Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

UNHEALTHY SILENCE

Published

on

Since the beginning of the pandemic, health workers, journalists, human rights defenders and other frontline workers have courageously criticized, scrutinized and reported on the inadequate responses to COVID-19. For doing so, many of them have been threatened, attacked or arrested.

Development banks have played a crucial role in funding and shaping the responses to the pandemic, providing more than 150 billions of dollars. However, they have failed in taking concrete actions to ensure that – in the context of the COVID-19 response they were supporting – people could freely and safely express their opinions and raise their concerns. When cases of retaliations occurred, they stayed silent.

The report Unhealthy silence: Development banks’ inaction on retaliation during COVID-19 , published on July 27, 2021 by the Coalition for Human Rights in Development, ARTICLE 19 and IFEX, presents eight emblematic case studies of reprisals and statistical analysis of 335 cases of people attacked for speaking up around COVID-19 responses. The report also shows how development banks have failed to uphold their own commitments and presents a set of recommendations to address reprisals.

KEY FINDINGS

  • Journalists, human rights defenders, health workers and ordinary citizens have been criminalized or attacked for speaking out about aspects of the COVID-19 response directly financed by development banks.
  • As of June 15, 2021, IFIs have earmarked US$ 150.54 billion to finance responses to COVID-19, through 1,332 projects. Many projects supported by IFIs have included awareness-raising about COVID-19 as a key component. However, in many of those same countries, people who provide information about the pandemic or speak about the spread of the virus have been strongly repressed.
  • At least 335 people suffered reprisals, in a total of 35 countries that received or are receiving financial support for their COVID-19 response.
  • In the vast majority of cases (affecting 233 people), the retaliation consisted of some type of criminalization, arrest or prison sentence; 56 people suffered physical abuse or torture; at least 13 people, almost all health personnel, were dismissed; 17 people were threatened; 6 people were killed.
  • Most reprisals have occurred in a general context of strong restrictions on civic freedoms and the active persecution of dissenting voices.
  • Development banks did not fulfil their commitments and failed to take decisive action and adopt concrete measures to prevent and address reprisals.
  • COVID-19 response projects were approved even after reprisals had taken place. Project documents show that banks have not carried out a prior assessment of the human rights situation with regard to freedom of expression, that would have easily revealed the difficulties and obstacles to participation.
  • When civil society organizations (CSOs) raised their concerns about serious restrictions on freedom of expression in countries that received funding to respond to the pandemic, the responses from the banks failed to address the points that had been raised, including when there was clear evidence that the retaliation related directly to the banks’ projects.
  • Restrictions on freedom of expression directly affect the quality and effectiveness of the response to COVID-19 that banks seek to support, and create issues of non-compliance with the banks’ own policies of public participation and stakeholder engagement.
statistics
Recommendations for IFIs_page-0001
Original Source: rightsindevelopment.org
Read the report

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Businesses, banks and activists resist EC plans to strip back human rights legislation

Published

on

Today the European Commission introduced their ‘Omnibus simplification package’ to amend key laws of the EU Green Deal, including CSDDD, CSRD and Taxonomy. The package proposes significant changes, including the removal of civil liability provisions in the CSDDD and removing 80% of companies from scope in the CSRD.

The earlier announcement from the European Commission as well as the leaked draft to reform recently-agreed EU laws such as the CSDDD has already come under attack from businesses, expertsinvestors and activists alike.

The UN Global Compact and companies including Unilever, Vattenfall and Nestlé have also expressed their concern. Nestlé Europe’s Bart Vandewaetere said that it had “been reporting on [environmental impact and human rights issues in the supply chain] ourselves for years. European regulations mean that more companies have to start doing that. That creates a level playing field and we welcome that.”

Former president of Ireland Mary Robinson added: “Von der Leyen’s new Commission’s attempt to eviscerate these sustainability laws must not be agreed by the European Parliament and by the member states.”

The European Banking Federation warned that weakening the CSRD could create challenges for banks, echoing concerns from more than 160 investors who cautioned that the Omnibus package could harm investment and increase legal uncertainty.

CSOs such as the European Coalition for Corporate Justice (ECCJ)WWF and the Clean Clothes Campaign have also sharply criticised the proposal. The ECCJ writes the proposal is “not simplification, but full-scale deregulation designed to dismantle corporate accountability”.

Workers’ organisations and trade unions from garment-producing countries across Asia, Europe and Latin America also opposed the ‘Omnibus’ this week, highlighting the risk the proposal will “exclude most supply chain workers” including 49 million home workers.

Source: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

The CSOs’ Appeal to hear the EACOP case on merit is a crucial development, with the ruling now awaited.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team.

The Appellate Division of the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) has heard an appeal filed by four civil society organizations (CSOs) challenging the dismissal of their case against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

The appeal, filed by four civil society organizations (CSOs), seeks to reconsider the case on its merits after the First Instance Division of the EACJ dismissed it in November 2023 on procedural grounds.

