• UNHCR | Publication d’un rapport sur l’apatridie en Suisse

    Le Bureau suisse du UNHCR publie les résultats d’une étude sur la situation des apatrides en Suisse. L’analyse des informations récoltées sur l’ampleur, les causes et les conséquences de l’apatridie a permis de formuler de nombreuses recommandations pratiques. Principal constat : la Suisse peut mieux faire pour protéger et accueillir les personnes apatrides. Le résumé en […]

  • #Pakistan: Girls Deprived of Education. Barriers Include Underinvestment, Fees, Discrimination

    The Pakistan government is failing to educate a huge proportion of the country’s girls, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.

    The 111-page report, “‘Shall I Feed My Daughter, or Educate Her?’: Barriers to Girls’ Education in Pakistan,” concludes that many girls simply have no access to education, including because of a shortage of government schools – especially for girls. Nearly 22.5 million of Pakistan’s children – in a country with a population of just over 200 million – are out of school, the majority of them girls. Thirty-two percent of primary school age girls are out of school in Pakistan, compared with 21 percent of boys. By ninth grade, only 13 percent of girls are still in school.

    #éducation #genre #filles #femmes #discriminations #inégalités #rapport #école

  • “You Cry at Night but Don’t Know Why”. Sexual Violence against Women in North Korea

    Oh Jung Hee is a former trader in her forties from Ryanggang province. She sold clothes to market stalls in Hyesan city and was involved in the distribution of textiles in her province. She said that up until she left the country in 2014, guards would regularly pass by the market to demand bribes, sometimes in the form of coerced sexual acts or intercourse. She told Human Rights Watch:

    I was a victim many times … On the days they felt like it, market guards or police officials could ask me to follow them to an empty room outside the market, or some other place they’d pick. What can we do? They consider us [sex] toys … We [women] are at the mercy of men. Now, women cannot survive without having men with power near them.

    She said she had no power to resist or report these abuses. She said it never occurred to her that anything could be done to stop these assaults except trying to avoid such situations by moving away or being quiet in order to not be noticed.

    Park Young Hee, a former farmer in her forties also from Ryanggang province who left North Korea for the second time in 2011, was forced back to North Korea from China in the spring of 2010 after her first attempt to flee. She said, after being released by the secret police (bowiseong) and put under the jurisdiction of the police, the officer in charge of questioning her in the police pre-trial detention facility (kuryujang) near Musan city in North Hamgyong province touched her body underneath her clothes and penetrated her several times with his fingers. She said he asked her repeatedly about the sexual relations she had with the Chinese man to whom she had been sold to while in China. She told Human Rights Watch:

    My life was in his hands, so I did everything he wanted and told him everything he asked. How could I do anything else? … Everything we do in North Korea can be considered illegal, so everything can depend on the perception or attitude of who is looking into your life.

    Park Young Hee said she never told anybody about the abuse because she did not think it was unusual, and because she feared the authorities and did not believe anyone would help.

    The experiences of Oh Jung Hee and Park Young Hee are not isolated ones. While sexual and gender-based violence is of concern everywhere, growing evidence suggests it is endemic in North Korea.

    This report–based largely on interviews with 54 North Koreans who left the country after 2011, when the current leader, Kim Jong Un, rose to power, and 8 former North Korean officials who fled the country–focuses on sexual abuse by men in official positions of power. The perpetrators include high-ranking party officials, prison and detention facility guards and interrogators, police and secret police officials, prosecutors, and soldiers. At the time of the assaults, most of the victims were in the custody of authorities or were market traders who came across guards and other officials as they traveled to earn their livelihood.

    Interviewees told us that when a guard or police officer “picks” a woman, she has no choice but to comply with any demands he makes, whether for sex, money, or other favors. Women in custody have little choice should they attempt to refuse or complain afterward, and risk sexual violence, longer periods in detention, beatings, forced labor, or increased scrutiny while conducting market activities.

    Women not in custody risk losing their main source of income and jeopardizing their family’s survival, confiscation of goods and money, and increased scrutiny or punishment, including being sent to labor training facilities (rodong danryeondae) or ordinary-crimes prison camps (kyohwaso, literally reform through labor centers) for being involved in market activities. Other negative impacts include possibly losing access to prime trading locations, being fired or overlooked for jobs, being deprived of means of transportation or business opportunities, being deemed politically disloyal, being relocated to a remote area, and facing more physical or sexual violence.

    The North Koreans we spoke with told us that unwanted sexual contact and violence is so common that it has come to be accepted as part of ordinary life: sexual abuse by officials, and the impunity they enjoy, is linked to larger patterns of sexual abuse and impunity in the country. The precise number of women and girls who experience sexual violence in North Korea, however, is unknown. Survivors rarely report cases, and the North Korean government rarely publishes data on any aspect of life in the country.

    Our research, of necessity conducted among North Koreans who fled, does not provide a generalized sample from which to draw definitive conclusions about the prevalence of sexual abuse by officials. The diversity in age, geographic location, social class, and personal backgrounds of the survivors, combined with many consistencies in how they described their experiences, however, suggest that the patterns of sexual violence identified here are common across North Korea. Our findings also mirror those of other inquiries that have tried to discern the situation in this sealed-off authoritarian country.

    A 2014 United Nations Commission of Inquiry (UN COI) on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) concluded that systematic, widespread, and gross human rights violations committed by the North Korean government constituted crimes against humanity. These included forced abortion, rape, and other sexual violence, as well as murder, imprisonment, enslavement, and torture on North Koreans in prison or detention. The UN COI stated that witnesses revealed that while “domestic violence is rife within DPRK society … violence against women is not limited to the home, and that it is common to see women being beaten and sexually assaulted in public.”

    The Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU), a South Korean government think tank that specializes in research on North Korea, conducted a survey with 1,125 North Koreans (31.29 percent men and 68.71 percent women) who re-settled in South Korea between 2010 and 2014. The survey found that 37.7 percent of the respondents said sexual harassment and rape of inmates at detention facilities was “common,” including 15.9 percent that considered it “very common.” Thirty-three women said they were raped at detention and prison facilities, 51 said they witnessed rapes in such facilities, and 25 said they heard of such cases. The assailants identified by the respondents were police agents–45.6 percent; guards–17.7 percent; secret police (bowiseong) agents –13.9 percent; and fellow detainees–1.3 percent. The 2014 KINU survey found 48.6 percent of the respondents said that rape and sexual harassment against women in North Korea was “common.”

    The North Koreans we spoke with stressed that women are socialized to feel powerless to demand accountability for sexual abuse and violence, and to feel ashamed when they are victims of abuse. They said the lack of rule of law and corresponding support systems for survivors leads most victims to remain silent–not seek justice and often not even talk about their experiences.

