Conference

Showing posts with label Conference. Show all posts

Copenhagen Climate Change Conference

Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request

December 7 – December 18, 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark was the venue for the 15th annual United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as the 15th Conference of the Parties — or COP 15.

As with previous conferences, thousands of politicians (including head of states), diplomats, journalists, lobbyists and NGOs attended hoping the summit would finalize a post-Kyoto international agreement on climate change to take effect in 2013.

The build-up to the meeting was full of optimism and hope, as the US was, for the first time in a long time, going to be seen as a positive contributor, and their involvement is always recognized as key. There was also increasing focus on emerging economies such as China and India.

Instead of a positive outcome, most commentators saw it as a failure, though for different reasons.

This article provides a very brief summary of the outcome and related issues, as much has been said in the mainstream media and the Internet:

This web page has the following sub-sections:

Lowered expectations and outcomesCommon but Differentiated Responsibility Principle Sidelined AgainChina’s actions a new cause for concern?Emerging GeopoliticsTrillions for Wall Street, Pennies for EarthDoes tackling climate change have to mean lowering living standards?Will we ever agree on a common course of action?More InformationLowered expectations and outcomes

As the Copenhagen conference drew closer, it was becoming more likely that nothing concrete would be achieved due to various impasses.

As early as March, 2009, Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said that even if a climate treaty could not be established in Copenhagen, if four essential issues could be addressed, that would alone mean progress:

How much are the industrialized countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases?How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions?How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed?How is that money going to be managed?

Despite the pressure and expectations, including grueling last minute efforts to salvage something, all that emerged was a vague agreement — the Copenhagen Accord .

This Accord, brokered by the US in a backroom agreement between Brazil, China, India and South Africa came about in the final hours of the 2-week conference. But not without controversy because,

Some delegates out of the 187 countries excluded from this backroom meeting were visibly upset at not being involvedSome therefore decided not to support it, andIn the end, the accord had no legal standing under the UN convention on climate change — participating countries merely noted its existence and expressed support or not.

In effect, it took hours of diplomacy just to produce a letter of intent, an accord which did not really address the 4 essential issues de Boer hoped would be tackled.

What did the Accord set out? Key points included

To keep the maximum temperature rise to below 2°CTo list developed country emission reduction targets and mitigation action by developing countries for 2020$30 billion short-term funding for immediate action till 2012$100 billion annually by 2020 in long-term financingReiterating past intentions such as providing mechanisms to support technology transfer and forestry.

Video: Yvo de Boer of the UNFCCC summarizes the Accord at COP15 closing press briefing, December 19, 2009

While many were disappointed with the final outcome, many (especially some politicians at the conference who perhaps had to avoid losing face) tried to put a positive spin on things.

Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen was interviewed as saying, “The top leaders were taking Copenhagen seriously as their deadline and delivered beforehand. Had Obama not been due to attend, I doubt whether the US would have begun committing on long-term finance – which is historical. Had Lula not been due to attend, Brazil would hardly have raised its level of ambitions. Had Wen not been due to attend, China would probably not have opened to some level of international insight as to what it is doing – which actually is a globally politically significant admission.”

Common but Differentiated Responsibility Principle Sidelined Again

As Inter Press Service (IPS) summarized:

What is abundantly clear is the enormous divide between the rich and poor countries. Poor countries want deep cuts in emissions by the industrialized world, and the latter continue to resist significant cuts and legally binding targets.

— Stephen Leahy, Climate Change: History Was Not Made, Inter Press Service, December 19, 2009

This site’s section on climate justice has long gone into some detail about

How the “Common but Differentiated Responsibility” acknowledges that rich nations have emitted most of the greenhouse gases that are causing climate change, that developing countries’ emissions are likely to rise on their path to industrialization and trying to meet basic social and development needs; and that therefore while the goals are the same, the means to tackle climate change will be different.Year after year at climate summits, it seems this principle is often ignored by some rich nations and their media.It has therefore been easier in public to blame nations like China and India for reacting negatively and being uncooperative when faced with pressure to submit to emission reduction targets (before many rich nations demonstrate they can do the same).

Greenhouse gases tend to remain in the atmosphere for many decades so historical emissions are an important consideration.

The following shows that the rich nations (known as “Annex I countries” in UN climate change speak) have historically emitted more than the rest of the world combined, even though China, India and others have been growing recently. This is why the “common but differentiated responsibilities” principle was recognized. (The blip in the 1990s is when the Soviet Union collapsed).

Historical accumulation of carbon dioxide emissions from 1800 comparing Annex I countries (i.e. rich world) with rest of the world.

See prepared data with all countries, and raw sources, compiled by Gap Minder.

The US and others have characterized the campaign for climate justice and equality to the atmosphere as a way to claim climate “reparations”; that it is unfair to make the industrialized nations pay for climate emissions into the past century or more at a time when they didn’t know it would cause more harm.

That seems reasonable. However, one of the implications of that any agreement that is subsequently drawn up will, in effect, put disproportionately more burden on the poorer countries to tackle a problem they did not largely cause. The poor are less likely to have the resources to do so, which also means that tackling climate change is less likely to be successful.

This is why rich nations are being asked to seriously think about the type and way they use energy in addition to helping the poorer nations (not necessarily “reparations” but through meaningful technology and adaptation assistance — which would be far less costly than the bailouts readily handed to people that did cause a major problem).

In addition, there is little fairness in asking China, India and others to be subject to emission targets when many rich countries didn’t achieve the watered down Kyoto targets themselves.

Some emerging nations are in a grey area — India, China, Brazil, etc are rapidly developing and although they have enormous social and development problems outstanding, some of their wealthy are as wealthy (some more so) as those in industrialized nations. As such, wealthier developing nations aren’t necessarily the target (nor asking) for such adaptation funds.

It is certainly more complex than a few sentences on this page can provide, but the simplification offered by rich country leaders and their media hides this complexity year after year. (See climate justice from this web site for more details on this.)

China’s actions a new cause for concern?

Nonetheless, actions from China at the Copenhagen summit is possibly a cause for concern. While seemingly backed into a diplomatic corner by the US and others on the issue of transparency (“how can we believe you when you claim you will make all the stated energy savings; please be more transparent”) and emission reduction targets, it flexed its growing muscle, possibly a bit too far, showing the world that it can be just like the superpowers that have come before it and disregard many opinions and views as it sees fit.

The British and Americans are keen to blame China, though there is enough blame to go around, it seems. While China must certainly bear some of the blame, we can’t forget over a decade’s worth of climate negotiations where the US, and/or Europe have typically also been blocking meaningful commitments.

Emerging Geopolitics

The meeting was also interesting for the geopolitical implications of China’s actions: it almost certainly highlighted Europe’s decreasing influence even as a united bloc. It also perhaps showed that the US could not get its way — at least not as easily as in the past. Many commentators asked if we were witnessing a slow handing of the global superpower baton from the US to China (though this is a process likely to take many years to complete).

