Tag: Rights

  • After years of delay 6 rights groups get UN accreditation

    After years of delay 6 rights groups get UN accreditation

    [ad_1]

    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.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Africa: Giving Rivers Rights Aims to Protect the ‘Voiceless’ – But There’s a Catch

    Africa: Giving Rivers Rights Aims to Protect the ‘Voiceless’ – But There’s a Catch

    [ad_1]

    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.