    While most of our interviewees left North Korea between2011 and 2016, and many of the abuses date from a year or more before their departure, all available evidence suggests that the abuses and near-total impunity enjoyed by perpetrators continue to the present.

    In July 2017, the North Korean government told the UN committee that monitors the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) that just nine people in all of North Korea were convicted of rape in 2008, seven in 2011, and five in 2015. The government said that the numbers of male perpetrators convicted for the crime of forcing a woman who is his subordinate to have sexual intercourse was five in 2008, six in 2011, and three in 2015. While North Korean officials seem to think such ridiculously low numbers show the country to be a violence-free paradise, the numbers are a powerful indictment of their utter failure to address sexual violence in the country.

    Sexual Abuse in Prisons and Detention Facilities

    Human Rights Watch interviewed eight former detainees or prisoners who said they experienced a combination of verbal and sexual violence, harsh questioning, and humiliating treatment by investigators, detention facility personnel, or prison guards that belong to the police or the secret police (bowiseong).

    Six interviewees had experienced sexual, verbal, and physical abuse in pre-trial detention and interrogation facilities (kuryujang)–jails designed to hold detainees during their initial interrogations, run by the MSS or the police. They said secret police or police agents in charge of their personal interrogation touched their faces and their bodies, including their breasts and hips, either through their clothes or by putting their hands inside their clothes.

    Human Rights Watch also documented cases of two women who were sexually abused at a temporary holding facility (jipkyulso) while detainees were being transferred from interrogation facilities (kuryujang) to detention facilities in the detainees’ home districts.

    Sexual Abuse of Women Engaged in Trade

    Human Rights Watch interviewed four women traders who experienced sexual violence, including rape, assault, and sexual harassment, as well as verbal abuse and intimidation, by market gate-keeper officials. We also interviewed 17 women who were sexually abused or experienced unwanted sexual advances by police or other officials as they traveled for their work as traders. Although seeking income outside the command economy was illegal, women started working as traders during the mass famine of the 1990s as survival imperatives led many to ignore the strictures of North Korea’s command economy. Since many married women were not obliged to attend a government-established workplace, they became traders and soon the main breadwinners for their families. But pursuing income in public exposed them to violence.

    Traders and former government officials told us that in North Korea traders are often compelled to pay bribes to officials and market regulators, but for women the “bribes” often include sexual abuse and violence, including rape. Perpetrators of abuses against women traders include high-ranking party officials, managers at state-owned enterprises, and gate-keeper officials at the markets and on roads and check-points, such as police, bowiseong agents, prosecutors, soldiers, and railroad inspectors on trains.

    Women who had worked as traders described unwanted physical contact that included indiscriminately touching their bodies, grabbing their breasts and hips, trying to touch them underneath their skirts or pants, poking their cheeks, pulling their hair, or holding their bodies in their arms. The physical harassment was often accompanied by verbal abuse and intimidation. Women also said it was common for women to try to help protect each other by sharing information about such things, such as which house to avoid because it is rumored that the owner is a rapist or a child molester, which roads not to walk on alone at night, or which local high-ranking official most recently sexually preyed upon women.

    Our research confirms a trend already identified in the UN COI report:

    Officials are not only increasingly engaging in corruption in order to support their low or non-existent salaries, they are also exacting penalties and punishment in the form of sexual abuse and violence as there is no fear of punishment. As more women assume the responsibility for feeding their families due to the dire economic and food situation, more women are traversing through and lingering in public spaces, selling and transporting their goods.

    The UN COI further found “the male dominated state, agents who police the marketplace, inspectors on trains, and soldiers are increasingly committing acts of sexual assault on women in public spaces” and “received reports of train guards frisking women and abusing young girls onboard.” This was described as “the male dominated state preying on the increasingly female-dominated market.”

    Almost all of the women interviewed by Human Rights Watch with trading experience said the only way not to fall prey to extortion or sexual harassment while conducting market activities was to give up hopes of expanding one’s business and barely scrape by, be born to a powerful father with money and connections, marry a man with power, or become close to one.

    Lack of Remedies

    Only one of the survivors of sexual violence Human Rights Watch interviewed for this report said she had tried to report the sexual assault. The other women said they did not report it because they did not trust the police and did not believe police would be willing to take action. The women said the police do not consider sexual violence a serious crime and that it is almost inconceivable to even consider going to the police to report sexual abuse because of the possible repercussions. Family members or close friends who knew about their experience also cautioned women against going to the authorities.

    Eight former government officials, including a former police officer, told Human Rights Watch that cases of sexual abuse or assault are reported to police only when there are witnesses and, even then, the reports invariably are made by third parties and not by the women themselves. Only seven of the North Korean women and men interviewed by Human Rights Watch were aware of cases in which police had investigated sexual violence and in all such cases the victims had been severely injured or killed.

    All of the North Koreans who spoke to Human Rights Watch said the North Korean government does not provide any type of psycho-social support services for survivors of sexual violence and their families. To make matters worse, they said, the use of psychological or psychiatric services itself is highly stigmatized.

    Two former North Korean doctors and a nurse who left after 2010 said there are no protocols for medical treatment and examination of victims of sexual violence to provide therapeutic care or secure medical evidence. They said there are no training programs for medical practitioners on sexual assault and said they never saw a rape victim go to the hospital to receive treatment.

    Discrimination Against Women

    Sex discrimination and subordination of women are pervasive in North Korean. Everyone in North Korea is subjected to a socio-political classification system, known as songbun, that grouped people from its creation into “loyal,” “wavering,” or “hostile” classes. But a woman’s classification also depends, in critical respects, on that of her male relatives, specifically her father and her father’s male relations and, upon marriage, that of her husband and his male relations. A woman’s position in society is lower than a man’s, and her reputation depends largely on maintaining an image of “sexual purity” and obeying the men in her family.

    The government is dominated by men. According to statistics provided by the DPRK government to the UN, as of 2016 women made up just 20.2 percent of the deputies selected, 16.1 percent of divisional directors in government bodies, 11.9 percent of judges and lawyers, 4.9 percent of diplomats, and 16.5 per cent of the officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    On paper, the DPRK says that it is committed to gender equality and women and girl’s rights. The Criminal Code criminalizes rape of women, trafficking in persons, having sexual relations with women in a subordinate position, and child sexual abuse. The 2010 Law on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Women bans domestic violence. North Korea has also ratified five international human rights treaties, including ones that address women and girl’s rights and equality, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and CEDAW.

