between North and South by reporting that developed countries will return to pre-crisis growth projections in 2022 while developing countries’ recovery will stretch to 2024, in a journey marked by “permanent economic scarring and revenue losses” for the South.

The WEO concludes that unemployment is a major driver of this gap and unemployment rates would be persistently higher if trouble with vaccinations leads to COVID-19 becoming ‘endemic.’

A brand new (and conditional) loan to recycle SDRs?

In the months preceding the largest ever allocation of $650 billion SDRs was issued by the IMF on August 23, a momentum to recycle SDRs from rich to poor countries was generated by a broad range of actors, including the UN, governments and civil society.

A milestone was achieved when G7 leaders committed to voluntarily channel $100 billion of their unused SDRs. Despite this amount falling short of the IMF’s own conservative estimate of the $200 billion financing shortfall in low-income countries between 2021 and 2025, the move was welcomed in light of the unequal distribution of SDRs based on IMF members’ quotas, where over 60% (or $400 billion) of the SDRs go to developed countries.

After France announced it will channel 20% of its SDR allocation to African countries, with a focus on vaccine donations, all eyes were on the Annual Meetings for announcements by other rich countries.

In a virtual panel last week, IMF Managing Director Kristina Georgieva said that the “100 billion number is very achievable,” alluding to several countries who had stated, but not yet committed exact amounts, their intentions to channel SDRs. Given the urgency of fiscal space and external financing across developing countries, more details were expected.

The Fund was tasked by the G20, G7 and IMF membership to design a mechanism to recycle the funds. In response, the IMF proposed two key pathways, that of scaling up the long-standing Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT) concessional loan facility for low-income countries and establishing a new Resilience and Sustainability Trust (RST) that would be accessible to middle-income countries.

While both proposals were accepted by the G20 and the G24 group of developing countries in the IMF, years of critique looms over the PRGT for its fiscal consolidation conditions, including by the Fund itself. Empirical research has long illustrated how the PRGT shrinks public expenditure for indispensable social services and employees in health and education and promote regressive taxation measures that disproportionately hurt women and low-income communities.

Meanwhile, the RST, which is still being formulated and will be presented for approval to the Fund’s Board in 2022, is the first loan facility to address balance of payment risks stemming from climate change and pandemics, featuring conditionality related to climate or pandemic preparedness designed and monitored in coordination with the World Bank.

There are three key concerns that already emerge in the little that is currently published or known of the Fund’s design of the RST. First, access to the RST will be contingent on having a conditional IMF loan program already in place. According to one of the only published sources on the RST, it would likely ‘top up’ a regular IMF loan program.

Second, while many in the international community have asked the IMF to support countries with climate transition risks, including financing for a just transition, the RST should not be counted as climate finance. The latter is direct budget support for climate mitigation and adaptation, while the RST addresses budget distortions that may arise from climate change.

Third, it remains to be seen whether the RST’s stated objective of catalyzing private and other multilateral financing will involve creating an enabling environment for the vested interests of private finance in creating investible climate-oriented schemes that yield more for profit than for people.

In a letter to G20 finance officials and the IMF, over 280 civil society organizations and networks, including researchers and academics, called for a set of principles to govern the fair channeling of SDRs to developing countries.

These principles include, for example, attachment of policy conditionality, accrual of more debt, avoiding the double-counting of SDRs as aid, and ensuring access for middle-income countries that are often excluded from multilateral schemes.

The letter stresses the importance of recycling SDRs through grant funding that facilitates budget support for public services and a fair recovery that supports climate justice, and tackles economic and gender inequality, including the unpaid care burden that women bear, and the pandemic exacerbated.

A critical opportunity to progressively alter the basic tenets of development financing in the current global financial architecture has been missed by the Fund and its rich country members.

G20 fails to address record high debt distress

As the G20’s wholly inadequate debt moratorium concludes at the end of 2021, the World Bank reports that the debt burden of low-income countries rose to a record $860 billion and half of the world’s poorest countries are in external debt distress as a result of the pandemic. And yet, the G20’s finance ministers again fail to advance real debt solutions such as debt relief, debt cancellation and fair restructuring mechanisms for countries requesting debt reduction.

Indeed, no new relief scheme or possibility of a debt standstill was announced by the G20 finance minister’s communiqué, even with the imminent closure of its Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI).

Meanwhile, the G20 proved once again their lack of power to increase private sector creditor participation in debt reduction initiatives beyond mere reaffirmations. At the Spring Meetings in April 2021, Mohamed El-Erian, President of Queens’ College, Cambridge and Chief Economic Advisor at Allianz, said at a webinar that the Paris Club process of case-by-case debt treatments is “not enough to overcome coordination problems in the private sector; the Paris Club needs to impose more of a stick for the private sector.”

The inability to regulate the private sector into debt relief participation alludes to how the ‘chutzpah‘ of bondholders is a direct outcome of the way G20 leaders and their central banks have nurtured private finance to become so powerful that they now find themselves unable to curtail its might.

The Jubilee Debt Coalition stated in their press release that the G20 are asleep at the wheel as the debt crisis intensifies in low-income countries, pointing out that the DSSI has suspended less than a quarter of debt payments, while the G20’s Common Framework for Debt Treatments (CF) has restructured no debt.

In particular, private creditors received the largest amount of debt payments, $14.9 billion, and suspended just 0.2% of debt payments. In early 2021, Chad, Ethiopia and Zambia applied to the CF for debt restructuring. So far, none have been successful, in large part due to private lenders refusal to take part in debt reductions.

Meanwhile, the current rise in global interest rates will increase the cost of debt servicing, worsening debt crises and preventing indebted countries from both economic and health recovery.