Some island nations as well as some African countries were also able to get heard more than in the past, signaling perhaps a new emerging voice.

Trillions for Wall Street, Pennies for Earth

Perhaps a indictment of humanity (or at least its leaders) was the contrast in how we can deal with a global financial crisis and a global warming crisis: wealthy bankers fail the world and get trillions as a reward bailout through just a few negotiations.

By contrast, it is mostly the emissions from wealthy countries that fail the world with climate change, yet many manage (for years, not just up to Copenhagen) to put equal blame on China, India and other emerging nations and take decades to come up with very little.

Does tackling climate change have to mean lowering living standards?

Some fear climate change negotiations amount to asking industrialized nations to lower their standard of living. Yet, this need not have to be.

For example, almost two decades ago, J.W. Smith of the Institute for Economic Democracy calculated that half the American economy alone was wasteful and unnecessary, with the same standard of living achievable with much less wasted effort. Of course, the implications are staggering (mass unemployment for example) as well as interesting (share the remaining productive jobs by reducing the work week), and perhaps idealistic (no country could try this alone in today’s globalized world). But recognizing the problem is an important first step. (See this site’s consumption section for more details.)

Most world governments have barely encouraged their industries to look for affordable alternatives to fossil fuel, yet, already many businesses (especially in America) are already innovating in this area. With enough political will, just fractions of the amount of funding and subsidies given to the fossil fuel industries could be channeled into alternatives yet still be a massive scale of investment. Side Note 1This could also mean less need to spend so much on military and geopolitics to secure resources, and the authoritarian regimes that control such resources — mostly in the Middle East — need less support from Western powers, and their own legitimacy can be naturally questioned, hopefully allowing democratic forces to flourish. Possibly naive and optimistic, but not necessarily impossible. Side Note 2As an additional aside, the fossil fuel industry seems to survive on a non-free market of subsidies and tax breaks etc, creating a false economy of sorts. Addressing that alone could cause enormous change, perhaps allowing environmentally friendlier alternatives an easier foothold and maybe without as massive an initial investment even.

In addition, as the authors of Natural Capitalism wrote over a decade ago, adjusting production processes to factor the entire production-to-use-to-dispose cycle to include recycling or eliminating waste and internalizing all the usually externalized costs could see enormous productivity and economic benefits, while significantly reducing resource usage.

Gross National Product measures typically do not count environmental costs or measure human well-being very well, and when those factors are measured, what may have seemed inefficient in the past is shown to not be so viable.

Volumes could be written on how we could in theory solve this so easily. Reality of course is so much harder in part due to power, greed, politics, etc. Yet, for richer nations afraid of losing out economically to China and India (for that really seems to be the concern), they may already lose out if China’s increasingly heavy investment into alternatives pays off.

It may be quite difficult for leaders of some Western nations to convince their public amidst lots of negative PR that these investments into alternatives could be incredibly beneficial, economically and even politically (see the above side note, for example). Yet, in combination with the global financial crisis and the questioning of the economic ideologies that allowed this to happen, this “perfect storm” perhaps also means that these crises are an opportunity; now is the time to try and make meaningful changes and make our systems work with nature rather than constantly fighting it.

Will we ever agree on a common course of action?

Despite all the optimism that these problems can be solved, the concerns have been raised by many for decades.

Ultimately, it seems, we are showing our future generations that once again power, greed, selfishness and other negative qualities of human nature can easily usurp any positive traits such as cooperation.

For climate negotiations, many now hope the follow-up meeting in Mexico in 2010 will be the place where concrete agreements are made. Many scientists say greenhouse emissions need to peak sooner rather than later, so each year seems like wasted time.

More Information

Some useful links for further details and insights:

Climate Change coverage from Inter Press Service (IPS). (This web site carries an IPS feed.)Climate Justice and Equity from this web site looks at the issue of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities as well as providing graphs and charts on what fairer emission allocations might look like.UNFCCCClimate Change Links for more Information from this web siteBack to top

Read more >>

Cancún climate change conference; good for rich countries, bad for developing ones

The formatter threw an exception while trying to deserialize the message: Error in deserializing body of request message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (30720) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 32802.

November 29 – December 10, 2010, Cancún, Mexico was the venue for the 16th annual United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as the 15th Conference of the Parties — or COP 16.

This conference came a year after the Copenhagen conference which promised so much but offered so little. It also came in the wake of WikiLeaks’ revelations of how the US in particular tried to cajole various countries to support an accord that served US interests rather than the world’s.

What resulted was an agreement that seems much watered down, even an almost reversal, from original aims and spirit of climate change mitigation. In effect, the main polluters (the industrialized nations) who should have borne the brunt of any emission reduction targets, have managed to reduce their commitments while increasing those of the developing countries; a great “global warming swindle” if any!

This web page has the following sub-sections:

WikiLeaks revelations provides context for Cancún outcomeCancún delivers but was it any good?Inaction in 2009 alone adds $1 trillion to reaching climate change goalsCommon but Differentiated Responsibility Principle Sidelined AgainTrillions for Wall Street, Pennies for EarthDoes tackling climate change have to mean lowering living standards?Will we ever agree on a common course of action?More InformationWikiLeaks revelations provides context for Cancún outcome

After the failure of COP15, there was more hope and pressure on this meeting to deliver. Yet, COP15 as well as more recent WikiLeaks’ revelations perhaps dampened expectations.

As summarized by The Guardian, WikiLeaks cables revealed how the US manipulated climate accord with embassy dispatches showing America used various tactics to get support for a weakened Copenhagen accord, including:

SpyingThreats, andPromises of aid

Why would the US be interested in an accord when historically it has typically been against climate treaties discussed at the UN? Some say that Obama’s views are quite different to his predecessor George Bush, and so we’d expect the US to engage more. Beneath those rosy views, however, the Guardian reveals some realpolitik:

The accord turns the UN’s top-down, unanimous approach upside down, with each nation choosing palatable targets for greenhouse gas cuts. It presents a far easier way to bind in China and other rapidly growing countries than the UN process. But the [Copenhagen] accord cannot guarantee the global greenhouse gas cuts needed to avoid dangerous warming. Furthermore, it threatens to circumvent the UN’s negotiations on extending the Kyoto protocol, in which rich nations have binding obligations. Those objections have led many countries — particularly the poorest and most vulnerable — to vehemently oppose the accord.
Getting as many countries as possible to associate themselves with the accord strongly served US interests, by boosting the likelihood it would be officially adopted. A diplomatic offensive was launched. Diplomatic cables flew thick and fast between the end of Copenhagen in December 2009 and late February 2010, when the leaked cables end.

— Damian Carrington, WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord, The Guardian, December 3, 2010 (Emphasis added)

But most countries are in it for the money, so to speak: Saudi Arabia, usually doubting human-induced climate change at all, cables also reveal, has “two faces” to their climate change negotiations: they want a way to gracefully step down from their previously hostile positions, while they want to also tap into climate adaptation funds as means to help diversify their economy away from fossil fuels.