    During a meeting of a North Korean delegation with the CEDAW Committee, which reviewed North Korean compliance between 2002 and 2015, government officials argued all of the elements of CEDAW had been included in DPRK’s domestic laws. However, under questioning by the committee, the officials were unable to provide the definition of “discrimination against women” employed by the DPRK.

    Park Kwang Ho, Councilor of the Central Court in the DPRK, stated that if a woman in a subordinate position was forced to engage in sexual relations for fear of losing her job or in exchange for preferential treatment, it was her choice as to whether or not she complied. Therefore, he argued, in such a situation the punishment for the perpetrator should be lighter. He later amended his statement to say that if she did not consent to having sexual relations, and was forced to do so, the perpetrator was committing rape and would be punished accordingly.

    #abus_sexuels #violence_sexuelle #viols #Corée_du_nord #femmes #rapport

  • https://www.rasa-africa.org/publications/le-rapport.html

    Le rapport alternatif sur l’Afrique 2018 (n°0 - juillet 2018) est préparé par un collectif de personnes et d’organisations africaines. Elles veulent rendre compte des évolutions et transformations sociétales, économiques, culturelles, religieuses, politiques, environnementales qui donnent une autre idée de l’Afrique qui est en train d’être construite et qui échappent de fait aux indicateurs conventionnels du développement et du bien être. Elles veulent bâtir une définition du progrès de l’Afrique et des Africains plus proches de leurs cosmogonies et visions du monde, de leurs réalités et de leurs pratiques.
    #Afrique #Autre_développement #Afrotopia

  • “Je n’ai pas lu le rapport” : la désarmante légèreté d’un député

    J’ai décidé d’interroger Jean-Charles Larsonneur, député LREM et membre de la commission Défense, alors élu depuis six mois, en contact régulier avec les industriels, et ancien du Quai d’Orsay. Il m’a semblé être la personne idéale. Il était en outre tout à fait prévenu que je m’intéressais aux exportations.


    Ce jour-là, j’arrive donc avec le rapport, sur lequel j’ai mille questions à poser. Notamment sur les ventes à l’Arabie saoudite, classée par le rapport comme notre deuxième client. L’interview à peine commencée, il me dit qu’il ne l’a pas lu ! A ce moment-là, la journaliste en moi se dit que c’est vraiment une information importante. La citoyenne, elle, est abasourdie. Cela faisait six mois que je me confrontais à l’omerta de l’administration. Si les gens qui nous représentent, qui sont en capacité de poser les questions, ne prennent même pas le temps de lire le rapport, c’est extrêmement grave.

    J’ai tenu à continuer l’interview malgré tout. Et là, la situation devient ubuesque : il me reparle lui-même du rapport, avec ses éléments de langage, en en vantant les mérites, comme s’il l’avait lu ! C’est proprement scandaleux. Après le tournage, il m’a fait comprendre qu’il ne serait pas correct de garder le passage sur l’Arabie saoudite, car il n’est pas spécialiste du rapport. Mais je ne suis pas d’accord : qui pose les questions alors ?

  • Batterie auto elettriche: il prezzo pagato dai bambini del cobalto

    Nelle miniere del Congo migliaia di bambini pagano un prezzo altissimo per estrarre il cobalto, uno dei materiali indispensabili alle batterie delle auto elettriche: condizioni di lavoro terribili e rischi per la salute per pochi centesimi al giorno

    #voiture_électrique #exploitation #mines #cobalt #enfants #Congo #esclavage_moderne #extractivisme #matières_premières #cartographie #visualisation
    ping @reka

  • Child trafficking: who are the victims and the criminal networks trafficking them in and into the EU

    One of the most serious aspects of this phenomenon is the role of the family, with #Europol receiving regular notifications of children being sold to criminal networks by their families. In some cases they engage directly in the trafficking and #exploitation of their own children.
    Female suspects play a key role in the trafficking and exploitation of minors, much more than in criminal networks which are trafficking adult victims.
    Most of the cases reported to Europol involve networks escorting non-EU minor victims across the entire route from their country of origin to the place of exploitation, frequently with the involvement of #smuggling networks. Smuggling of minor victims through the external borders and across member states usually entails the use of forged travel documents.
    Criminal profits are mainly redirected to the country of origin of the key suspect, in small amounts via money transfer services and in larger sums using criminal money couriers and mules.
    Children are trafficked from around the world into the EU. The majority of non-EU networks reported to Europol involved Nigerian organised crime groups which are trafficking young girls to be sexually exploited.
    Children in migration and unaccompanied minors are at higher risk of trafficking and exploitation. Although the scale of trafficking of unaccompanied minors remains unknown, a future increase is expected.

    #trafic_d'êtres_humains #enfants #enfance #UE #EU #Europe #smugglers #Nigeria #prostitution #exploitation_sexuelle #MNA #mineurs_non_accompagnés

    Lien pour télécharger le #rapport:

  • Lo scandalo del bio: copre il 15% dei terreni ma prende solo il 3% degli aiuti

    L’Italia applica la #PAC in modo paradossale: si finanzia più l’acquisto di diserbanti e pesticidi nell’agricoltura convenzionale che chi sceglie di puntare sul biologico.

    Il biologico cresce a due cifre ed è considerato un’arma utile anche contro i cambiamenti climatici. Ma le politiche di sostegno all’agricoltura – declinazioni nazionali delle politiche europee – investono direttamente sul bio italiano molto meno di quanto il settore meriterebbe. Questa la denuncia contenuta nell’ultimo rapporto di FederBio (Cambia la terra 2018): i fondi pubblici mirati al biologico sono inferiori al 3% del totale. Eppure, la Superficie agricola (Sau) coltivata dall’agricoltura biologica è di poco inferiore al 15%.

    Una sperequazione nell’attribuzione degli aiuti sancita dai meccanismi di attuazione italiana della Pac (Politica agricola comunitaria) per il periodo 2014-2020. Tanto più criticabile se si pensa che il il biologico contribuisce a ridurre i costi ambientali e sanitari collettivi, favorendo la tutela del paesaggio e il calo dell’inquinamento da fitofarmaci (ovvero erbicidi e pesticidi). E che la scelta del biologico comporta, per chi la fa, maggiori incombenze burocratiche ed economiche, che colpiscono non solo le aziende che stanno “transitando” da coltivazioni non certificate ma anche la pratica quotidiana.

    Al biologico solo le briciole dal Primo Pilastro della Pac

    Secondo i dati del Servizio Studi della Camera, i finanziamenti della Pac 2014-2020 all’agricoltura italiana sono pari a 62,5 miliardi:

    41,5 miliardi di euro dell’Unione europea
    21 miliardi che arrivano dallo Stato nazionale.