The case was before Justice Nestor Kayobera, Justice Kathurima M’Inoti, Justice Anita Mugeni, Justice Barishaki Bonny Cheborion, and Justice Omar Othman Makungu.

The East African CSOs, Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT), Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), Natural Justice (NJ), and Centre for Strategic Litigation (CSL), argued that the lawsuit was dismissed unfairly and that the First Instance Court had improperly evaluated the evidence before making its ruling.

According to CSOs, the EACOP project, if implemented, could lead to significant environmental damage, endangering local livelihoods, water supplies, and biodiversity. This includes potential oil spills, disruption of ecosystems, and contamination of water sources. They further assert that TotalEnergies, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), and the governments of Tanzania and Uganda failed to provide a sufficient risk assessment for the project and to adhere to international human rights norms.

The EACOP project is a significant pipeline initiative spanning over 1,400 kilometers, designed to transport crude oil from Uganda’s Lake Albert region to the Tanzanian port of Tanga. The project is a joint venture of TotalEnergies and China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) in partnership with the governments of Uganda and Tanzania.

During the appeal hearing in Kigali, Rwanda, the CSOs’ lawyers, known for their expertise, presented robust arguments against the First Instance Court’s dismissal of the case.

Counsel David Kabanda, one of the CSOs’ lawyers, argued that the First Instance Court had overstepped its role by evaluating evidence when considering the preliminary objection raised by the Tanzanian government, which claimed the case was time-barred. He emphasized that determining a preliminary objection should not require examining evidence.

The CSOs’ legal team also emphasized that the case had been filed promptly under the EAC Treaty, a key legal instrument that allows individuals in East African countries to challenge unlawful acts within two months of their enactment or upon gaining knowledge of such acts.

They also urged that the court should have examined other, non-time-barred portions of the case if a portion of it was dismissed on time-barred grounds.

The CSOs also raised the First Instance Court’s ruling to award costs to the Tanzanian and Ugandan governments and the East African Community Secretary General (EAC). They contended that a decision like this may deter future public interest lawsuits, particularly those involving human rights and the environment, as it could set a precedent of penalizing those who advocate for public welfare.

Lawyer Rugemeleza Nshala cautioned that charging in public interest cases, particularly those involving the environment and human rights, could have a “chilling effect” on those seeking justice. “The case that was filed affects the people, and this is why we have all these people in court today,” he said.

After hearing arguments from both sides, including legal representatives for Uganda, Tanzania, and the EAC Secretary General, the appellate judges reserved their ruling, stating that it would be delivered “on notice.”

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

As Uganda awaits the Energy Efficiency and Conservation law, plans to develop a five-year plan are underway.

Published

on

By Witness Radio Team.

Kampala, Uganda—The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (MEMD) is developing a comprehensive five-year Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy and Plan for Uganda (EECSP). This plan, which is expected to be completed in June 2025, aims to enhance energy efficiency and conservation efforts in Uganda. Uganda has no law governing the manufacture, distribution, and use of clean cooking technologies.

The plan is expected to be aligned with national priorities, foster partnerships, and secure stakeholder buy-in for effective implementation and long-term sustainability.

In Uganda, over 90% of household energy consumption relies on biomass, a practice that is contributing to massive deforestation. This deforestation threatens our natural habitats, worsens climate change, and increases air pollution. To address these challenges, the government wants to improve energy supply, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and expand green energy solutions in rural areas, ensuring access to affordable and clean energy.

James Banaabe said that the government, through the Energy Ministry, has hired their firm, Castle Group of Consultants, to develop the strategy. He explained that the goal is to create an actionable plan to enhance energy efficiency across various sectors in Uganda, including industries and buildings.

“We need to develop solutions that help sectors reduce their energy bills while promoting efficiency,” he noted during a consultative meeting attended by key stakeholders, including government agencies, private sector actors, civil society, academia, and end users, which provided active and meaningful insights into the development process.

Funded by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), the plan seeks to set realistic, achievable energy efficiency targets across key sectors such as industry, transport, residential, and commercial, identify key areas for improvement, develop an environmental strategy, and recommend actionable measures to enhance energy efficiency and conservation.

Engineer Simon Kalanzi, Energy Efficiency and Conservation Department Commissioner at MEMD, emphasized the crucial role of continuous stakeholder engagement. “The energy efficiency strategy and plan rely on broad stakeholder engagement to ensure inclusivity, relevance, and effective implementation. Your involvement is key to addressing market barriers, sharing knowledge, and building capacity to incorporate local and international expertise,” he stated further.

The strategy will yield significant benefits over the next decade, including a promising future with steady and responsible energy usage across targeted sectors.

David Birimumaaso, a principal officer at MEMD, highlighted that the strategy would support the implementation of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation bill, which is already before Parliament. “This law mandates everyone to be mindful of energy conservation,” he added.

On February 4, 2024, the State Minister for Energy, Hon. Sidronius Opolot, tabled the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Bill, 2024. The bill seeks to regulate energy consumption, curb waste, and promote sustainable cooking technologies. According to the bill, no regulations currently govern the manufacture, distribution, and use of clean cooking technologies.

 

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter