After years of delays, six human rights organizations — including the foundation that runs the online encyclopedia Wikipedia — have finally received permission to raise concerns and participate in discussions at the U.N. body overseeing economic development and social issues.
The United States had pushed for a vote on the six groups in June in the U.N. Committee on Non-governmental Organizations, which handles requests for accreditation to the U.N. Economic and Social Council, known as ECOSOC. But a majority of the NGO committee’s 19 members voted to end debate on the six applications — which again meant no action.
The U.S., Italy, Sweden and Estonia then introduced a resolution seeking a vote in ECOSOC, which has 54 member nations. That took place Thursday and Russia asked for a recorded vote, rather than letting the decision happen by consensus.
The result was 23 countries in favor, 7 against and 18 abstentions. Russia opposed granting what is known as consultative status to the six rights groups, as did China, India, Kazakhstan, Nicaragua, Nigeria and Zimbabwe.
The six groups now join thousands of NGOs with consultative status at ECOSOC.
Louis Charbonneau, U.N. director at Human Rights Watch, said: “The decision to grant U.N. accreditation to six human rights groups is a step in the right direction. But it’s only a fraction of the hundreds of organizations whose applications have been unfairly blocked for years by Russia, China, and other abusive governments.”
The six organizations which won ECOSOC approval for consultative status are: the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, Diakonia in Sweden, No Peace Without Justice in Italy, the Estonian Institute of Human Rights, and two U.S.-based groups — the Syrian-American Medical Society and the Wikimedia Foundation. The foundation runs Wikipedia.
U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield singled out the two U.S. organizations in a tweet after the vote, citing their world on human rights, freedom of expression and humanitarian issues and saying: “We will continue to fight to ensure civil society voices are heard at the U.N.”
Amanda Keton, general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, called the vote “a decisive win for the protection of global civic space” in a statement Friday, saying consultative status in ECOSOC will enable the foundation “to work directly with member states and other stakeholders to promote greater and more equitable access to free knowledge globally.”
Maithili Pai, who focuses on civil society participation for the International Service for Human Rights, a human rights organization based in Geneva and New York, said the vote could make clear that the NGO committee “cannot continue to be a vehicle for reprisals against civil society,” noting that applications for over 350 organizations are still being held up.
Human Rights Watch’s Charbonneau urged countries that respect human rights to push for an urgent overhaul of the U.N.’s accreditation process for NGOs “and put a stop to efforts to silence human rights activists at the U.N.”
Worldwide there has been a wave of initiatives to grant rivers rights as a way of protecting them – and the communities that rely on them. River rights laws aim to change the legal standing of rivers so that they’re not treated as property, but rather like an individual, with “human” rights.
The river rights perspective was developed in advanced liberal democracies with large aboriginal populations, such as Australia and New Zealand. Driven by the deteriorating water quality of rivers, it is now being advanced by many scholars in Europe, and elsewhere. For instance, the Earth Law Center is working towards passing Africa’s first law establishing rights for rivers.
River rights would include the rights of river basins across national boundaries. This is because water quality is affected by upstream economic activities and land use.
Rivers are important resources for societies and country economies. Power generation through hydro-electric installations is a typical example. So too is the tourism potential of ecosystems like the Okavango Delta. Rivers are not only of importance to humans but also to ecosystems.
Giving rivers rights would enable them to perform legal acts and exert influence on policy. They could even act as a party to proceedings to promote and protect their rights.
Because rivers are “voiceless” their rights would need to be implemented by an authoritative body or custodian on their behalf. These would typically be local or indigenous communities.
Australia and New Zealand have already established such authorities for the Yarra and Whanganui rivers, respectively. Indigenous peoples play a central part in protecting these rivers and giving them a voice.
An argument for river rights is that existing river basin institutions and regimes – like the European Union’s Water Framework Directive – have failed. The river rights approach was promoted as a better alternative.
Our research – spanning over 30 years on transboundary river governance and politics – shows, however, that there’s a need to critically examine the notion of river rights. This is particularly so when contemplating political power dynamics within transboundary rivers and the various stakeholders involved.
And if transboundary rivers have rights, it could also mean they – or their custodians – have responsibilities.