    Il 75% dei finanziamenti è destinato al cosiddetto Primo Pilastro e all’Organizzazione comune di mercato, mentre mediamente il 25% è destinato al Secondo Pilastro, che sono i Programmi di sviluppo rurale delle Regioni.

    Sul primo Pilastro della Pac, i finanziamenti destinati specificatamente al biologico praticamente non esistono. Il biologico beneficia del cosiddetto greening, che di fatto è solo una maggiorazione del 30% dell’aiuto di base.

    «Ma il greening, in funzione delle esenzioni previste dalle norme, viene applicato nel nostro Paese solo al 12% delle aziende. E, oltre al biologico, ne beneficia anche chi fa avvicendamento colturale, i pascoli o le zone rifugio per la fauna. Così, alla fine, l’aiuto destinato specificatamente al bio è veramente irrilevante», spiega Maria Grazia Mammuccini di FederBio.

    Un quadro che appare a tutto vantaggio dell’agricoltura convenzionale, che utilizza pesticidi, diserbanti e fertilizzanti di sintesi. Ovvero chi adempie al PAN (Piano Nazionale per l’uso sostenibile dei prodotti fitosanitari) secondo lo standard minimo – e obbligatorio – che consente l’accesso ai pagamenti diretti del Primo Pilastro.

    Psr, premiato chi usa i pesticidi. Glifosato incluso

    Al biologico, va meglio quando si analizza il finanziamento specifico che giunge dai Programmi di sviluppo rurale (Psr) del Secondo Pilastro della Pac. E in questo caso a decidere – in modo assolutamente disomogeneo – sono le regioni italiane.

    Attraverso i bandi della cosiddetta Misura 11, dedicata proprio all’agricoltura biologica, al bio arrivano la maggior parte dei finanziamenti. Ma la misura rimane comunque minore rispetto a quanto, grazie alla Misura 10, ricevono altre pratiche. Innanzitutto il cosiddetto “integrato volontario“, modello di agricoltura che rispetta un disciplinare con pratiche agronomiche specifiche, e vieta l’uso di alcuni principi attivi tra i più dannosi. E poi l’agricoltura conservativa.
    A sostenere fortemente il biologico, con alte percentuali della spesa complessiva nei Psr, sono le regioni del Centro e Sud Italia (in Sicilia il 18,07%, in Calabria il 22,38%). Uniche eccezioni l’Umbria (3,88%) e la Campania (1,36%). Altre, come Valle d’Aosta (1,7%), Veneto (1,84%), Friuli Venezia Giulia 2,36% perseguono obbiettivi opposti.

    Complessivamente – secondo Cambia la terra – alla Misura 10 viene destinato il 13% dei fondi per lo sviluppo rurale nazionale, mentre alla Misura 11 il 9,5%. Evidenziando quello che appare come un paradosso. La Misura 10, infatti, è specificamente indirizzata al rispetto dell’ambiente. «Premia pratiche agronomiche migliori rispetto al convenzionale, ma che comunque fanno uso di fertilizzanti e pesticidi di sintesi chimica, compreso il glifosato» spiega Mammuccini. E così, una norma pensata per aiutare l’ambiente finisce per finanziare chi usa «il maggior inquinante delle nostre acque (dati ISPRA) e classificato come probabile cancerogeno». L’unica regione italiana che ha deciso di interrompere i finanziamenti risulta essere la Calabria mentre infuria la polemica sugli annunci della Toscana.
    Vizioli: troppa burocrazia. Ancora non spesi più del 50% dei fondi

    Detto ciò, siamo in attesa di vedere se con la Pac 2021-2027 l’Europa, sempre più colpita dal riscaldamento globale, punterà maggiormente sul bio. Ma riguardo la programmazione 2014-2020, alle lamentazioni di FederBio si unisce, su altri fronti, la bocciatura del presidente di Aiab (Associazione italiana per l’agricoltura biologica).

    «Tranne qualche raro caso – afferma Vincenzo Vizioli – tutte le regioni italiane hanno investito sul bio una percentuale del budget inferiore alla Sau impegnata a biologico. Non hanno considerato che la domanda di cibo bio stava stimolando un’esplosione del settore. E quindi non hanno previsto un un aumento delle richieste di finanziamento. In questo modo, tutto il sistema è andato in difficoltà. Non solo: il ritardo dei pagamenti, dovuto al cronico e inaccettabile malfunzionamento di Agea (Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura), e l’appesantimento burocratico per la gestione delle domande, la rendicontazione dei progetti e la lentezza delle istruttorie regionali hanno esaltato le difficoltà».

    Un errore di programmazione incomprensibile. Che, secondo Vizioli, sta in qualche modo “imballando il sistema”: benché la Misura 11 valga l’8,7% dei 20,9 miliardi di euro programmati per i Psr, ad oggi ne ha ricevuto meno di uno. E di quanto disponibile è stato speso solo il 17,6%.

    «Non solo è stata sbagliata la programmazione, ma le tante difficoltà di tipo burocratico stanno portando al problema di non riuscire a spendere tutti i fondi disponibili. Mancano meno di 2 anni alla fine e noi non abbiamo ancora speso neanche la metà dei fondi».

    E così, oltre al danno, si aggiungerebbe anche la beffa. Senza contare che l’agricoltura integrata beneficiaria della Misura 10, sottolinea Vizioli, riceve denaro pubblico ma non è né certificata come il bio nè fatta oggetto di controlli adeguati. Poiché la verifica dei documenti d’acquisto e di uso dei fitofarmaci, ad esempio, non si accompagna con dei rilievi sul campo.

    #agriculture #agriculture_biologique #Italie #subventions #statistiques #chiffres #aides_financières #pesticides #glyphosates #chiffres #statistiques

    cc @albertocampiphoto

    • Così l’agricoltura convenzionale inquina l’economia (oltre che il Pianeta)

      Il modello della rivoluzione verde (industrializzazione dell’agricoltura più chimica di sintesi) può considerarsi esaurito a causa dell’enorme impatto ambientale prodotto dall’uso massiccio di fertilizzanti chimici e pesticidi che ha contribuito al deterioramento della terra, alla contaminazione dell’acqua e alla perdita di biodiversità senza riuscire a garantire un reddito adeguato agli agricoltori. Così la Fao, durante l’incontro internazionale sull’agroecologia dell’aprile 2018, ha sintetizzato oltre mezzo secolo di studi scientifici sull’impatto dell’agricoltura intensiva basata su un largo uso di pesticidi.