The Maldives, Carrington noted in the above article, was quite easy to tempt into supporting the Copenhagen accord with promises of financial aid.

As recent years have shown, the European Union also seems to be interested in supporting the US position. But there may be rifts in the EU, too, with the current EU president predicting failure at Cancún and being disappointed at being snubbed by the US and China in Copenhagen, delivering a blow to the EU’s self-acclaimed pioneering position on climate change talks.

Although China had thus far been against the Copenhagen accord, one aspect they are interested in is the opening up of technology transfer, as it will help their economy. Another cable also suggests that US presidential overtures to Brazil may be needed to get their support, as they are currently siding with India and China.

Carrington also summarizes a diplomatic exchange between the US and Ethiopia:

On 2 February 2009, a cable from Addis Ababa reports a meeting between the US undersecretary of state Maria Otero and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi, who leads the African Union’s climate change negotiations.
The confidential cable records a blunt US threat to Zenawi: sign the accord or discussion ends now. Zenawi responds that Ethiopia will support the accord, but has a concern of his own: that a personal assurance from Barack Obama on delivering the promised aid finance is not being honored.

— Damian Carrington, WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord, The Guardian, December 3, 2010

Another approach discussed between the US and EU was how to handle some of the leading developing nations:

US determination to seek allies against its most powerful adversaries – the rising economic giants of Brazil, South Africa, India, China (Basic) – is set out in another cable from Brussels on 17 February reporting a meeting between the [US] deputy national security adviser, Michael Froman, [EU climate action commissioner, Connie] Hedegaard and other EU officials.
Froman said the EU needed to learn from Basic’s skill at impeding US and EU initiatives and playing them off against each in order “to better handle third country obstructionism and avoid future train wrecks on climate [as well as WTO meetings and financial regulatory reform discussions]”.
Hedegaard is keen to reassure Froman of EU support, revealing a difference between public and private statements. “She hoped the US noted the EU was muting its criticism of the US, to be constructive,” the cable said. Hedegaard and Froman discuss the need to “neutralize, co-opt or marginalize unhelpful countries” [including Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Ecuador], before Hedegaard again links financial aid to support for the accord, noting “the irony that the EU is a big donor to these countries”. Later, in April, the US cut aid to Bolivia and Ecuador, citing opposition to the accord.

— Damian Carrington, WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord, The Guardian, December 3, 2010 (Emphasis added)

Some 140 nations have indicated support of the accord (roughly 75% of the countries that are party to the UN climate change convention which is in the range that the US have been targeting.

In a way, none of this is really surprising: it is how politics works. It perhaps comes more of a surprise because we never hear the details, or suspicions of these actions being confirmed. Certainly politician’s claims of sincerity to fight climate change for everyone’s interests and benefits etc should be met with cynicism, as each wants to maximize their own interests.

Furthermore, stances by say the US, and increasingly Europe, to blame China, India, and others for lack of progress, for example, should also be met with some cynicism and realization that this is part of a diplomatic and propaganda agenda. It is easy to vilify the growing economies that are clearly emitting a lot more greenhouse gases, but packaging this in a way that ignored historical burdens (detailed further below) is not honest, either.

All these revelations came during the conference. Although it seems to have had little impact on the final outcome, it should give some context to understanding what happened at Cancún.

Cancún “delivers” but was it any good?

We saved the [climate negotiation] system but the climate and people were sacrificed.

— A senior developing country negotiator leaving Cancun, quoted by Martin Khor, Cancún meeting used WTO-type methods to reach outcome, Third World Network, December 17, 2010 (Emphasis added)

When the Cancún meeting ended, a UN press release described it as delivering a “balanced package of decisions” that “restores faith in multilateral process”.

However, given the WikiLeaks context above, and the additional details that follow, that description seems almost Orwellian!

Some of the agreement points include

Both industrialized and developing nations agreeing to reduce emissionsRaise $30 billion in funds (already mentioned the year before) for a fast start up, with the intention for $100 billion by 2020Design a Green Climate Fund with a board with “equal” representation from developed and developing countriesIncrease technology cooperation

That same press release reported that UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres said, “Nations have shown they can work together under a common roof, to reach consensus on a common cause. They have shown that consensus in a transparent and inclusive process can create opportunity for all.”

Yet, as Martin Khor, Executive Director of the South Centre, an inter-governmental think tank for a number of developing country notes, almost the opposite happened:

Technically there was no consensusWTO-style negotiations took place (typically non-transparent, including only a few select countries meeting together behind closed doors, etc)The apparent openness/consensus comes after these closed room meetings where the arm-twisting and deals are done and decisions are madeThe level of ambition to do anything has been remarkably lowThe conference has helped pass the burden of climate mitigation onto developing countries.

The “equal” representation from developed and developing countries for a green climate fund seems unequal. Of course, the funds will largely come from developed countries, but they represent a small percentage of world population, and as the WikiLeaks cables reveal, the US were not happy with Ethiopia’s suggestion of an panel to monitor international financial contributions and pledges under the accord. This implies that the “equality” will likely be a false balancing.

Although on the surface the meeting outcome seems rosy, the details of course reveal reason to worry. Martin Khor describes the terrible negotiating process that took place in Cancún, and while only a summary is cited here, it is worth looking at his original article:

Although most delegates were either relieved or glad that multilateralism had been revived at Cancun, many negotiators from developing countries were privately expressing disappointment and concern that the final texts did not reflect a balanced outcome, that in fact the developing countries had made major concessions and that the developed countries had largely got their way.
Moreover, there was serious concern that from a climate-environmental point of view, the texts fell far short, or had even gone backwards, in terms of controlling the Greenhouse Gas emissions that cause climate change.

— Martin Khor, Cancún meeting used WTO-type methods to reach outcome, Third World Network, December 17, 2010

Khor also describes Japan’s resistance to continuing the Kyoto Protocol into a second period (which is what was agreed initially — the first period was up to 2012, with 2009 being the target year to define details for the next period, which many rich countries have long resisted, and have not even reached their own promised/legally binding 2012 targets for emission reductions).

The developing countries had made it their main demand, that the figures for the Kyoto Protocol’s second period be finalised in Cancun, or at least that a clear road map be drawn up for the finalisation in 2011. However, this goal was rudely swept aside by Japan’s aggressive stand on Day 1 and the conference never recovered from that blow.
The final text failed to ensure the survival of the Protocol, though it sets some terms of reference for continuing the talks next year. The Cancun meeting in fact made it more likely for the developed countries to shift away from the Kyoto Protocol and its binding regime of emission reduction commitments, to a voluntary system in which each country only makes pledges on how much it will reduce its emissions.

— Martin Khor, Cancún meeting used WTO-type methods to reach outcome, Third World Network, December 17, 2010

As well as Japan, there were also fears of Russia, Canada and Australia rejecting a second commitment period, with Russia confirming they would not renew the Kyoto Protocol.

The previous article also notes Japan’s negotiator Akira Yamada saying a renewal of Kyoto was “not an appropriate way or an effective way or a fair way to tackle climate change”. The use of “fair” can be overloaded, as detailed further below on the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” where it is fair that nations like Japan reduce their emissions more than developing nations, because of the total accumulated greenhouse gases over the past decades.

Targets agreed to are much weaker than the original Kyoto Protocol had defined:

In the Kyoto Protocol (KP) system agreed to for the second period, a top-down aggregate reduction figure based on what science requires (taken to be the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report’s 25-40%, and taken by developing countries to be a more ambitious 40-50%) would first be agreed on, and then developed countries would have to make their commitments (comparable with one another) and these would have to add up to the aggregate.
In the voluntary pledge system, there would not be an agreed prior aggregate figure, and no system of ensuring comparability of efforts or that the sum of pledges is ambitious enough to meet the scientific requirement.
The Cancun text also recognised the emission reduction targets that developed countries listed under the Copenhagen Accord.
But these are overall such poor targets that a recent UN Environment Programme report warned that the developed countries by 2020 may decrease their emissions by only a little (16%) in the best scenario, or even increase their level (by 6%) in a bad scenario. The world would be on track for temperature rise of 3 to 5 degrees by century’s end, which would be catastrophic.
The text … is weaker than the KP’s binding system, and the [ad-hoc working group on long-term cooperative action]’s obligation for non-KP developed countries to do a comparable effort.

— Martin Khor, Cancún meeting used WTO-type methods to reach outcome, Third World Network, December 17, 2010 (Emphasis added)

In other words, for the developing nations, the Kyoto Protocol is the only legal agreement that binds rich countries to emission cuts. Without it, fears of rich countries opting for weaker measures are slowly coming true.

And so, as John Vidal reported, the “Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (Alba) group of nine Latin American countries — who claim they are backed by African, Arab countries and other developing nations — said they were not prepared to see an end to the treaty that legally requires all of its signatories to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) received a lot of backing. While curbing deforestation is important, using it in a carbon exchange mechanism of some sort is controversial, because carbon stored in forests is not as permanent (dying vegetation releases that stored carbon). Also, rich countries help finance forest-saving actions in developing countries, they will get credits (to pollute) while poorer countries will be left with more expensive things to deal with (forest-saving actions being low-hanging fruit, so to speak). Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International, adds:

REDD+ “is attracting both rich countries and countries with forests” to some form of “carbon exchange,” because, said Bassey, “rich countries can keep polluting, and countries with forests believe they can get some money through the REDD mechanism.”
It is not true conservation, but rather a way of reducing emissions, according to the Nigerian expert. When a forest is included in the mechanism, it will prevent the local communities from utilising it as they have for their livelihood, “because whoever is in the forest will have to assure that the carbon stock would be retained.”

— Diana Cariboni, Climate Change: Summit Ends Without Solving Emissions Puzzle, Inter Press Service, December 11, 2010

Another Inter Press Service article also adds that “many Indigenous and civil society groups reject REDD outright if it allows developed countries to avoid real emission reductions by offsetting their emissions.”

Ultimately, the developing nations gave up a lot more compared to industrialized nations who have hardly done anything in the past decade or more in terms of meaningful emissions reductions:

The developing countries made a lot of concessions and sacrifices in Cancun, while the developed countries managed to have their obligations reduced or downgraded.
Cancun may be remembered in future as the place where the UNFCCC’s climate regime was changed significantly, with developed countries being treated more and more leniently, reaching a level like that of developing countries, while the developing countries are asked to increase their obligations to be more and more like developed countries.

— Martin Khor, Cancún meeting used WTO-type methods to reach outcome, Third World Network, December 17, 2010

And while mainstream media reporting may give the opposite impression, as Khor noted above, and Sunita Narain from the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment further explains, developing countries have given up a lot with little in return:

Over the past three years — since the meeting held in Bali — much has changed in the negotiations and much will change in Cancun. In the past years developing countries have done all they can to break the deadlock; they have budged from their held positions, they have been proactive in international negotiations and they have developed a domestic agenda for climate change mitigation. But each forward shift in the position of the emerging world has only meant a backward slide and hardening of position of the rich countries. Worse, there has been aggressive and often clandestine movement to shift the very nature of the global climate agreement to suit the US. This is the endgame of Cancun.

— Sunita Narain, The endgame at Cancun, Centre for Science and Environment, December 16, 2010

The various other agreements, Khor notes, are also vague and unclear in how they will be realized.

The final consensus reached was also controversial as Khor outlines:

The Cancun conference was also marked by a questionable method of work, quite similar to the WTO but not used in the United Nations, in which the host country, Mexico, organized meetings in small groups led by itself and a few Ministers which it selected, who discussed texts on the various issues.
The final document was produced not through the usual process of negotiations among delegations, but compiled by the Mexicans as the Chair of the meeting, and given to the delegates for only a few hours to consider, on a take-it-or-leave-it basis (no amendments are allowed).
At the final plenary, Bolivia rejected the text, and its Ambassador, Pablo Solon, made a number of statements giving detailed reasons why. Bolivia could not accept a text that changed the nature of developed countries’ commitments to a voluntary system of pledges, nor to accept the low pledges they had made, which would lead to a disastrous degree of global warming, which its President had termed ecocide. It could also not accept an undemocratic process through which its proposals (on mitigation, the use of market mechanisms, and on the need to address IPRs) had been swept aside.
Bolivia made clear it could not adopt the text and that there was thus no consensus. The Mexican foreign minister said that Bolivia’s views would be recorded, that one country could not prevent a consensus, and declared the text was adopted.
The Mexican way of organizing the writing and later the adoption of the Cancun text raises questions about the future of UN negotiating procedures, practices and decision-making.
The importation of WTO-style methods may in the immediate period lead to the “efficiency” of producing an outcome, but also carries the risk of conferences collapsing in disarray (as has happened in several WTO ministerial meetings) and in biases in the text, which usually have been in favor of developed countries.

— Martin Khor, Cancún meeting used WTO-type methods to reach outcome, Third World Network, December 17, 2010

For more on how the various WTO meetings have been conducted and collapsed, see this site’s section on WTO Doha “Development” Trade Round Collapse, 2006

Sunita Narain is quite scathing of some of the implications of the final outcome:

[The final outcome] endorses an arrangement that emission reduction commitments of industrialized countries will be decided on the voluntary pledge they make. They will tell us how much they can cut and by when. The US, which has been instrumental in getting the deal at Cancun, is the biggest winner. If its target to reduce emissions were based on its historical and current contribution to the problem, the country would have to cut 40 per cent by 2020, over the 1990 levels. Now it has pledged that it will cut zero percentage points in this period. The Cancun deal legitimizes its right to pollute.
…
But surely nobody can agree that the burden of the transition should shift to the developing world. But this is what has happened at Cancun. … A curious fact emerges. While the total amount the rich will cut comes to 0.8-1.8 billion tonnes of CO2e, poor developing countries have agreed to cut 2.3 billion tonnes of CO2e by 2020. In other words, emission reductions promised by the industrialized world is pathetic. And the principle of equity in burden-sharing has been completely done away with.
… This is not the worst.… the pledges will add up to practically nothing in terms of averting the worst of climate change. With the Cancun deal in force, the world is in for a 3-4°C temperature rise.

— Sunita Narain, Deal won, stakes lost, Centre for Science and Environment, December 31, 2010

Probably with tongue in cheek, Stephen Leahy perhaps did find a way to see how this meeting could be regarded as a success:

If success is measured by delaying difficult decisions, then the Cancún climate meeting succeeded by deferring crucial issues over financing and new targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the next Conference of the Parties meeting a year from now in Durban, South Africa.

— Stephen Leahy, Climate Change: Emissions Punted to Durban, Breakthrough Seen on Forests, Inter Press Service, December 11, 2010

Inaction in 2009 alone adds $1 trillion to reaching climate change goals

Ars Technica summarized an International Energy Agency (IEA) report noting that

Globally, we’re subsidizing fossil fuel use to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars (over $300bn in 2009)Fossil fuel subsidies are over 5 times the subsidies going to renewable energy ($57bn in 2009)Inaction on climate goals has added $1 trillion onto the cost of reaching them—in 2009 alone.

Governments will have to act fast to have any chance of getting us to the 450ppm goal that they claim to support. Due to the inaction that dominated the past year, the IEA estimates that it will take a trillion dollars more to stabilize the atmosphere at 450ppm if we start now than it would have if we’d started a year earlier. Any further delay would make matters worse, so much so that the report seems to conclude that it simply won’t happen.

— John Timmer, IEA: last year’s inaction on climate goals cost us $1 trillion, Ars Technica, November 9, 2010 (Emphasis added)

This is a lot of money, but the pledges at Cancún seem far less ambitious. But trillions were quickly made available to tackle the global financial crisis as mentioned further below.

Why do these meetings seem to get so bogged down in stalemates? Is it not clear that India, China, US and a few others need to agree to cut their emissions? These questions are quite common but also reveals a simplicity that perhaps politicians and mainstream media should take partial blame for.

The rest of this article is a repeat of what was written a year ago on the COP 15 page on this site, and that it needs to be repeated here is another blow to credible mainstream reporting and politician rhetoric:

Common but Differentiated Responsibility Principle Sidelined Again

As Inter Press Service (IPS) summarized:

What is abundantly clear is the enormous divide between the rich and poor countries. Poor countries want deep cuts in emissions by the industrialized world, and the latter continue to resist significant cuts and legally binding targets.

— Stephen Leahy, Climate Change: History Was Not Made, Inter Press Service, December 19, 2009

This site’s section on climate justice has long gone into some detail about

Greenhouse gases tend to remain in the atmosphere for many decades so historical emissions are an important consideration.

Historical accumulation of carbon dioxide emissions from 1800 comparing Annex I countries (i.e. rich world) with rest of the world.

See prepared data with all countries, and raw sources, compiled by Gap Minder.

In addition, there is little fairness in asking China, India and others to be subject to emission targets when many rich countries didn’t achieve the watered down Kyoto targets themselves.

Trillions for Wall Street, Pennies for Earth

Does tackling climate change have to mean lowering living standards?

Some fear climate change negotiations amount to asking industrialized nations to lower their standard of living. Yet, this need not have to be.

Will we ever agree on a common course of action?

Despite all the optimism that these problems can be solved, the concerns have been raised by many for decades.

More Information

Some useful links for further details and insights:

Climate Change coverage from Inter Press Service (IPS). (This web site carries an IPS feed.)UNFCCCUNFCCC’s COP-16 web siteCancún meeting’s official web siteThird World NetworkCentre for Science and Environment and their COP-16 sectionThe Guardian’s environment sectionClimate Justice and Equity from this web site looks at the issue of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities as well as providing graphs and charts on what fairer emission allocations might look like.Climate Change Links for more Information from this web siteBack to top

Read more >>

Women’s Rights and Beijing +15 Conference

Women’s rights around the world is an important indicator to understand global well-being.

A major global women’s rights treaty was ratified by the majority of the world’s nations a few decades ago.

Yet, despite many successes in empowering women, numerous issues still exist in all areas of life, ranging from the cultural, political to the economic. For example, women often work more than men, yet are paid less; gender discrimination affects girls and women throughout their lifetime; and women and girls are often are the ones that suffer the most poverty.

Many may think that women’s rights are only an issue in countries where religion is law, such as many Muslim countries. Or even worse, some may think this is no longer an issue at all. But reading this report about the United Nation’s Women’s Treaty and how an increasing number of countries are lodging reservations, will show otherwise.

Gender equality furthers the cause of child survival and development for all of society, so the importance of women’s rights and gender equality should not be underestimated.

This article explores these issues further.

This web page has the following sub-sections:

ProgressLack of ProgressWomen Work More Than Men But Are Paid LessGender discrimination throughout a lifetimeFeminization of PovertyWomen, Reproductive Rights and Population IssuesWomen and children: the double dividend of gender equalityWomen and Climate ChangeWomen and the MediaBeijing +5 Special SessionBeijing +15 Special SessionWomen, Militarism and ViolenceMore InformationProgress

It isn’t easy to change tradition overnight. However, a small example of successes include:

The gains made in South AfricaChildhood concerns in Latin AmericaPoor women gaining greater access to savings and credit mechanisms worldwide, due to microcredit.A dwindling number of countries that do not allow women to vote including Bhutan (one vote per house), Lebanon (partial), Brunei (no-one can vote), Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (expected in 2010), and the Vatican City.Women gaining more positions in parliament throughout Africa. In many cases African countries have more women in parliament than some western ones.A protocol to protect womens’s rights in Africa that came into effect in 2005 (though many nations still need to sign up).An almost universal ratification of the women’s rights treaty, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)

On the 30th anniversary of CEDAW Inter Press Service (IPS) listed a number of benefits the women’s right treaty has provided around the world, for example:

Morocco gave women greater equality and protection of their human rights within marriage and divorce by passing a new family code in 2004India has accepted legal obligations to eliminate discrimination against women and outlawed sexual harassment in the workplaceIn Cameroon, the Convention is applied in local courts and groundbreaking decisions on gender equality are being made by the country’s high courtsMexico passed a law in 2007 toughening its laws on violence against womenAnd the CEDAW committee in Austria decided two complaints against Austria concerning domestic violence in 2007UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also noted that within the UN itself, the number of women in senior posts has increased by 40 percent“The Convention has been used to challenge discriminatory laws, interpret ambiguous provisions or where the law is silent, to confer rights on women,” Navi Pillay, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, said.

Ban Ki-moon also described the treaty as “one of the most successful human rights treaties ever”, according to IPS.

Lack of Progress

Thirty years after the adoption of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), many girls and women still do not have equal opportunities to realize rights recognized by law. In many countries, women are not entitled to own property or inherit land. Social exclusion, “honor” killings, female genital mutilation, trafficking, restricted mobility and early marriage among others, deny the right to health to women and girls and increase illness and death throughout the life-course.
We will not see sustainable progress unless we fix failures in health systems and society so that girls and women enjoy equal access to health information and services, education, employment and political positions.

— Dr Margaret Chan, Director-General, World Health Organization, Equal rights and opportunities for women and girls essential for better health, International Women’s Day, March 8, 2010

You would think that as time goes on, there would be more equality between men and women. Unfortunately, trends are moving in the other direction.

Inter Press Service notes that progress is mixed:

When it comes to female education rates, progress has been made around the world, and in many countries girls and young women have outnumbered and outperformed boys and men at all levels of schooling for decades. Nevertheless, these advances have yet to translate into greater equity in employment, politics and social relations.

— Mario Osava, Women More Educated, Not More Equal, Inter Press Service, March 1, 2010

A report from Human Rights Watch also describes how women’s rights have not been observed in some countries as much as expected; in some places claims are made that women’s rights will be respected more, yet policies are sometimes not changed enough—or at all—thus still undermining the rights of women.

In some patriarchal societies, religion or tradition can be used as a barrier for equal rights. For example, as Inter Press Service reported, the Bangladesh government tried to hide behind laws to deny women equal rights. In Pakistan for example, honor killings directed at women have been carried for even the slightest reasons.

As Amnesty International also points out, “Governments are not living up to their promises under the Women’s Convention to protect women from discrimination and violence such as rape and female genital mutilation.” There are many governments who have also not ratified the Convention, including the U.S. Many countries that have ratified it do so with many reservations.

Despite the almost universal ratification of the Convention (second only to the Convention on the Rights of the Child), a number of countries have still not signed or ratified it. The handful of remaining countries are: USA (signed, but not ratified), Iran, Qatar, Cook Islands (a Non-member state of the United Nations), Nauru, Palau, Tonga, Somalia, and Sudan.

To see the US on this list may seem surprising to most, and Human Rights Watch is critical of the delay in getting a ratification, noting that this treaty has been in limbo in the U.S. Senate for decades. It was sent it to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a vote in 1980. The first hearing on it was 10 years later. After a vote mostly in favor for it by the Foreign Relations Committee in 1994, some conservative senators blocked a US Senate vote on it. In 2002 the Foreign Relations Committee again voted that the treaty should be ratified, but the 107th Congress ended, so it requires a vote again in favor of sending the treaty to the full Senate for ratification!

Some opponents of the treaty have raised fears that it would undermine US law, but Amnesty International USA shows that such fears of the treaty are based on myths.

The US of course has a decent record when it comes to women’s rights, so this may not seem a concern immediately. However, as Amnesty International USA further argues not only would ratification for the US be straight forward (for US laws in this area are already consistent with the CEDAW treaty), but it would also help to increase their credibility when raising these issues worldwide.

(There are different types of problems all over the world that women face, from the wealthiest countries to the poorest, and it isn’t the scope or ability of this site to be able to document them all here, but just provide some examples. Links to other sites on this page document more thoroughly the actual instances, cases and situations around the world.)

Women Work More Than Men But Are Paid Less

The informal slogan of the Decade of Women became “Women do two-thirds of the world’s work, receive 10 percent of the world’s income and own 1 percent of the means of production.”

— Richard H. Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), p. 354

Women cultivate, plough, harvest more than half of all the food in the world.

According to Inter Press Service, “On a global scale, women cultivate more than half of all the food that is grown. In sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, they produce up to 80 percent of basic foodstuffs. In Asia, they account for around 50 percent of food production. In Latin America, they are mainly engaged in subsistence farming, horticulture, poultry and raising small livestock.”

Yet women often get little recognition for that. In fact, many go unpaid. It is very difficult for these women to get the financial resources required to buy equipment etc, as many societies still do not accept, or realize, that there is a change in the “traditional” roles.

UNICEF’s 2007 report on state of the world’s children focused on the discrimination and disempowerment women face throughout their lives and how that impacts children’s lives. In regards to work and pay, they noted the following:

Estimated earnings for women are substantially lower than for menRegionEstimated earnings per year (in 1000s of US dollars at 2003 prices)Percentage of men’s earnings

Key:

The first number in each row represents

womenThe second number in each row represents

men

Estimated earnings are defined as gross domestic product per capita (measured in US dollars at 2003 prices adjusted for purchasing power parity) adjusted for wage disparities between men and women. Some numbers rounded for display purposes.

Source: UNICEF, State of the World’s Children, 2007, p. 41, Figure 3.3

Industrialized nations Women

3757%CEE/CIS Women

4.6

859%Latin American and
Carribean Women

1040%East Asia and Pacific Women

6.562%Middle East and North
Africa Women

728%South Asia Women

2.539%Sub-Saharan Africa Women

251%

Reasons for such disparity include the fact that women are generally underpaid and because they often perform low-status jobs, compared to men. UNICEF notes that the data isn’t always perfect, and that generalizations such as the above can hide wider fluctuations. “In Brazil, for example, women under the age of 25 earn a higher average hourly wage than their male counterparts.” (p.39)

UNICEF’s main summary of equality in employment (chapter 3) included the following points:

For many women, unpaid work in and for the household takes up the majority of their working hours, with much less time spent in remunerative employment. Even when they participate in the labour market for paid employment, women still undertake the majority of the housework.
When women work outside the household, they earn, on average, far less than men. They are also more likely to work in more precarious forms of employment with low earnings, little financial security and few or no social benefits.
Women not only earn less than men but also tend to own fewer assets. Smaller salaries and less control over household income constrain their ability to accumulate capital. Gender biases in property and inheritance laws and in other channels of acquiring assets also leave women and children at greater risk of poverty.
Paid employment for women does not automatically lead to better outcomes for children. Factors such as the amount of time women spend working outside the household, the conditions under which they are employed and who controls the income they generate determine how the work undertaken by women in the labour market affects their own well-being and that of children.