Responsibilities of custodians
Responsibilities arise from fundamental rights. If an entity is given rights, it is then also bound by duties – like following rules and laws.
In the case of devastating floods, the custodians of rivers with rights could be held accountable for property damage and deaths.
This is where the river rights approach falls short. Currently, the approach portrays the river as a victim and not a potential actor.
Another problem with the river rights perspective is that it doesn’t address power dynamics within transboundary rivers. If indigenous or local communities are custodians of the river, it could also scuttle development projects. This could bring dilemmas for developing economies, which are still struggling to supply basic services like water, sanitation, and electricity to their populations.
Fifteen transboundary rivers flow across southern Africa that are shared by two or more states. International treaties, river basin commissions and catchment management agencies manage the rivers and the cooperative use of their water resources through joint projects.
From a river rights perspective, these arrangements would be inadequate to protect the quantity and quality of the water resources. They would not safeguard them from future economic exploitation either.
In theory, having indigenous communities as custodians would create more inclusive governance systems and processes in the management of the transboundary rivers.
But the rights of indigenous peoples and their traditional governance systems are often at odds with states’ development aspirations.
Southern African states develop transboundary rivers to achieve economic development and water security for a growing population and economy. Numerous large dam projects and irrigation systems have been built for this purpose, like the Lesotho Highlands Water Project and the Kariba and Ruacana hydro-electric facilities.
Indigenous groups typically become involved in transboundary river issues when they oppose large dams and other development plans.
For instance, this happened when the Namibian government mooted the Epupa hydropower project in the early 1990s on the Kunene River. The OvaHimba community resisted the construction of the dam. They argued that their grazing land would be flooded, access to the river denied and that their burial sites would be destroyed. Interest groups from other countries joined the protest.
After feasibility studies indicated that the Baynes Dam site would be better and Angola, as a state sharing the Kunene, was reluctant to become involved in the project, Namibia shelved the plans for the dam.
Two decades later, the Namibian government announced plans to construct the dam at the Baynes site. Namibia was already experiencing electricity shortages due to South Africa’s electricity supply constraints.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Success!
Almost finished…
We need to confirm your email address.
To complete the process, please follow the instructions in the email we just sent you.
Error!
There was a problem processing your submission. Please try again later.
This time the OvaZemba people joined the OvaHimba and transnational interest groups in protesting the Baynes Dam’s construction. They cited the same arguments and again, the Namibian government was pitted against a well organised lobby campaign.
On the one hand the river is protected from large water projects. On the other, economic development and job creation opportunities are forgone.
Local and global realities
In southern Africa – with its mostly fledgling liberal democracies – power struggles between political stakeholders are the order of the day. These democracies are also part of an economically and technologically connected world.
The environment and economic development need rivers with good quality and sufficient water. But values of certain political actors will continue to be influential.
In this context the river rights perspective seems unrealistic at present.
Richard Meissner, Associate Professor, University of South Africa
Jeroen Warner, Assistant Professor of Disaster Studies, Wageningen University
The European Union is moving towards regulation that will require companies to respect the rights of Indigenous peoples in their value chains, helping curb forest loss
The European Union’s environment committee decided this month to include protections for Indigenous peoples and other forest defenders in a proposed regulation on deforestation.
It voted overwhelmingly to direct companies that seek to place products on the EU market to respect international standards on customary land ownership rights, as well as the right of communities to consent to, or reject, investments that would affect them or their way of life.
If adopted by the European Parliament in September, two of the EU’s three legislative bodies will have voted in favour of creating obligations for companies to respect Indigenous peoples’ rights.
As the EU enters the final stretch of approving landmark legislation to ensure that the bloc only imports deforestation-free products, European leaders should know what the evidence says about the impact on forests of recognising and enforcing the land rights of Indigenous peoples.
Most recently, the IPBES (Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) released two reports showing unprecedented support for the value of Indigenous and other forest peoples in conserving what remains of the natural world.
The researchers called communities’ non-monetary and reciprocal relationship with nature vital for stopping the environmental destruction fuelling climate change, biodiversity loss and pandemic risk.
In a summary for policy makers released this month, the scientists advocated strongly for national governments to recognise the land tenure claims of Indigenous peoples. They noted that a rights-based approach to conservation “creates enabling conditions” for the sustainable use of wild species, including the forests that are central to the fight against climate change.
In just four Latin America countries – Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Peru – Indigenous lands sequester more than twice as much carbon per hectare than other lands, according to a paper analysing the potential contributions of Indigenous territories to meeting the four nations’ commitments under the Paris climate agreement.
Global hunger for timber, mineral wealth and commodities like beef, soy and palm oil drives deforestation in tropical forest countries. Although their forests suffer less degradation, Indigenous peoples in the forests of Indonesia, Latin America and Central Africa continue to be under siege from these industries.
In Colombia, violence has ramped up in rural areas, with hundreds of community leaders murdered over the past six years. And in the Brazilian Amazon this year, deforestation is up 12.7% compared to the first five months of 2021. Last year, Brazil lost more than 1.5 million hectares of forest, most of it in the Amazon.
If tropical forests are standing today, it is largely because of the Indigenous peoples and local communities who resist illegal invaders and stand up to industrial concessions that overlay their lands.
END IMPUNITY FOR VIOLENCE
The plight of Indigenous and other environmental defenders is far better understood in the wake of the horrifying deaths of journalist Dom Phillips and activist Bruno Pereira in the Brazilian Amazon. The two sought to raise awareness of how the values held by Indigenous peoples ensure the survival of the rainforest. Their murders made visible the political and economic pressures eroding the survival of communities and their traditional knowledge across the Amazon.
It’s not too late for governments of forest countries to end the climate of impunity that is subjecting communities to violence and their ancestral lands to destruction.
This means enforcing existing rights and responding to demands from communities for title to their forests and resources, alongside new technologies to help them monitor and report incursions on their lands. And climate planners in each country must embed in their advisory groups Indigenous experts to help guide them in their decision-making.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Success!
Almost finished…
We need to confirm your email address.
To complete the process, please follow the instructions in the email we just sent you.
Error!
There was a problem processing your submission. Please try again later.
The evidence suggests that ending human rights and other rights violations in corporate supply chains – as the EU’s new regulation plans to do – represents another key strategy to reduce rampant deforestation and biodiversity loss.
To do less would sabotage progress in meeting climate change and biodiversity goals. Failure to scale up support for environmental defenders will green-light further murder and mayhem, endangering the last humans who live in harmony with the natural world and unleashing on the rest of us an apocalyptic future.
David Kaimowitz, chief program officer with the Tenure Facility, is also former manager of the FAO Forest and Farm Facility and former director general of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). The views expressed here are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Tenure Facility.
Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.
ISLAMABAD — Hundreds of people have been killed in Afghanistan since the Taliban overran the country nearly a year ago, even though security on the whole has improved since then, the United Nations said in a report Wednesday.
The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan also highlighted the poor situation of women and girls since the Taliban takeover and how they have been stripped of many of their human rights under Afghanistan’s current rulers.
“It is beyond time for all Afghans to be able to live in peace and rebuild their lives after 20 years of armed conflict. Our monitoring reveals that despite the improved security situation since 15 August, the people of Afghanistan, in particular women and girls, are deprived of the full enjoyment of their human rights,” said Markus Potzel, deputy special representative of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan.
The report said as many as 700 people have been killed and 1,400 wounded since mid-August 2021, when the Taliban overran the Afghan capital of Kabul as the United States and NATO were in the final weeks of their withdrawal from the country.
The majority of those casualties were linked to attacks by the Islamic State group’s affiliate in the country, a bitter rival of the Taliban which has targeted ethnic and religious minority communities in places where they go to school, worship and go about their daily lives.
Afghanistan has seen persistent bombings and other attacks on civilians, often targeting the mainly Shiite Muslim ethnic Hazara minority. Most of the attacks have been claimed by the Islamic State group’s affiliate in the country.
The U.N. also said an amnesty for former government officials the Taliban announced last year has not been consistently upheld. Fiona Frazer, the U.N.’s human rights representative in Afghanistan, said the U.N. recorded 160 extrajudicial killings and 178 arrests of former government and military officials.
The report said human rights violations must be investigated by the authorities, perpetrators held accountable, and incidents should be prevented from reoccurring in the future.
Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid called the U.N. report “baseless and propaganda” and its findings “not true.”