      Come è arrivata un’organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite a un pronunciamento così netto? Questo rapporto mette assieme i tasselli che aiutano a capire. A confutare il mito di quella che è stata paradossalmente chiamata la “rivoluzione verde” – pur avendo dato un contributo importante alla perdita di biodiversità e all’aggravarsi della minaccia climatica – non c’è infatti un solo elemento, ma il riconoscimento di una serie di errori ambientali, sanitari, sociali ed economici.

      Nel primo Rapporto “Cambia la terra. Così l’agricoltura convenzionale inquina l’economia (oltre che il Pianeta)” sono citati gli autori e gli studi che hanno permesso alla comunità scientifica di raddrizzare la rotta, indicando la strada per recuperare il terreno perduto. È un filo logico che rappresenta una mappa capace di aiutare il legislatore a riorientare l’azione pubblica verso il bene comune. E che ha una forte attualità: oggi è in discussione la possibilità di cambiare la destinazione di una significativa quota di risorse pubbliche che finora è servita a sostenere scelte ad alto impatto ambientale e sanitario e che può essere reindirizzata per sostenere un modello agricolo più sicuro, più sano e più equo. Ma qual è il danno economico complessivo prodotto dall’uso dei pesticidi? Un primo studio sul tema condotto da Pimentel e altri nel 1992, mettendo nel conto alcune esternalità negative, arrivava alla cifra di 8,1 miliardi di dollari l’anno negli USA. Considerando che all’epoca l’acquisto di pesticidi ammontava a una spesa di 4 miliardi, ne deriva che le esternalità negative a carico della collettività erano pari al doppio: per 1 dollaro speso in pesticidi se ne spendevano 2 per le conseguenze prodotte dal loro uso. La ricerca è stata aggiornata in uno studio successivo pubblicato nel 2005 arrivando a valutare i costi derivati dall’uso dei pesticidi – spese sanitarie, perdita di produttività, perdita di biodiversità, costi per il disinquinamento del suolo e delle acque – in circa 10 miliardi di dollari l’anno nei soli Stati Uniti.

      L’Italia si trova purtroppo esposta in prima linea nella battaglia contro questo rischio chimico: il nostro Paese è fra i maggiori consumatori di pesticidi a livello europeo. Dall’ultimo Report dell’Agenzia europea per l’ambiente risulta infatti che il consumo di principio attivo nella UE è mediamente di 3,8 chili per ettaro: in Italia invece si arriva a 5,7 chili per ettaro, e in 10 anni – dal 2006 al 2016 – si è registrato un aumento della spesa per i pesticidi attualizzata ai prezzi correnti pari al 50% (quella per i concimi è cresciuta del 35%).

      Inoltre l’agricoltura intensiva, la monocoltura, l’uso di diserbanti e concimi chimici di sintesi sono tra gli elementi che più impoveriscono il terreno, riducendo la materia organica e la concentrazione di microrganismi e quindi la fertilità. Un dato inquietante perché ci vogliono migliaia di anni per creare pochi centimetri di terreno fertile, ma bastano pochi decenni per distruggerlo. E in Italia l’erosione – che comporta costi legati all’aumento del rischio di inondazioni e frane, all’abbandono delle terre e alla distruzione di infrastrutture – interessa ormai un terzo della superficie agricola del Paese generando una perdita annuale di produttività pari a 619 milioni di euro.

      Infine c’è da tener presente l’impatto sul clima dell’agricoltura ad alto uso di chimica di sintesi e di combustibili fossili. L’IPCC, la task force di climatologi organizzata dall’Onu, ritiene che siano proprio il modello agricolo e alimentare oggi imperante e l’uso attuale di suolo e foreste a essere responsabili per il 24% del rilascio dei gas climalteranti. Una conseguenza che potrebbe essere evitata scegliendo la strada dell’agroecologia: secondo i dati pubblicati dal Rodale Institute nel 2011, i sistemi di agricoltura biologica utilizzano il 45% in meno di energia rispetto a quelli convenzionali e producono il 40% in meno di gas serra rispetto all’agricoltura basata su metodi convenzionali. In questo modo l’agricoltura si potrebbe trasformare da problema in soluzione: i terreni organici svolgono un ruolo di assorbimento del carbonio che può arrivare a circa mezza tonnellata di carbonio per ettaro l’anno. Il potenziale tecnico del sequestro di carbonio nei terreni degli ecosistemi agricoli globali è compreso tra 1,2 e 3,1 miliardi di tonnellate di carbonio all’anno (da 10 a 27 volte le emissioni italiane di CO2 equivalente del 2016).

      I numeri vengono dall’Ufficio studi della Camera dei deputati: su 41,5 miliardi di euro destinati all’Italia, all’agricoltura biologica vanno appena 963 milioni di euro. In altri termini, il bio – che rappresenta il 14,5% della superficie agricola utilizzabile – riceve il 2,3% delle risorse europee: anche solo in termini puramente aritmetici, senza calcolare il contributo del biologico alla difesa dell’ambiente e della salute, circa sei volte meno di quanto che gli spetterebbe. Se ai dati dei fondi europei si aggiunge il cofinanziamento nazionale per l’agricoltura, pari a circa 21 miliardi, il risultato rimane praticamente invariato: su un totale di fondi europei e italiani di circa 62,5 miliardi, la parte che va al biologico è di 1,8 miliardi, il 2,9% delle risorse.

      Invece di un premio c’è dunque una penalizzazione netta. Nel capitolo di spesa destinato specificamente all’interno dei PSR (Piani di sviluppo regionale) alla vera e propria lotta al cambiamento climatico, solo il 9,5% delle risorse pubbliche va all’agricoltura biologica. Altro tipo di sistemi (ad esempio l’agricoltura integrata, che usa teoricamente meno pesticidi sul campo; o l’agricoltura conservativa, una pratica in cui si evita di dissodare i terreni ma si utilizza ampiamente il glifosato) ricevono maggiori risorse (13%).

      In altre parole, gli italiani e gli europei in generale pagano per sostenere pratiche agricole che alla fine si ritorcono contro l’ambiente e contro la loro salute, a partire da quella degli agricoltori stessi. In questo contesto anche l’onere della prova viene rovesciato. Non è il modello agricolo ad alto impatto ambientale a farsi carico della tutela degli ecosistemi con cui interagisce, ma sono gli operatori del biologico a sopportare i costi prodotti dall’inquinamento causato dalla chimica di sintesi: il costo della certificazione; il costo della burocrazia (ancora più alta che per gli agricoltori convenzionali); il costo della maggiore quantità di lavoro necessaria a produrre in maniera efficace, senza ricorso a concimi di sintesi e diserbanti, e a proteggere il raccolto dai parassiti senza l’uso dei pesticidi di sintesi chimica; il costo della fascia di rispetto tra campi convenzionali e campi biologici.