— UNICEF, State of the World’s Children, 2007, p.36

Gender discrimination throughout a lifetime

The above-mentioned 2007 report on state of the world’s had an informative section (see pages 4–5) on how women are discriminated against at various stages through life, summarized here:

Foeticide and infanticideUNICEF notes that “Where there is a clear economic or cultural preference for sons, the misuse of [pregnancy diagnostic tools] can facilitate female foeticide.”The middle years“A principal focus of the middle years of childhood and adolescence is ensuring access to, and completion of, quality primary and secondary education. With a few exceptions, it is mostly girls who suffer from educational disadvantage.”Adolescence“Among the greatest threats to adolescent development are abuse, exploitation and violence, and the lack of vital knowledge about sexual and reproductive health, including HIV/AIDS.” Specific areas that UNICEF highlighted were female genital mutilation/cutting; child marriage and premature parenthood; sexual abuse, exploitation and trafficking; sexual and reproductive health; and HIV/AIDS.Motherhood and old ageThese are “two key periods in many women’s lives when the pernicious effects of both poverty and inequality can combine.” Shockingly, “It is estimated that each year more than half a million women—roughly one woman every minute—die as a result of pregnancy complications and childbirth,” 99% of which occur in developing countries. Yet “many of these women’s lives could be saved if they had access to basic health care services.” In addition, elderly women may face double discrimination on the basis of both gender and age. Many older women are plunged into poverty at a time of life when they are very vulnerable. However, “children’s rights are advanced when programmes that seek to benefit children and families also include elderly women.”Back to top

Feminization of Poverty

The “feminization of poverty” is a phenomenon that is unfortunately on the increase. Basically, women are increasingly the ones who suffer the most poverty.

Professor of anthropology, Richard Robbins also notes that

At the same time that women produce 75 to 90 percent of food crops in the world, they are responsible for the running of households. According to the United Nations, in no country in the world do men come anywhere close to women in the amount of time spent in housework. Furthermore, despite the efforts of feminist movements, women in the core [wealthiest, Western countries] still suffer disproportionately, leading to what sociologist refer to as the “feminization of poverty,” where two out of every three poor adults are women. The informal slogan of the Decade of Women became “Women do two-thirds of the world’s work, receive 10 percent of the world’s income and own 1 percent of the means of production.”

— Richard H. Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), p. 354

This then also affects children, which makes the dire situation even worse. For example, even in the richest country in the world, the USA, the poorest are women caring for children.

The lending strategies to developing countries by institutions such as the IMF and World Bank have affected many women in those countries.

Poverty, trade and economic issues are very much related to women’s rights issues due to the impacts they can have. Tackling these issues as well also helps to tackle women’s rights issues. And, tackling gender issues helps tackle poverty-related issues. See also the Asia Pacific online network of women web site for more about issues relating to globalization and its impacts on women.

For more about these aspects, refer to this site’s section on trade and poverty related issues.

Women, Reproductive Rights and Population Issues

As seen in the population section of this web site, tackling many population related causes involves tackling many women’s issues such as increased knowledge and access to better health care, family planning and education for women. The beneficial results of these get passed along to the children and eventually the society. In fact, as PANOS shows in a report, providing women reproductive rights is part of their human rights.

Women and children: the double dividend of gender equality

The above title comes from UNICEF’s 2007 report on state of the world’s children where they focus on the discrimination and disempowerment women face throughout their lives and how that impacts children’s lives.

The key messages that came out from the report were as follows:

Gender equality and the well-being of children go hand in handGender equality furthers the cause of child survival and development.Gender equality produces a double dividend: It benefits both women and childrenHealthy, educated and empowered women have healthy, educated and confident daughters and sons. Gender equality will not only empower women to overcome poverty and live full and productive lives, but will better the lives of children, families and countries as well.Women’s equal rights and influence in the key decisions that shape their lives and those of children must be enhanced in three distinct arenas: the household, the workplace and the political sphereA change for the better in any one of these realms influences women’s equality in the others, and has a profound and positive impact on child’s well-being and development.Gender equality is not only morally right, it is pivotal to human progress and sustainable developmentAchieving Millennium Development Goal Number 3—promoting gender equality and empowering women—will also contribute to achieving all the other goals, from reducing poverty and hunger to saving children’s lives, improving maternal health, ensuring universal education, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, and ensuring environmental sustainability.

This short video from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs also hints at the benefits of investing in women; that they will tend to invest in things that improve conditions for much of society:

Invest in Women — Do you see the opportunity?, Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, January 25, 2010

A short video from the International Herald Tribune also gives a few examples of lives of different women around the world and how they can bring benefits to wider society:

The Female Factor , International Herald Tribune, March 11, 2010

Women and Climate Change

Many of the above factors also combine to make women more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) explains:

Women—particularly those in poor countries—will be affected differently than men. They are among the most vulnerable to climate change, partly because in many countries they make up the larger share of the agricultural work force and partly because they tend to have access to fewer income-earning opportunities. Women manage households and care for family members, which often limits their mobility and increases their vulnerability to sudden weather-related natural disasters. Drought and erratic rainfall force women to work harder to secure food, water and energy for their homes. Girls drop out of school to help their mothers with these tasks. This cycle of deprivation, poverty and inequality undermines the social capital needed to deal effectively with climate change.

— Facing a changing world: women, population and climate

, State of the World’s Population 2009, UNFPA, November 18, 2009, p.4

The UNFPA also captures this in some videos that accompanied their 2009 report.

Get the Flash Player to see this video.

Women and Climate Change in Bolivia, UNFPA, November 2009

Get the Flash Player to see this video.

Women and Climate Change in Vietnam, UNFPA, November 2009

The first one is the above-described effects occurring in rural areas of Bolivia. The second one is on the impact on women in Vietnam.

Women and the Media

Even media attention on women who help and fight for certain causes is distorted. For example, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) analyzed U.S. media reporting during the British Princess Diana’s funeral, and noted that the U.S. media typically concentrate only on a few people like the late Diana and Mother Teresa who had some sort of celebrity type status, and rarely reported on the thousands of others doing similar work.

In other cases, the roles of women presented in the media, from talk shows, to entertainment shows as well as news reporting can often end up reinforcing the status quo and the cultural stereotypes, which influence other women to follow suit. This happens in all nations, from the wealthiest to the poorest (and happens with men as well as children). It can have positive aspects, such as providing guidance and sharing issues etc. but it can also have a negative effect of continuing inherent prejudices etc.

(For more on this perspective, see this collection of articles from MediaChannel.org on Women’s Media)

Beijing +5 Special Session

From June 5 to June 9 2000, there was a conference at the United Nations, New York, continuing on 5 years from a similar conference in Beijing, 1995. (The formal name of the conference was “Women: 2000: Gender Equality, Development and Peace for the Twenty-First Century.”)

In 1985 there was a conference in Nairobi, Kenya, to formulate strategies for advancing women’s rights. This was followed by a “plan of action” defined in 1995, in Beijing.

It has been recognized and agreed for a while that successful development also involves gender equality. The goals of this conference then was to reflect on the promised provisions of equality, development and peace for all women everywhere.

Leading up to, and during the conference, many organizations had numerous issues to bring to the fore, including:

Women’s reproductive rightsAbduction of girlsChild soldiers and armed conflictPoverty and EconomyEducation and TrainingHealthViolenceDecision MakingInstitutional MechanismsHuman RightsMediaEnvironmentThe Girl-child

According to a UN report, the international community had fallen far short of its commitments to empower women and achieve gender equality and that only eight out of 188 member states had certain global agreements for this.

It was also pointed out at this UN session that Women continued to be deprived of basic and fundamental rights because of measures imposed in certain countries.