In response to the wave of debt distress sweeping across the South, the UN Conference on Trade and Development has called for substantive debt relief and outright cancellation. The counterfactual, they state, is another lost decade for development marked by developing countries using their vital public finances for debt payments rather than investing in pandemic and economic recovery.

Even the Fund’s Fiscal Monitor report highlights limitations of the international debt architecture to support orderly restructurings as a core risk for global pandemic recovery.

In stark contrast to the G20, several developing countries at the 76th UN General Assembly in September called for debt cancellation, comprehensive debt restructuring and debt relief linked to middle-income countries or to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Small island and developing states called for debt relief in the context of a new vulnerability index for the provision of multilateral support. Against these segmented scales of political and economic power, a democratization of decision-making in the global debt architecture is increasingly urgent.

As long as the multilateral response to the debt crisis generated by the economic fallout of the pandemic is governed by creditor countries, the decades old imperative to establish a debt workout mechanism capable of carrying out timely and fair restructuring, including debt cancellation, will remain elusive.

Fiscal austerity continues to exacerbate global inequalities

In Georgieva’s policy agenda last week, she underscored that health spending is a priority and that where fiscal space is limited, “lifelines should be increasingly targeted toward the most vulnerable groups.” However, in her institution’s Fiscal Monitor, an explicit priority is placed on reducing deficit and debt levels, “undertaking structural fiscal reforms (such as pension or subsidies reform) … and committing to fiscal rules that lead to deficit reduction in the future.”

The IMF’s historical preoccupation with fiscal consolidation is a reflection of capital market and investor reasoning, in which the only path to securing access to low-cost borrowing for most developing countries is “strengthening the credibility of their fiscal policy.”

Embedded within a financial architecture shaped by a short-term and speculative logic, and pro-austerity bias, the South’s public budgets are subject to private interests that are in diametric opposition to equitable and rights-based development.

Consequently, the priority of securing the confidence of creditors is illustrated by Oxfam’s finding that out of 107 IMF loans, 90 require fiscal consolidation measures across 73 countries. Instead of facilitating public investment in health, education and social protection systems, medium-term policy advice in the loans cut and freeze public wage bills, through which public employees are financed, and increase or expand value-added and general sales taxes.

As UNCTAD puts it, unless the autonomy and impunity enjoyed by global finance is seriously regulated, the potential of fiscal policy to play a structural role in sustained decent work creation and pursuing the right to equitable development is rendered defunct.

Deepening inequality and poverty across the South is a direct result of the failure of effective multilateralism. Between 65 and 75 million people have been thrown into poverty, the gap between the top 10% and bottom 80% mushrooms, and achieving the SDGs by 2030 is rendered close to fantasy in many developing countries.

Women have been dealt the most unequal hand, experiencing at least $800 billion in lost income globally in 2020 while low-wage informal work and unpaid care work has increased beyond measure.

Ultimately, the principles of historical responsibility, distributive justice and interdependency of recovery must guide the centers of financial and economic clout to support rather than hinder health and economic recovery for the most vulnerable regions of the South.

Tinkering on the technocratic smokescreens of power and resource asymmetries created by centuries of colonial history, and more recently by four decades of neoliberalism that has institutionalized a pathologically unequal financialized world economy, will no longer suffice. Structural change is indispensable, precisely because the counterfactual may well be a lost decade for the vast majority of the human race.

Bhumika Muchhala is Senior Researcher and Policy Advocate on Global Economic Governance at the Third World Network.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

By Anis Chowdhury and Jomo Kwame Sundaram
SYDNEY and KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 19 2021 (IPS)

The bogey of inflation has been revived. Dubious pre-pandemic economic progress, fiscal constraints and vaccine apartheid were bad enough. Now, ostensibly anti-inflationary measures also threaten recovery and sustainable development.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has revised downwards its latest global growth forecast. Its latest World Economic Outlook (WEO) warns of a “dangerous divergence” between richer and poorer countries. This has been exacerbated by, but has also worsened national fiscal disparities and the ‘great vaccine divide’.

Anis Chowdhury

Inflation bogey revived
Meanwhile, there is growing talk of ‘stagflation’ – of rising inflation with slow growth and high unemployment, as in the 1970s. Meanwhile, The Economist warns of harmful “wage-price spirals” aggravating vicious circles of rising inflation and wage demands.

But over 70%, or 152 of 209 economists polled believe rising inflation worldwide is due to temporary supply chain disruptions. Heads of major central banks – such as the US Federal Reserve, Bank of England and European Central Bank – concur.

Although the IMF agrees, it also urges policymakers to “be on the lookout and be prepared to act, especially if…prolonged supply disruptions, rising commodity and housing prices, permanent and unfunded fiscal commitments, a de-anchoring of expectations, combined with mismeasurement of output gaps [materialise]”.

The IMF’s October 2021 Fiscal Monitor urges governments to take all steps necessary to regain capital markets’ and lenders’ confidence, including by reducing budget deficits. But it also warns against ‘self-defeating’, premature phasing-out of needed recovery measures. Thus, the ‘two-handed’ IMF economists offer contradictory policy guidance.

Wrong diagnosis
But inflation is unlikely to persist. First, labour market deregulation since the 1980s has long eroded workers’ bargaining power. Hence, workers are now more worried about job security, badly eroded in recent decades.

Second, ‘decent’ job creation remains weak in most rich countries after decades of ‘off-shoring’ and labour-saving innovation. Unsurprisingly then, labour shares of national income have been falling since the mid-1970s.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

While jobs typically trail recovery, the current lag is “more severe” than before, notes the IMF. Across the world, labour force participation and employment remain well below pre-pandemic levels, particularly for youth.

The WEO notes private investment fell in 2021’s second quarter, with several new uncertainties responsible. Slower investment and growth also mean less tax revenue and higher debt-GDP ratios. Cutting spending will only make things worse.

Correct diagnosis should be the basis for choice of medication. Contrary to monetarist faith, inflation is not only due to excess money supply. But if supplies are blocked – e.g., due to disasters, conflicts, curfews or transport restrictions – demand easily becomes ‘excessive’.

Inflation is often also due to big suppliers abusing their market power, with powerful firms raising prices with higher ‘mark-ups’. Privatization and deregulation over the last four decades have strengthened these monopolies or oligopolies.

Blunt instrument
The WEO seems more concerned with inflation than employment as financial markets demand monetary tightening, interest rate hikes and fiscal austerity. Bloomberg has urged emerging economies to “brace for rate hikes”, with Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Russia and others obliging, as The Economist anticipated.

The interest rate is a blunt tool. Inflation is reduced by raising interest rates, cutting growth and increasing unemployment – “tough medicine” indeed. Hawks emphasize how inflation erodes the poor’s purchasing power, but deny their prescriptions do worse.

One must also wonder how interest rate hikes are supposed to address actual problems. For example, in September 2021, global food prices shot up nearly 33% year-on-year, due to extreme weather and pandemic restrictions. Higher rates also certainly could not help when a severe drought hit hydroelectric power generation in Brazil.

Higher interest rates squeeze both private and government spending. Thus, rate hikes will likely trigger a vicious circle of further rate increases and general austerity, slowing recovery and raising debt-GDP ratios.

Raising interest rates in rich countries will also see more capital flight from developing countries and exchange rate depreciations. Already handicapped by vaccine inequity and constrained fiscal space, worsened by modest debt relief and pandemic support from rich countries, raising interest rates will set them further back.

Debt misconstrued
Rising debt levels have understandably been an on-going concern. In 2019, the World Bank warned that post-2008 global financial crisis (GFC) indebtedness was dangerous, noting all previous debt waves had ended in crises.

With the pandemic, fears have been “looming” again of “catastrophic” debt crises in developing countries. As if governments had much choice, the Wall Street Journal warned, “Governments world-wide gorge on record debt, testing new limits”.

The IMF’s October Fiscal Monitor acknowledges, “there is no magic number for the debt target. Macroeconomic theory does not prescribe a specific debt target; nor is there a clear threshold above which debt might become particularly harmful to economic growth”. This confirms earlier IMF and World Bank findings suggesting exaggeration of debt constraints.

Rather, the focus should be on “the likely growth effects of the level, composition and efficiency of public spending and taxation”. Instead of fixating on overall debt levels, its composition – domestic vs external, public vs publicly guaranteed – deserves more attention.

In fact, debt-financed infrastructure, education, skill development and retraining programmes all enhance growth. IMF research found such infrastructure investment had large growth effects without even raising the debt-GDP ratio.

Deep-seated challenges
The predictable recommendation is ‘belt-tightening’ – via ‘austerity’ and ‘higher interest rates’ – bringing even more economic contraction. Typical structural reform prescriptions – e.g., more labour market liberalization, deregulation, privatization and tax cuts – only make things worse, while regressive tax cuts rarely generate promised growth.

Financialization in recent decades has encouraged more speculation, share buybacks, real property, mergers and acquisitions. Consequently, the real economy has suffered, with inflation rising as productivity growth falters.

But inflation was kept in check by cheap imports and cheaper labour, even as profit margins and executive salaries rose. But neoliberals have not hesitated to claim credit for taming inflation during the Great Moderation via fiscal austerity, debt ceilings and inflation targeting.

Despite fiscal austerity, debt has risen, especially since the GFC. Slower growth has also meant less revenue, further reducing fiscal space. Public investment cuts – particularly for services, infrastructure, research and development – have also hurt productivity growth.

Build forward, not backwards
Every economic crisis is different in its own way. The COVID-19 recession involves both supply and demand shocks. Output has fallen due to lockdowns and value chain disruptions. Demand has also declined with lower incomes, less spending, more jobs lost and greater uncertainty.

When provided, relief measures have sustained some demand. Pandemic restrictions have accelerated digitalization, but other changes are also needed. Reforms must build on COVID-19 transformations for a better future , e.g., by promoting job-intensive green investments, worker reskilling and retraining.

The COVID recession thus offers an unexpected opportunity to ‘build forward better’ to address deep-seated problems to build a better world. This must necessarily involve shedding biased and dysfunctional arrangements, managing markets, guiding private investments, workforce retraining and investing in education, health and social protection.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Fight Pandemic, Not Windmills of the Mind
• Central Banks Must Address Pandemic Challenges
• Boldly Finance Recovery to Build Forward Better
• Pandemic Relief Policies Need More Resources, Better Design

By Khondaker Golam Moazzem and Abdullah Fahad
Oct 18 2021 (IPS-Partners)

The Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) is following the developments of the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as COP26. Being one of the major climate-vulnerable countries, Bangladesh is a major party to this international conference. The CPD Power and Energy Study will publish a series of articles on key climate change-related issues highlighting the contexts, main debates and their impact and implications for Bangladesh. Articles will be published in The Daily Star every week till the middle of December 2021.

The 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) is just 15 days away. The COP26 secretariat, the UK and Italian government and governments of the participating countries are finalising their last days of preparation before meeting in Glasgow, UK from October 31 to November 12.

The major point of discussion now is: Will countries reach an agreement on three key issues? (a) phasing out of coal, (b) scaling up nationally determined contributions (NDCs); and (c) raising financing for adaptation.