Arbitrary arrests and killings are not allowed in the country and if anyone commits such crimes, they will be considered guilty and face legal action, he added.
After their takeover last year, the Taliban quickly started enforcing a sharply tougher line, harking back to similar radical measures when the Taliban last ruled the country, from 1996 to 2001.
They issued edicts requiring women to cover their faces except for their eyes in public, including women presenters on TV, and banned girls from attending school past the sixth grade.
The U.N. report added that the erosion of women’s rights has been one of the most notable aspects of the de facto administration to date. Since August, women and girls have progressively had their rights to fully participate in education, the workplace and other aspects of public and daily life restricted and in many cases completely taken away.
The decision not to allow girls to return to secondary school means that a generation of girls will not complete their full 12 years of basic education, the U.N. said.
“The education and participation of women and girls in public life is fundamental to any modern society. The relegation of women and girls to the home denies Afghanistan the benefit of the significant contributions they have to offer. Education for all is not only a basic human right, it is the key to progress and development of a nation,” said Potzel, the U.N. envoy.
During the previous Taliban rule in Afghanistan, they subjected women to overwhelming restrictions, banning them from education and participation in public life and requiring them to wear the all-encompassing burqa.
A prodigious talent with the drive and ambition to make it all the way to the top, when Kelvin Bilal Fawaz got the chance to represent Team GB as a boxer at the 2012 Olympics in London it was a dream come true.
Trafficked as a child from Nigeria to the UK and forced into domestic servitude, Fawaz had the opportunity for Olympic glory in the place he now called home.
Yet he was never given the chance to take his place on the global stage.
Instead, the Home Office refused to give him the work visa he needed for the prospect of a professional boxing career and he had to turn down the invitation from Team GB to take part in both the 2012 and 2016 Olympics.
Last week, Fawaz, along with millions of other fans across the country, watched as Sir Mo Farah, who achieved global stardom by winning two golds at the 2012 Olympics, before adding another pair in Rio in 2016, revealed that he too was trafficked into domestic servitude from Somalia as a child.
Farah also revealed his real name was Hussein Abdi Kahin and that he has been living under a false identity ever since. But while the British government has made it clear that Farah’s citizenship is not under threat, Fawaz said his own case showed the reality for most trafficking victims.
Mo Farah revealed in a TV interview last week that he had been trafficked into domestic servitude from Somalia as a child. Photograph: Martin Rickett/PA
“Watching Mo Farah disclose his trafficking ordeal over the last week has brought up a lot of pain,” said Fawaz. “It is impossible not to compare our lives and wonder what could have been if I’d only been given the chances that were offered to him.”
Throughout his adult life, Fawaz has existed in a state of immigration limbo, denied the opportunity to work, twice detained in immigration detention centres and at risk of forced deportation to Nigeria, a country that has refused to accept his citizenship or issue him with a passport.
“The trauma of being trafficked and exploited does not go away, it lives with you every day,” he said. “Mo Farah is a sporting legend but I have seen my own talent wasted and my opportunity to become an Olympian lost. Even though the Home Office has accepted I was a child trafficking victim, they have relentlessly denied me the chance to build a life and compete in the sport that I love.”
After escaping his exploiters and reporting his traffickers to the authorities, Fawaz spent time in care and saysthat discovering boxing was his salvation. Against the odds, he rose through the non-professional ranks to captain the England amateur boxing team.
Farwaz training at Stonebridge boxing gym in north London in 2018. Photograph: Alicia Canter/The Guardian
Over the years, some of the biggest names in the sport have appealed to the Home Office on his behalf, asking that he be allowed to box professionally, including promoter Frank Warren. Former world featherweight champion Barry McGuigan offered him a £230,000 contract in 2014 that he could not sign because the Home Office refused to settle his immigration status.
In 2020, after a 16-year battle with the Home Office,, Fawaz was finally granted a 30-month visa after the government accepted he was a child trafficking victim. He was quickly signed by MTK Global, one of the world’s largest boxing management agencies.
He fought two matches as a professional, which he won, before MTK closed after US government sanctions against its co-founder Daniel Kinahan, a suspected crime boss.
“I am now struggling to get promoters to sign me because they say at 34 I’m too old and my boxing career is over before it started,” Fawaz said.