      Occorre anche intervenire subito, fornendo strumenti e opportunità a chi sceglie l’agricoltura pulita e non – come succede oggi – penalizzando chi non inquina, in contrasto con i principi fondanti delle politiche ambientali italiane, europee e internazionali. “Cambia la Terra”, attraverso il Rapporto 2018, intende avanzare delle proposte concrete alla politica.


      Pour télécharger le rapport:


  • World Development Report 2019: The Changing Nature of Work

    jungle.world - Ungerechtigkeit 4.0

    11.10.2018 -
    Der Weltentwicklungsbericht der Weltbank beschäftigt sich mit der Frage, wie die Digitalisierung soziale Gerechtigkeit verändert

    Ungerechtigkeit 4.0

    Die Digitalisierung betrifft alle Lebensbereiche. Wie sie sich auf soziale Gerechtigkeit auswirkt, wird derzeit viel diskutiert. Auch die Weltbank befasst sich in ihrem Bericht für das Jahr 2019 damit. Ihre Analyse stammt allerdings aus der vordigitalen Zeit.

    Von Christopher Wimmer

    Von der Arbeitswelt über das Privat­leben und die Freizeitgestaltung bis zur Politik – die Digitalisierung hat die bis vor wenigen Jahrzehnten bestehenden Verhältnisse grundlegend verändert. Sie hat neue Lebenssituationen geschaffen, deren Konsequenzen für die Arbeit, das Gemeinwohl und das Leben der Einzelnen nur teilweise voraus­gesehen werden können.

    Mit dem Thema Digitalisierung befasst sich derzeit auch die Weltbank, die gerade ihren Weltentwicklungsbericht für das Jahr 2019 vorbereitet. In ihren jährlich erscheinenden Berichten behandelt die Weltbank immer verschiedene Themen. Der Band für 2019 soll im Oktober unter dem Titel »The Changing Nature of Work« erscheinen und sich mit dem Wesen und der Zukunft der Arbeit beschäftigen. Der Entwurf ist im Netz frei zugänglich und wird Woche für Woche aktualisiert. Darin werden zwei Themen verbunden, die bisher selten zusammen diskutiert wurden: Di­gitalisierung und Ungleichheit. Die Digitalisierung hat den Verfassern zu­folge das Potential, soziale Ungleichheit zu verschärfen.

    Über die Frage, ob die Digitalisierung eine große Chance oder ein großes Ri­siko für die Gesellschaft ist, ist auch die Meinung der deutschen Bevölkerung gespalten. Dem Ifo-Bildungsbarometer 2017 zufolge stimmten 50 Prozent der Befragten der Aussage zu, dass die Digitalisierung insgesamt zu größerer so­zialer Ungleichheit in Deutschland führen werde, 46 Prozent stimmen dem nicht zu. Die einen befürchten, dass die Digitalisierung zu massiven Arbeitsplatzverlusten führt und somit die Ungleichheit verschärft, die anderen hoffen auf neue Jobperspektiven in der digitalen Welt.

    Die Autorinnen und Autoren unter der Leitung des Ökonomen und ehemaligen bulgarischen ­Finanzministers Simeon Djankov regen dazu an, den Kündigungsschutz zu lockern und Unternehmen generell von ihrer sozialen Verantwortung zu befreien. Mindestlöhne sollen gesenkt werden.

    In den vergangenen Jahren sind die Reallöhne in Deutschland, nach einer längeren Phase der Stagnation, leicht gestiegen. Anders als in anderen west­lichen Ländern sind viele neue industrielle Jobs entstanden, in denen relativ hohe Löhne gezahlt werden.

    Und doch sind stabile Wachstumsraten und Rekordbeschäftigung keine Garanten für soziale Gerechtigkeit. Der Anteil der Menschen, die als armutsgefährdet gelten, ist zuletzt wieder angestiegen. Leiharbeit, Werkverträge, Minijobs und befristete Arbeitsverhältnisse prägen die Arbeitswelt – fast 40 Prozent der Beschäftigten in Deutschland arbeiten inzwischen in derlei prekären Arbeitsverhältnissen. Für sie bedeutet dies häufig: niedrige Löhne, geringe soziale Absicherung und permanente Angst vor dem Verlust des Arbeitsplatzes. Besonders jüngere Beschäftigte sind davon betroffen.

    Rechte, die sich Lohnabhängige in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten gewerkschaftlich erkämpften, werden durch neue Arbeitsverhältnisse der Gig-Ökonomie unterminiert, bei der kleine Aufträge kurzfristig an unabhängige Freiberufler oder geringfügig Beschäftigte vergeben werden. Kündigungsschutz, Krankenversicherung und Urlaubsanspruch gelten dort nur selten. Die Digitalisierung der Arbeitswelt verstärkt diese Prozesse. Mittlerweile geht es auch nicht mehr nur um die industrielle Produktion.

    Weitere Branchen werden umstrukturiert. Der Zeitungs- und Büchermarkt, der Börsenhandel, die Versicherungsbranche, Immobilien- und Stellenbörsen, das Militär – diese und weitere Bereiche sind ebenfalls von gewaltigen Transformationen betroffen.

    Die Weltbank stellt fest: Die großen digitalen Unternehmen beschäftigen vergleichsweise wenige Mitarbeiter, vernichten aber Tausende Jobs in der Industrie, im Handel und Dienstleistungssektor. Ein Beispiel hierfür sei der Fahrdienstleister Uber. Durch die Möglichkeit, Menschen privat im Auto mitzunehmen, wird das organisierte Taxigewerbe unter Druck gesetzt. Waren gewisse Mindesteinkommen und Sicherheiten für die regulären Taxifahrer gegeben, fallen bei Uber alle Formen der gewerkschaftlichen Organisierung und Versicherungen komplett weg. Das Ergebnis ist die Prekarisierung der gesamten Branche.

    Die unregulierte, digitale Variante des Taxigewerbes steht also nicht für die inklusiv und sozial gerecht erscheinende sharing economy, sondern bedeutet unterm Strich: Vereinzelung und direkte Ausbeutung, also Kapitalismus in Reinform.

    Doch es gibt auch eine positive Erzählung über die Digitalisierung. Zahlreiche Verlautbarungen aus Wirtschaft und Politik preisen sie als Garant für zukünftigen Wohlstand. Vom Bundeswirtschaftsministerium über die Unternehmensplattform »Industrie 4.0« bis hin zu Beratungsfirmen wie McKinsey sind sich alle einig, dass Phänomene wie Big Data, Internet der Dinge und künstliche Intelligenz nicht nur für Wachstum sorgen werden, sondern auch zu sozialer Gerechtigkeit beitragen können. Gab es früher enorme Hürden, die die Existenz kleiner Produzenten be- und verhinderten, können sich Menschen nun über Marktplätze wie Ebay selbständig machen oder Geld neben dem Job hinzuverdienen. Ebenso verhält es sich mit Uber oder Airbnb – Geld kann hier relativ leicht verdient werden.

    Doch ein Blick auf wissenschaftliche Szenarien macht skeptisch, ob diese Gerechtigkeitsversprechungen der Digitalisierung wirklich einzuhalten sind. Digitale Innovationen werden sich anders auswirken als vorherige technologische Entwicklungen. Ihre atem­beraubende Geschwindigkeit tangiert auch die Arbeitsplatzsicherheit. Verschiedene Studien sagen voraus, dass allein in den nächsten zwei Jahrzehnten zwischen zwölf und 40 Prozent der Arbeitsplätze in Deutschland verloren gehen könnten – die neu entstandenen Jobs bereits eingerechnet.

    Von der Digitalisierung sind mittlerweile alle Berufsgruppen betroffen. Die Technologie selbstfahrender Autos ersetzt zumindest potentiell die Busfahrer, Drohnen die Postbeamtinnen, intelligente Systeme die Buchhalterin und schlussendlich können auch Wissensarbeiter ersetzt werden – künstliche Intelligenz an Stelle von Professoren.

    Die Weltbank geht in ihrem Bericht darauf ein und fordert Maßnahmen, um wachsender Ungleichheit vorzubeugen: »Als erste Priorität sind umfangreiche Investitionen in das Humankapital während des gesamten Lebens einer Person von entscheidender Bedeutung. Wenn die Arbeiter gegenüber Maschinen konkurrenzfähig bleiben sollen, müssen sie in der Lage sein, ständig neue Fähigkeiten zu trainieren oder von Anfang an besser ausgebildet sein«, heißt es darin.

    Doch was passiert mit all denen, die nicht mithalten können? Die Jobs, die mit der Digitalisierung entstehen, werden nur zu einem kleinen Teil gut bezahlt sein. Der kleinen Gruppe von Programmierern oder IT-Ingenieurinnen wird die große Mehrheit der Beschäftigten bei Lieferketten, in Lagerhallen oder als Gelegenheits-, Crowd- und Clickarbeiterinnen gegenüberstehen – im Niedriglohnsektor.

    All das wird dazu führen, dass die soziale Ungleichheit weiter anwächst. Die Vorschläge der Weltbank scheinen in dieser Hinsicht wenig aussichtsreich zu sein. So regen die Autorinnen und Autoren unter der Leitung des Ökonomen und ehemaligen bulgarischen ­Finanzministers Simeon Djankov dazu an, den Kündigungsschutz zu lockern und Unternehmen generell von ihrer sozialen Verantwortung zu befreien. Mindestlöhne sollen gesenkt werden.

    An deren Stelle solle laut Weltbank ein bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen und bessere private Vorsorge treten. Dies soll durch höhere Steuern finanziert werden, die dem Entwurf zufolge aber hauptsächlich Geringverdienende und Ärmere belasten würden.

    Mit diesen Mitteln wird man dazu beitragen, dass sich einige wenige – die die Macht über Roboter und Algorithmen haben – zu Lasten der großen Mehrheit bereichern. Riesige Mengen Kapital sammeln sich bereits bei wenigen Firmen an, die große Plattformen und Programme entwickeln.

    Der digitalisierte Klassenkampf scheint derzeit eindeutig auszufallen. Er betrifft aber nicht nur die Arbeitswelt, sondern die gesamte Gesellschaft, denn diese Firmen akkumulieren nicht nur große wirtschaftliche, sondern auch gesellschaftliche Macht: Sie verfügen über das Wissen, die Daten und die medialen Räume, mit denen in Gesellschaft und Politik Diskussionen geführt und Entscheidungen getroffen werden. Kämpfe um soziale Gerechtigkeit im digitalen Kapitalismus werden dadurch umso schwerer – aber auch umso wichtiger.

    #Uber #Taxi #BEG #Arbeit #Arbeitslosigkeit #Digitalisierung #Prekasisierung #Plattformkapitalismus #Weltbank

  • Uganda’s refugee policies: the history, the politics, the way forward

    Uganda’s refugee policy urgently needs an honest discussion, if sustainable solutions for both refugees and host communities are to be found, a new policy paper by International Refugee Rights Initiative (IRRI) reveals.

    The paper, entitled Uganda’s refugee policies: the history, the politics, the way forward puts the “Ugandan model” in its historical and political context, shines a spotlight on its implementation gaps, and proposes recommendations for the way forward.

    Uganda has since 2013 opened its borders to hundreds of thousands of refugees from South Sudan, bringing the total number of refugees to more than one million. It has been praised for its positive steps on freedom of movement and access to work for refugees, going against the global grain. But generations of policy, this paper shows, have only entrenched the sole focus on refugee settlements and on repatriation as the only viable durable solution. Support to urban refugees and local integration have been largely overlooked.

    The Ugandan refugee crisis unfolded at the same time as the UN adopted the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, and states committed to implement a Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF). Uganda immediately seized this opportunity and adopted its own strategy to implement these principles. As the world looks to Uganda for best practices in refugee policy, and rightly so, it is vital to understand the gaps between rhetoric and reality, and the pitfalls of Uganda’s policy. This paper identifies the following challenges:

    There is a danger that the promotion of progressive refugee policies becomes more rhetoric than reality, creating a smoke-screen that squeezes out meaningful discussion about robust alternatives. Policy-making has come at the expense of real qualitative change on the ground.
    Refugees in urban areas continue to be largely excluded from any support due to an ongoing focus on refugee settlements, including through aid provision
    Local integration and access to citizenship have been virtually abandoned, leaving voluntary repatriation as the only solution on the table. Given the protracted crises in South Sudan and Democratic Republic of Congo, this remains unrealistic.
    Host communities remain unheard, with policy conversations largely taking place in Kampala and Geneva. Many Ugandans and refugees have neither the economic resources nor sufficient political leverage to influence the policies that are meant to benefit them.

    The policy paper proposes a number of recommendations to improve the Ugandan refugee model:

    First, international donors need to deliver on their promise of significant financial support.
    Second, repatriation cannot remain the only serious option on the table. There has to be renewed discussion on local integration with Uganda communities and a dramatic increase in resettlement to wealthier states across the globe.
    Third, local communities hosting refugees must be consulted and their voices incorporated in a more meaningful and systematic way, if tensions within and between communities are to be avoided.
    Fourth, in order to genuinely enhance refugee self-reliance, the myth of the “local settlement” needs to be debunked and recognized for what it is: the ongoing isolation of refugees and the utilization of humanitarian assistance to keep them isolated and dependent on aid.