Different parties and bodies related to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and, more specifically with the COP26, such as supreme bodies, subsidiary bodies, constituted bodies, funds and financial entities, ad-hoc working groups and non-party stakeholders, are now busy with dealing with issues.

Different party groups are taking preparation for the COP26, including developing country parties, the African Group, the Arab States, the Environmental Integrity Group, the European Union, the Least Developed Countries, the Small Island Developing States, the Umbrella Group, the OPEC countries, the CACAM, the Cartagena Dialogue, and the BASIC Group, which includes India and China. These groups have diverse offensive and defensive interests which need to be lessened to reach a consensus during the conference.

Global climate debates around COP26

Reaching consensus in the three key debating issues is the most difficult and complex process. First, countries need to agree to phase out coal by 2030 (developed countries) and 2040 (developing countries), abandoning fossil-fueled internal combustion engines.

There is a global call for saying no to any new coal-fired power plants and to join “Powering Past Coal Alliance”. The global coal-based power generation was 2,044,831 MW in 2019, of which 405,205 MW (19.8 per cent) is generated in developed countries and 80.2 per cent in developing countries. Currently, many coal power plants are under construction, which adds up to a capacity of 184,503 MW.

China, one of the biggest global investors of coal power plants, has recently announced that it would no longer invest in new coal power plants abroad. Such an announcement is highly appreciated. However, reaching the target of no-coal in developing countries by 2040, China needs a more aggressive commitment to its domestic use of coal.

Similar commitment will be required from India, with 228,964 MW of coal-based power generation capacity in 2019, for domestic and foreign-based power plants. Developed countries such as the US (246,187 MW), the EU and Japan and developing countries such as Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam need to commit to reducing coal-fired power plants.

Second, an ambitious target setting is necessary with a view to keeping 1.5°C within reach by 2050. As of July 30, 2021, 113 out of 191 parties submitted updated NDCs.

Based on the update, emissions are likely to decrease by 12 per cent by 2030, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently identified that we need about a 45 per cent net anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions reduction from 2010 level by 2030 to keep 1.5°C within our reach.

The current level of emissions will lead to an overall increase in the temperature of the planet by 2.7°C by the end of this century, which would be catastrophic. Will the heads of state of major developed and developing countries come forward with an ambitious commitment of targets for the reduction of carbon emission during the COP26?

Third, in the “Copenhagen Accord” adopted at the COP15 in 2009, developed countries promised jointly to mobilise $100 billion to address the needs of the developing countries by 2020. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the mobilised amount was $79.6bn in 2019.

The richest countries are behind in their commitment that needs to be met before the COP26 takes place. The UK has doubled international climate finance commitments, and this kind of initiative may help reach the target of $100bn on climate finance. The commitment made by the private sector on adaptation is highly discouraging, according to the UN Secretary-General – only 0.1 per cent of the total funding for adaptation.

While the Paris Agreement promised poorer countries technical and financial assistance in loss and damage, putting it in practice yet to be decided. The Santiago Network for Loss and Damage was established as part of the Warsaw International Mechanism in 2019. This COP can be the one where we operationalise the Santiago Network for Loss and Damage.

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement provides a foundation for an international carbon market that presents the possibility of trading emission reductions between countries. The challenge is that it may offer a loophole for not investing in emission reduction strategies while meeting the country’s target.

The Paris Rulebook implementation guideline for the Paris Agreement, which was adopted during the COP24 in 2018, with few unresolved issues, need to be finalised and agreed upon by parties. The COP26 is expected to finalise the Paris Rulebook.

Bangladesh in COP26

Bangladesh has a strong interest in the upcoming climate conference.

First, climate vulnerable countries like Bangladesh are already in climate emergency, characterised by more frequent and severe heat waves, heavy rainfall, and droughts.

As the current Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) presidency, Bangladesh released Climate Vulnerable Manifesto on September 7 following the CVF high-level exchange on the COP26. The manifesto calls for a “Climate Emergency Pact” in rebuilding the confidence in international climate cooperation.

This pact asks every country to enhance its effort on emission reduction to keep 1.5°C goal alive and 50 per cent of the $100bn climate finance to go to adaptation actions in the most vulnerable developing countries.

It is about time the global community acknowledges this by adopting a “Climate Emergency Pact”. Although there was supposed to be a 50:50 balance between climate change mitigation and adaptation actions, only $20.1bn went to climate change adaptation actions from $79.6bn in 2019.

Bangladesh has asked to include a delivery plan for a 50:50 balance between mitigation and adaptation in the pact. In the pre-COP closing plenary statement, Bangladesh emphasised the importance of the “Climate Emergency Pact” and is also looking for a much stronger role for loss and damages at Glasgow.

Second, it is expected that Bangladesh would make a forward-looking commitment to its nationally determined contributions. The Prime Minister of Bangladesh, who is going to head the delegate in the COP26, would consider delivering Bangladesh’s energy transition plan, particularly in case of phasing out of remaining coal-based power plants – those which are in operation, under construction and under planning. In this connection, Bangladesh may seek financial and technical support for the early retirement of coal-based power plants through the energy transition council.

The authors are respectively the research director and a senior research associate of the Centre for Policy Dialogue.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

Ras Bongo Wisely Tafari (far right) holds on to the CARICOM’s symbol of the reparatory justice movement, the reparations baton, in Castries, Saint Lucia. Credit: Alison Kentish/IPS

By Alison Kentish
DOMINICA, Oct 18 2021 (IPS)

The Rastafarian organizations in the Caribbean are determined that the issue of slavery reparations will emerge from the eclipse of COVID-19.

As the world deals with the impacts of efforts to contain the virus’ spread and regional governments tackle vaccine hesitancy and a wave of misinformation, issues not directly related to COVID-19 have had to be temporarily shelved.

However, members of the Caribbean Rastafari Organization are determined to keep the movement for slavery reparations in the minds of citizens and on the agenda of policymakers.

“From the time of emancipation in 1834, our ancestors have been clamoring for reparations. Some leaders have taken heed to the calling, some have ignored it, but the Rastafari nation from its inception has been appealing for reparations, and up to today, we are on that platform,” chairperson of the Caribbean Rastafari Organization, Burnet Sealy told IPS.

Sealy is known as Ras Bongo Wisely Tafari – part of a move by members of the Rastafarian faith to change the colonial names given at birth and advance the internal healing aspect of the reparations process.

He is a member of the Reparations Committee of Saint Lucia, one of 15 national reparations organizations in the member states of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) bloc.

In 2013, the group of nations established the CARICOM Reparations Commission (CRC), a body charged with making the ‘moral, ethical and legal’ argument for reparatory justice for organizations of the Caribbean Community.

The CRC is headed by Sir Hilary Beckles, Vice-Chancellor of the University of the West Indies.

“It is the greatest crime ever committed against humanity – a crime whose harm and suffering continue to haunt humanity in this 21st century. A crime that has anchored the 21st century within a legacy of untold human suffering, and there is no carpet in the world that is big enough to brush this under,” Sir Hilary told a Slave Trade Remembrance Day online discussion earlier this year.

The movement for reparations in the Caribbean has risen and waned in the last decade. Changes in administration on some islands, with ensuing shifts in policy directions and budgetary priorities, meant that funding for national committees has also been wavered.

The COVID-19 pandemic and its consequent limitations on movement and in-person gatherings have added another obstacle to the movement.

However, Ras Bongo Wisely Tafari says that despite the challenges, the Rastafarian movement remains committed to healing from the effects of slavery.

“Reparations Cannot Die,” he told IPS.

“We have been educating the masses on what reparations are all about. People think that reparation is just about money, but we are letting them know that this is not true. Reparations really mean repairing the damage that was done as a result of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and Slavery, continuing to colonial rule. The damage was done mentally, physically, spiritually, financially, culturally.”

CARICOM, which is home to about 16 million people, has its reparations battle fought as part of a 10-Point Plan. Signed in 2013, the plan calls for:

• A full, formal apology for slavery by the governments of Europe;
• A repatriation program to resettle descendants of the over 10 million Africans who were forcefully transported to the Caribbean;
• An Indigenous Peoples Development Program to begin healing for genocide on the native Caribbean populations;
• The establishment of cultural institutions like museums and research centers;
• A program to remedy the public health crisis includes the African descended population in the Caribbean, which has the highest incidence of hypertension and type 2 diabetes globally. Regional health experts and historians say this is directly related to the ‘nutritional experience, physical and emotional brutality and overall stress profiles associated with slavery, genocide, and apartheid;
• Programs to eradicate the high levels of illiteracy that stem from slavery;
• The establishment of an African Knowledge Program;
• Psychological rehabilitation programs;
• Technology transfer;
• Debt cancellation.

“The argument has been won that reparatory justice is inevitable. The issue is how best to achieve it. Who should have the authority to conceptualize and structure it and how to ensure that while it has a reparatory function, it is also at the same time creating a greater sense of justice and humanity in the world,” says Beckles.

The road to reparatory justice has been tough to conceptualize in the Caribbean, and in the face of issues like climate change, biodiversity loss, and a global pandemic, slavery reparations often plummet on the list of priorities for governments.

For champions of the cause, however, the commitment is unwavering.

“It is our responsibility to maintain that focus of our ancestors and see to it that we have reparations,” Ras Bongo Wisely Tafari told IPS.

“This is not a quick fix. It is a long journey, but we refuse to give up. We will never give up the fight. Reparations are a must.”

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Modern Slavery: How Consumers Can Make a Difference
• Caribbean Under Threat: Report Reveals Enormous Challenges for the Region
• ‘COVICANE’ – How One Caribbean Country is Coping with the Hurricane Season during COVID-19

Women produce between 60 and 80 per cent of food in developing countries but own only 2 per cent of land worldwide. Credit: Kristin Palitza/IPS

By Baher Kamal
MADRID, Oct 18 2021 (IPS)

While more than a third of all purchased food is wasted in rich, mostly Western States, and a similar percentage is lost in poor countries due to the lack of appropriate harvesting, storage and transportation facilities, over three billion people –or some 40 percent of world population– cannot afford a healthy diet.
Add to these figures –which were released by UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on 16 October this year, marking the World Food Day— another dramatic fact.

According to the World Bank, between 88 and 115 million people are being pushed into poverty as a result of the COVID 19 crisis, with the majority of the new extreme poor being found in South Asian and Sub-Saharan countries where poverty rates are already high.

This number adds to the more than 850 million people sinking already into hunger and extreme poverty, following United Nations estimates.

 

One billion food producers; one billion poor and hungry

These figures all combined raise the number of hungry and poor ​and extremely poor ​people worldwide to over one billion, that’s one in seven persons living on Planet Earth. That’s the same number of people –1 billion– that agri-food systems employ worldwide, more than any other economic sector.

Moreover, the way food is being produced, consumed and wasted exacts a heavy toll on our planet, putting unnecessary pressure on natural resources, the environment and climate, according to FAO.

“Food production too often degrades or destroys natural habitats and contributes to species extinction. Such inefficiency is costing us trillions of dollars, but, most importantly, today’s agri-food systems are exposing profound inequalities and injustices in our global society. Three billion people cannot afford healthy diets, while overweight and obesity continue to increase worldwide,” warns this world body.

 

They produce more, but eat less

Should all this not be enough, another aspect of overwhelming inequalities dominating current time, please also know that rural women make up to 40 percent of all food producers, according to the UN.

Nevertheless, rural women eat less, prioritise available food to their families, let alone bearing with the heavy burden of carrying water, cooking, washing, cleaning, selling food in local markets and streets, among other daily tasks, all of this without having in most cases in poor countries the rights to land property, among others.

Just an example: there are many millions of women who produce between 60 and 80 per cent of food in developing countries but own only 2 per cent of land worldwide, says in this regards the UN Environment Programme.

Furthermore: the UN Women, which devotes its work to promoting gender equalities, estimates that in 2020, some 2.37 billion people did not have access to adequate food.

“This is an increase of almost 20 per cent in just one year, where those most affected were again rural women and girls.”

On this, the entity on 15 October this year, on the occasion of the International Day of Rural Women, reported that across the world, food systems depend on the daily work of rural women.

“They play a variety of essential roles, from raising crops and processing their harvest, to preparing food and distributing their products, ensuring that both their families and communities are nourished.”

“Yet paradoxically those same women often have less access to food and a higher risk of hunger, malnutrition, undernutrition and food insecurity than their male counterparts.”

 

Eating last… and least

One of the causes is armed conflict. On this, Oxfam International reports that overall, 155 million people around the world are living in crisis levels of food insecurity or worse – that is 20 million more than last year. “Around two out of every three of these people are going hungry primarily because their country is in war and conflict.”

Women and girls are disproportionately affected. They face extraordinary dangers to secure food, and yet, too often eating last and eating least. Conflict and displacement have also forced women to abandon their jobs or miss planting seasons, adds this coalition of independent Non-Governmental Organisations, devoted to fighting inequalities.

 

More climate crisis; less humanitarian aid

Last but not least, such harsh inequalities are growing rapidly due to fast developing climate emergency, the drastic cuts in rich countries humanitarian assistance, the predominance of industrial food systems, intensive cultivation and harvesting, etcetera.

What fate for all these billions of hungry and extremely poor people in a world that produces enough to feed all of them?

Will the United States and the other major meat consuming countries choose to significantly reduce their beef consumption and move to plant-based diets as part of measures to address climate change, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss? Credit: Bigstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Oct 18 2021 (IPS)

Probably no country is more closely associated with the hamburger than the United States. It’s fair to say that the hamburger is the country’s culinary icon. It’s the most popular fast food consumed and readily available from coast to coast.

Although some historical accounts chronicle the hamburger being prepared in Wisconsin in 1885, America’s hamburger affair reportedly began in 1904 when the hamburger made its official visible debut at the St. Louis Louisiana Purchase Exposition. Since then, the hamburger has become America’s most ubiquitous, dominant, and favorite food.

The United States consumes an estimated 50 billion hamburgers annually. That consumption amounts to about 150 hamburgers for each person per year or 3 hamburgers per person each week of the year

Given its popularity, pervasiveness and impact across the country, it’s worthwhile considering the total number of hamburgers the United States with its population of 333 million consumes annually. Is the total number of hamburgers consumed by the United States annually 1 billion, 5 billion, 25 billion or 50 billion?

The answer to that question is not 1 billion hamburgers. It’s also not 5 billion, nor even 25 billion.

The correct answer is the United States consumes an estimated 50 billion hamburgers annually.

That consumption amounts to about 150 hamburgers for each person per year or 3 hamburgers per person each week of the year. Among U.S. states, hamburger consumption is highest in Oklahoma and Nevada with 267 hamburgers consumed per person annually and lowest is in West Virginia with 171 hamburgers per person each year.

The hamburger has recently emerged as a controversial issue in U.S. politics. Some right-wing groups, politicians and others have warned voters that the Biden administration is “coming for your hamburgers”, cutting 90 percent of red meat from the U.S. diet and limiting each person to one hamburger per month.

The White House dismissed the false claims, saying they were just made up stories with a losing argument. The USDA also called the claims made by Republicans that Biden is trying to limit red meat consumption a fabrication and is not part of the administration’s climate plan nor greenhouse gas emission targets.

However, many in the country, including philanthropists, dietitians, scientists and others concerned about climate change, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss, have called for reducing meat consumption and moving toward a more plant-based diet.

Besides contributing to improvements in human health, reducing the consumption of animal products, especially beef, and eating mostly plant-based foods can significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions and reduce animal waste.

Such a change in the diet of the U.S. population of 333 million people, or 4 percent of the world’s population, would make available croplands for human plant food instead of feed for the country’s 94 million cattle, 77 million hogs and pigs, and 518 million chickens, as well as additional land for increased biodiversity.

 

 

It is estimated that it takes 1,800 gallons (6,814 liters) of water to produce one pound (0.45 kilogram) of grain-fed beef in the U.S. Also, it is estimated that 6.5 pounds (3 kilos) of greenhouse gases are released to produce the beef for just one-quarter pound (113 grams) hamburger.

One alternative to the beef hamburger is the veggie burger, which has long existed in many Eurasian diets. The veggie burger has become a growing U.S. fare for many, especially for younger eaters and those with health concerns who are choosing to avoid or reduce their red meat consumption.

Instead of meat, the patty in the veggie hamburger is made from vegetables, legumes, grains, seeds, and other plant-based ingredients. While available in most supermarkets, many have turned to popular recipes to prepare veggie burgers at home.