In fact, some were even opposed to moving forward on such important issues, such as Holy See (the Vatican), Nicaragua, Sudan and Libya and sometimes Iraq and various other nations on particular issues such as reproductive rights, even freedom of expression (Libya and the Vatican opposed this). The Vatican, Iran and some other delegations even wanted to delete references to sexual and reproductive rights and health in the Current Challenges section of the review document.

Regarding the Vatican (the Holy See), there was growing concern at their role as permanent observer, where they are considered to be more than a non-governmental organization (NGO), but less than a nation. They therefore have some influence and have been criticized at the way they have affected some UN decisions regarding gender-related issues to be more effectively pushed forward. As part of some of the criticisms, there is the suggestion to challenge the Holy See’s power by demanding that the Vatican should be classified as an NGO instead.

Some NGOs and organizations from the third world trying to fight for women’s rights also felt they were left out of the conference.

For more in-depth discussion of the issues you can also look at

OneWorld’s women’s rights campaign section.Human Rights WatchThey ask, What Will It Take to get governments to honor their promises.They also have a campaign section as well.About.com also looks at the issue and provides daily highlights.You can also visit the UN conference’s web site.Back to top

Beijing +15 Special Session

15 years on from the 1995 Beijing conference, and a decade after the conference described above, there was a 2-week meeting on women’s rights progress once again. Technically, this was the 54th session of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) to report on global efforts toward democracy and human development through the empowerment of women.

Inter Press Service (IPS) reported on the conference suggesting mixed feelings on the outcome; while there was improved understanding on some issues, there were still a number of political uncertainties on questions such as whether or not there would be any

Commitments to protect the universality of women’s rights, including sexual and reproductive rights;Significant progress on the proposal to set up a separate U.N. agency — officially called a gender entity — for women;Increased funding for gender-related issues, including resources to battle sexual violence.

(See IPS’s coverage of Beijing +15 as well as the United Nations Beijing +15 web site for more details.)

Women, Militarism and Violence

It is often argued—and accepted—that women, being the “gentler sex”, and typically being the main care givers in society, are less aggressive than men. Feminists often argue that women, if given appropriate and full rights, could counter-balance a male-dominated world which is characterized by aggression in attitudes, thoughts, society and, ultimately, war.

In May 2004, the Occupation/Coalition forces in Iraq were shown around the world to be committing torture and other grotesque acts on Iraqi captives. For feminists and others, what was also shocking was that some of these acts were being perpetrated by women in the U.S. military.

Feminist activist Barbara Ehrenreich captures some of the thoughts and reactions quite well:

Secretly, I hoped that the presence of women [in the U.S. army] would over time change the military, making it more respectful of other people and cultures, more capable of genuine peacekeeping. That’s what I thought, but I don’t think that anymore.
A certain kind of feminism, or perhaps I should say a certain kind of feminist naivete, died in Abu Ghraib [the prison facility from where most of the torture pictures and footage originated]. It was a feminism that saw men as the perpetual perpetrators, women as the perpetual victims and male sexual violence against women as the root of all injustice. Rape has repeatedly been an instrument of war and, to some feminists, it was beginning to look as if war was an extension of rape. There seemed to be at least some evidence that male sexual sadism was connected to our species' tragic propensity for violence. That was before we had seen female sexual sadism in action.
… But the assumption [within feminism] of [women’s] superiority [over men], or at least a lesser inclination toward cruelty and violence, was more or less beyond debate. After all, women do most of the caring work in our culture, and in polls are consistently less inclined toward war than men.
… If that assumption had been accurate, then all we would have had to do to make the world a better place—kinder, less violent, more just—would have been to assimilate into what had been, for so many centuries, the world of men.
… What we need is a tough new kind of feminism with no illusions. Women do not change institutions simply by assimilating into them, only by consciously deciding to fight for change. We need a feminism that teaches a woman to say no—not just to the date rapist or overly insistent boyfriend but, when necessary, to the military or corporate hierarchy within which she finds herself.

— Barbara Ehrenreich, What Abu Ghraib Taught Me, Alternet, May 20, 2004

Towards the end of the article, Ehrenreich notes that gender equality often appears to be limited to allowing women to have equality in a male-dominated world, meaning women struggle to have rights to do what men do. But, if what men are doing is generally seen as negative, then gender equality in that context is not enough. As she ends:

To cite an old, and far from naive, feminist saying: “If you think equality is the goal, your standards are too low.” It is not enough to be equal to men, when the men are acting like beasts. It is not enough to assimilate. We need to create a world worth assimilating into.

— Barbara Ehrenreich, What Abu Ghraib Taught Me, Alternet, May 20, 2004

More Information

For more information on women’s rights in general, see

Women’s Rights News Headlines from this web siteFrom Inter Press Service (IPS):Gender equality coverageGender wireGender blogOxfam’s Gender and Development section looks at the worsening plight of women around the world, from the increased “feminization” of poverty to the inequality between men and women.OneWorld.net’s guide on Gender issues covers many issues.The United Nations is an obvious main source of information and they have many resources, including:The UN women’s rights treaty, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action for Equality, Development and PeaceUnited Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM)The Women Watch web site, the “UN Internet Gateway on the Advancement and Empowerment of Women.”Various links regarding women’s issues, related to human rights.This section from UNICEF’s Progress of Nations, 1998 report. The report is a compilation of information and statistics that measure how developed a nation is with regards to the state of the children rather than the state of the economy.The Population Fund, UNFPA, web site. Many population-related issues are applicable to women. This site has a lot of information. (The Population section on this web site also shows the importance of the role and education of women to help tackle some population issues.)World Health Organization’s section on Gender, Women and Health highlights how gender and gender inequality affect health.Womankind is a development agency supporting women from the developing world tackling issues such as poverty and sexual or political oppression. They have a good web site with more information.The Girls Global Education Fund is an impressive web site that tackles the important issue of girls education, especially where traditionally girls grow up not having the same access to education as boys.MADRE, as they say in their own words, “is an international women’s human rights organization that works in partnership with women’s community-based groups worldwide to address issues of health, economic development and other human rights.”Third World Network provides a collection of articles on Women’s rights and gender issues, also looking at the relationship with other issues such as globalization, poverty, economics, health, violence, sexual exploitation, gender equity, culture and more.Amnesty International has a section on women.The People’s Movement for Human Rights Education (PDHRE) web site has an informative section on Human Rights and Women.OneWomen is a web site of the Asia Pacific Online Network of Women in Governance, Politics and Transformative Leadership. It has many articles and links.Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom provides a look at all sorts of issues, from political, economic, social etc.The Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID) is a portal of information and analysis on women’s rights and global issues.Mama Cash is the oldest international women’s fund established in the Netherlands in 1983 supporting various initiatives around the world guided by the principle that social change starts with women and girls.Back to top

Read more >>

Global Political& Economical Issues

Copenhagen Climate Change Conference

Cancún climate change conference; good for rich countries, bad for developing ones

Women’s Rights and Beijing +15 Conference

Blog Archive