“I am still fighting the Home Office for my right to remain here beyond my 30-month visa and they will not give me documents to travel abroad, where I’ve been offered the chance to fight professionally.
“They can’t deport me to Nigeria because the government there won’t recognise my citizenship so I don’t understand why they’re doing this. I’m still in poverty, my future is still uncertain and all because of something that happened to me as a child that I had no power over.”
Fawaz says that his experience is similar to many other child trafficking victims in the UK who spend years fighting immigration battles with the Home Office after they have escaped exploitation.
He added: “My experience shows that if Mo Farah had not been a national treasure and achieved what he has achieved, they might have locked him up or deported him. It hurts deep in my soul that I am seeing my life pass me by and this talent I was given just going to waste. My dream was to represent Team GB and this has been taken away from me and I don’t understand why.”
When he was a teenager and still in the care system, Fawaz received convictions for minor offences including cannabis possession, driving without insurance and spraying graffiti. He has never been to prison and has never received a harsher sentence than community service.
However, the Home Office said his “lengthy criminal record… added to the complexities in considering his case”. According to government figures, just 2% of child trafficking victims are given discretionary leave to remain, which they are entitled to under international law. Instead many, like Fawaz, are given temporary visas until their 18th birthday, when they then enter the asylum system and face years of limbo or deportation.
Government figures also show that 35% of adults who were trafficked to the UK as children were refused their first asylum application in 2020.
Harare — Barbra Banda, a top player on Zambia’s national women’s team, was subjected to what is called a gender verification procedure to determine whether her testosterone levels are above those allowed to compete as a woman, in what Human Rights Watch (HRW) has described as a flagrant human rights violation.
As a result, Banda was ruled out of the the Africa Women Cup of Nations (AWCON) after failing gender eligibility tests.
HRW says such sex testing procedures are stigmatising, stereotyping, and discriminatory, accusing FIFA of having a policy that encourages such tests, contrary to the organisation’s human rights responsibilities. “FIFA’s policy states that any football association or medical officer’s request for a player to undergo an involuntary “gender verification procedure,” based on suspicion about her sex, is permissible,” the human rights watchdog says.
Although a Confederation of African Football (CAF) representative later denied this, according to HRW, it appears that CAF administered the sex test. Policies like FIFA’s mean women footballers are subject to surveillance based on gender stereotypes and bodily characteristics.
FIFA, the highest global authority in football, said sex and gender result from complex physical and psychological development processes, and says apparently clear differentiation between men and women may become difficult in certain situations.
“FIFA competitions are defined for specific groups determined by age and sex in order to ensure a level playing field for all players. Androgenic hormones have performance-enhancing effects, particularly on strength, power and speed, which may provide an advantage in football and could influence the outcome of the game,” FIFA said in a statement.
“With respect to the integrity of football, it must be guaranteed that players fulfill the respective criteria for participation. It is a major responsibility of member associations and team physicians to ensure correct gender of their players.”
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Success!
Almost finished…
We need to confirm your email address.
To complete the process, please follow the instructions in the email we just sent you.
Error!
There was a problem processing your submission. Please try again later.
The world governing body’s current gender verification policy dates to May 30, 2011 and was put in place to verify gender and – controversially – determine whether female athletes with high testosterone levels have an unfair advantage.
Banda is not the first African athlete to face this ordeal.
South African athletics star Caster Semenya is now required to reduce her naturally high testosterone levels if she wants to compete in the 800m, which is her main event.
Semenya first won gold at the World Championships in 2009, and went on to win at the 2016 Olympics, and 2017 World Championships, where she also won a bronze medal in the 1500 metres.
Following her victory at the 2009 World Championships, she was made to undergo sex testing, and cleared to return to competition the following year.
However, in 2019, new world athletics rules came into force preventing her from participating in 400m, 800m, and 1500m events in the female classification.
In 2020, Semenya lost an appeal against the World Athletics rules barring her from middle distance racing without lowering her natural testosterone levels.
Meanwhile, in 2021, Namibian track and field stars Christine Mboma and Beatrice Masilingi were also banned from competing in the women’s 400m race at the Tokyo Games because their natural testosterone levels were said to be too high.