Several years ago fast food hamburger chains in cooperation with food companies began offering plant-based hamburgers with the taste of meat. Instead of using ground beef, the meatless hamburger is based on processed plant-based foods that are specially designed to resemble the taste of beef. In addition, sales of plant-based meat in supermarkets are increasing rapidly across the country.

The plant-based processed hamburgers contribute less greenhouse gas emissions, use less water and land than the traditional hamburger based on beef. However, those burgers can be high in saturated fats and sodium, both of which are linked to obesity, heart disease and high blood pressure.

Some U.S. elected officials do not believe that plant-based meat is an answer to climate change and moving towards green energy. Also businesses in many U.S. states object to reductions in meat consumption as it would decimate those working in the beef industry and have collateral economic damage.

Despite the U.S. government’s avoidance of the issue of meat consumption, concerns about climate change, environment degradation and biodiversity loss are challenging the country’s relationship with the hamburger.

Climate scientists have advised U.S. officials that the raising of cattle is unsustainable and generates high levels of greenhouse gases. In addition, producing beef involves the destruction of forests and other habitats to make way for pasture and for growing fodder to be feed for cattle.

The United States accounts for the largest amount of beef consumed annually by a single country. Of the world’s 59 billion kilos (130 billion pounds) of beef produced in 2020, the United States led with 21 percent, followed by China at 16 percent, the European Union at 13 percent and Brazil nearly at 13 percent. Together the top ten countries consumed about 83 percent of the total beef produced in 2020.

 

Source: Beef 2 Live (USDA).

 

Beef consumption per capita, however, varies among those top ten countries. For 2020 Argentina took the top position among those countries with 54 kilos of beef per person, followed by the United States and Brazil at 38 and 36 kilos per person, respectively. The lowest levels of beef consumption in 2020 among the ten countries were China and India at 7 and 2 kilos per person, respectively.

 

Source: Beef 2 Live (USDA).

 

Will the United States and the other major meat consuming countries choose to significantly reduce their beef consumption and move to plant-based diets as part of measures to address climate change, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss?

Politics, business interests, dietary preferences and cultural habits together strongly point to a likely answer to that question. In brief, beef consumption can be expected to continue in the United States as well as in other top major beef consuming countries well into the future.

Perhaps the United States, and maybe even other countries, will end the affair with the automobile, which has resulted in 290 million cars on U.S. roads?

Perhaps the United States, and other countries, will shift to renewables and eliminate fossil fuels, which account for about 60 percent of the electricity generation in the U.S.?

Perhaps the United States, and other countries, will decide to move toward population stabilization, instead of the currently projected U.S. population of 400 million by around midcentury?

Or perhaps more likely, the United States and other countries will simply continue with business as usual with, of course, a large order of fries alongside that hamburger to go with the disastrous consequences of climate change, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

 

The construction of the Tat Sat Community Academy (TaSCA) in Kasasa, Uganda. While the project seeks to improve the livelihoods of all community members, there is a particular emphasis on uplifting women and girls. This is of greater importance now, with the COVID-19 pandemic having an outsized effect on women and girls across the world. Credit: Sylvester Mwanja, TaSCA Project Manager

By Ronald Kibirige and Scott Frank
TRONDHEIM, Norway / DENVER, USA , Oct 18 2021 (IPS)

As we honored women and girls last week, on the annual International Day of Rural Women on October 15, we want to highlight how a community is coming together to change the lives and livelihoods of rural women and girls in Uganda.

While the Tat Sat Community Academy Project (TaSCA) in Kasasa, Uganda, seeks to improve the livelihoods of all community members, there is a particular emphasis on uplifting women and girls. This is of greater importance now, with the COVID-19 pandemic having an outsized effect on women and girls across the world.

According to The World Economic Forum’s 2021 Global Gender Gap Report, school closures globally saw 1.54 billion children staying home, including 743 million girls. This shift has created barriers for access to health services, nutrition, and economic opportunities.

TaSCA board member Namayega Agnes says that in her rural community of Kasasa, women and children have not been given an equal chance for financial progress, development and contribution to the wellbeing of the community.

She also says challenges are more severe for girls, who face constant pressure to drop out of school to marry or pursue other perceived pathways to stability.

The TaSCA project, she believes, creates a gender balance – a shift in the current perceptions about the women and the girls in the community to be equally productive members of the community.

TaSCA is a community-led project being implemented by the TaSCA Kasasa Community Board (TKCB) in partnership with the Peace Africa Children’s Ensemble, a local nonprofit chosen by the community to help develop the project.

The effort is being supported by The InteRoots Initiative, a nonprofit organization which we co-founded a few years ago after previously collaborating together. Through an innovative model we call roots-up philanthropy, InteRoots is working to support the community members of Kasasa who are building TaSCA, which will include a school, savings and credit co-op, and cultural institution.

We hope TaSCA will provide equity in education, access to financing and financial support networks, and preservation of cultural practices. Additionally, community members also receive support with access to microlending through the Savings and Credit Cooperative Organization (SACCO), which will provide community financing, student/family financial support and economic education.

The community has said that it is imperative that along with access to microlending, students learn how to handle finances so that they can be equipped in the future for other opportunities.

Of immediate interest to the community is using the SACCO to invest in a mill, which will be used by the farmers in the community to produce locally instead of outsourcing at a high cost. The locally sourced food will also be available to the school’s students and staff members.

The Graduate Enterprise Fund, meanwhile, will allow students, upon graduation, to submit a plan for set-aside funds for purposes that will further goals. This may include continuing their education or starting a business.

The community board must approve the plan, and graduates will receive financial support for around one to two years, providing economic stability beyond graduation.

As stated above, now is the time for such initiatives. Because of the pandemic and its effects, it is estimated that an estimated 96 million people will be pushed into extreme poverty, of whom 47 million are women, according to UN Women.

We cannot stand idly by as we watch our fellow citizens of the world face such challenges and obstacles. We are excited by the potential TaSCA can have and are eagerly awaiting its opening in 2022.

Now more than ever, communities must come together to transform and uplift women and girls, especially in rural areas that may face greater barriers to access to health care, technology and education.

We hope Kasasa will be a model for others and we are heartened by the support the community has received so far. For updates on TaSCA and InteRoots’ work, please visit InteRoots.org.

Ronald Kibirige is co-founder and board chair of The InteRoots Initiative. Scott Frank is co-founder and executive director of the organization.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Food table banking is turning the tables on the systematic and systemic financial exclusion of women. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

By Joyce Chimbi
NAIROBI, Oct 15 2021 (IPS)

Pascaline Chemutai’s five acres of land located in the country’s breadbasket region of Rift Valley recently produced 115 bags of maize, each weighing 90 kilograms. She tells IPS that of these, 110 bags will be transported to traders in Nairobi and neighbouring Kiambu County at a negotiated price of $23 per bag.

In all, she will have pocketed about $2,500, a significant amount in the village. Not only will she have enough to feed her family of five, but to pay for their school fees and other basic needs. Besides maize farming, Chemutai sells milk to residents in town.

The 45-year-old farmer widowed eight years ago with five young children says that her life as a farmer was made possible and is sustained through table banking.

“My husband was in charge of our farm and handled all business related to the farm. I knew how to farm because I grew up cultivating land, but I had no money to buy seeds and fertilizer or knowledge on the business side of farming,” she says.

Fortunately, a year before the demise of her husband, Chemutai joined a table banking group under the Joyful Women Organization (JOYWO), a registered NGO focused on the economic empowerment of women.

As the name suggests, women place their savings on a table and immediately loan each other accumulated funds.
“Women knew of village saving groups where contributions were spent on household items such as cups, plates and even beddings. We were now learning about saving and borrowing,” she says.

Sharon Alice Anyango says that the simple concept of table banking, where a group of 10 to 35 members use the group-based strategy to fundraise by saving, placing their savings on a table, and borrowing immediately, has turned tables on the systematic and systemic financial exclusion of women.

“Table banking is addressing the primary challenges that women face when dealing with banks and other financial institutions. Where they needed collateral that they did not have to access bank loans, today, they successfully fundraise amongst themselves,” says Anyango, a project officer at the Ministry of Public Service, Youth and Gender.

JOYWO, whose current patron is Rachael Ruto, the wife of Deputy President William Ruto, claims to have a revolving fund of at least $27 million in the hands of its estimated 200,000 members across 1,200 table banking groups in all parts of the country.

“Other estimates show that so popular is the table banking movement that cumulatively, table banking groups throughout the country circulate approximately $550,000 to $730,000,” Anyango says.

She explains that only women were involved at the start, but as they started to accumulate funds, men became interested.

“Men have seen the magic,” she says.

Now the table banking fraternity allows men to join, but the groups’ constitutions ensure that at least 70 percent of the members and all the leadership positions are women.

Chemutai says that their table banking group of 20 members currently has a revolving fund of $30,000. She has taken loans valued at $2,000 to fund various farming and animal husbandry ventures in the last year.

“Seeds, fertilizer, labour, tractors and veterinary services, salary for my farm boy and feeds for my cows cost a lot of money. I borrow from the group and repay, and this cycle repeats itself every year, and all my activities are running smoothly,” she tells IPS.

“Table banking has also linked me to a reliable market. We started interacting with other table banking groups from other parts of the country, and that is how I managed to find a market. I sell all my maize to other women in table banking groups within Nairobi and Kiambu counties. I would never have met these women if it was not for table banking,” she says.

Chemutai’s story is in line with research from the Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition that points to “a high probability that any agricultural product that we buy has been produced by a woman. Women’s contribution is essential for the food security of entire communities and for the farming production of many developing and rural communities.”

The research further points to the many gender disparities that prevent women such as Chemutai from accessing financing. On paper, Chemutai does not own an asset to be used as collateral despite having access to five acres of land because the land is ‘ancestral’ land.

As per the Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition and undoubtedly true for many women in agriculture, “when women are guaranteed the same access as men to community resources, services and economic opportunities, production increased, the economic and social benefits of the community improve, and malnutrition and poverty are reduced.”

Celebrated every October 16, as the global community marks yet another World Food Day under the theme “Our actions are our future. Better production, better nutrition, a better environment and a better life”, gender experts, such as Anyango, tell IPS that this is the level of access that women need to feed the global population.

Agriculture is still the largest employment sector for 60 percent of women in Sub-Saharan Africa. Women like Chemutai also make up two-thirds of the world’s 600 million small livestock managers, according to the U.N’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Despite their contribution to agriculture, financing is still largely not affordable, available, and accessible to women farmers. In this East African nation where the table banking movement is more concentrated in rural areas, women now have a lifeline to fund agricultural activities with loans taken under friendly terms and conditions.
Anyango asserts that women must be at the centre of World Food Day’s collective action across 150 countries to promote worldwide awareness of global hunger and the need to ensure healthy diets for all.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Barilla Foundation Report Highlights Need for Food Companies to Align with Sustainable Development Goals
• If Women Farmers were Politicians, the World Would be Fed, says Danielle Nierenberg
• Nurturing a New Generation of Food Leaders