    #modèle_ougandais #Ouganda #asile #migrations #réfugiés

    Pour télécharger le #rapport:

    • A New Deal for Refugees

      Global policies that aim to resettle and integrate displaced populations into local societies is providing a way forward.

      For many years now, groups that work with refugees have fought to put an end to the refugee camp. It’s finally starting to happen.

      Camps are a reasonable solution to temporary dislocation. But refugee crises can go on for decades. Millions of refugees have lived in their country of shelter for more than 30 years. Two-thirds of humanitarian assistance — intended for emergencies — is spent on crises that are more than eight years old.

      Camps are stagnant places. Refugees have access to water and medical care and are fed and educated, but are largely idle. “You keep people for 20 years in camps — don’t expect the next generation to be problem-free,” said Xavier Devictor, who advises the World Bank on refugee issues. “Keeping people in those conditions is not a good idea.” It’s also hard to imagine a better breeding ground for terrorists.

      “As long as the system is ‘we feed you,’ it’s always going to be too expensive for the international community to pay for,” Mr. Devictor said. It’s gotten more and more difficult for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to raise that money; in many crises, the refugee agency can barely keep people from starving. It’s even harder now as nations turn against foreigners — even as the number of people fleeing war and violence has reached a record high.

      At the end of last year, nearly 70 million people were either internally displaced in their own countries, or had crossed a border and become a refugee. That is the largest number of displaced in history — yes, more than at the end of World War II. The vast majority flee to neighboring countries — which can be just as badly off.

      Last year, the United States accepted about 30,000 refugees.

      Uganda, which is a global model for how it treats refugees, has one-seventh of America’s population and a tiny fraction of the wealth. Yet it took in 1,800 refugees per day between mid-2016 and mid-2017 from South Sudan alone. And that’s one of four neighbors whose people take refuge in Uganda.

      Bangladesh, already the world’s most crowded major nation, has accepted more than a million Rohingya fleeing ethnic cleansing in Myanmar. “If we can feed 160 million people, then (feeding) another 500,00-700,000 …. We can do it. We can share our food,” Shiekh Hasina, Bangladesh’s prime minister, said last year.

      Lebanon is host to approximately 1.5 million Syrian refugees, in addition to a half-million Palestinians, some of whom have been there for generations. One in three residents of Lebanon is a refugee.

      The refugee burden falls heavily on a few, poor countries, some of them at risk of destabilization, which can in turn produce more refugees. The rest of the world has been unwilling to share that burden.

      But something happened that could lead to real change: Beginning in 2015, hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees crossed the Mediterranean in small boats and life rafts into Europe.

      Suddenly, wealthy European countries got interested in fixing a broken system: making it more financially viable, more dignified for refugees, and more palatable for host governments and communities.

      In September 2016, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution stating that all countries shared the responsibility of protecting refugees and supporting host countries. It also laid out a plan to move refugees out of camps into normal lives in their host nations.

      Donor countries agreed they would take more refugees and provide more long-term development aid to host countries: schools, hospitals, roads and job-creation measures that can help both refugees and the communities they settle in. “It looked at refugee crises as development opportunities, rather than a humanitarian risk to be managed,” said Marcus Skinner, a policy adviser at the International Rescue Committee.

      The General Assembly will vote on the specifics next month (whatever they come up with won’t be binding). The Trump administration pulled out of the United Nations’ Global Compact on Migration, but so far it has not opposed the refugee agreement.

      There’s a reason refugee camps exist: Host governments like them. Liberating refugees is a hard sell. In camps, refugees are the United Nations’ problem. Out of camps, refugees are the local governments’ problem. And they don’t want to do anything to make refugees comfortable or welcome.

      Bangladesh’s emergency response for the Rohingya has been staggeringly generous. But “emergency” is the key word. The government has resisted granting Rohingya schooling, work permits or free movement. It is telling Rohingya, in effect, “Don’t get any ideas about sticking around.”

      This attitude won’t deter the Rohingya from coming, and it won’t send them home more quickly. People flee across the closest border — often on foot — that allows them to keep their families alive. And they’ll stay until home becomes safe again. “It’s the simple practicality of finding the easiest way to refuge,” said Victor Odero, regional advocacy coordinator for East Africa and the Horn of Africa at the International Rescue Committee. “Any question of policies is a secondary matter.”

      So far, efforts to integrate refugees have had mixed success. The first experiment was a deal for Jordan, which was hosting 650,000 Syrian refugees, virtually none of whom were allowed to work. Jordan agreed to give them work permits. In exchange, it got grants, loans and trade concessions normally available only to the poorest countries.

      However, though the refugees have work permits, Jordan has put only a moderate number of them into jobs.

      Any agreement should include the views of refugees from the start — the Jordan Compact failed to do this. Aid should be conditioned upon the right things. The deal should have measured refugee jobs, instead of work permits. Analysts also said the benefits should have been targeted more precisely, to reach the areas with most refugees.

      To spread this kind of agreement to other nations, the World Bank established a $2 billion fund in July 2017. The money is available to very poor countries that host many refugees, such as Uganda and Bangladesh. In return, they must take steps to integrate refugees into society. The money will come as grants and zero interest loans with a 10-year grace period. Middle-income countries like Lebanon and Colombia would also be eligible for loans at favorable rates under a different fund.

      Over the last 50 years, only one developing country has granted refugees full rights. In Uganda, refugees can live normally. Instead of camps there are settlements, where refugees stay voluntarily because they get a plot of land. Refugees can work, live anywhere, send their children to school and use the local health services. The only thing they can’t do is become Ugandan citizens.

      Given the global hostility to refugees, it is remarkable that Ugandans still approve of these policies. “There have been flashes of social tension or violence between refugees and their hosts, mostly because of a scarcity of resources,” Mr. Odero said. “But they have not become widespread or protracted.”

      This is the model the United Nations wants the world to adopt. But it is imperiled even in Uganda — because it requires money that isn’t there.

      The new residents are mainly staying near the South Sudan border in Uganda’s north — one of the least developed parts of the country. Hospitals, schools, wells and roads were crumbling or nonexistent before, and now they must serve a million more people.

      Joël Boutroue, the head of the United Nations refugee agency in Uganda, said current humanitarian funding covered a quarter of what the crisis required. “At the moment, not even half of refugees go to primary school,” he said. “There are around 100 children per classroom.”

      Refugees are going without food, medical care and water. The plots of land they get have grown smaller and smaller.

      Uganda is doing everything right — except for a corruption scandal. It could really take advantage of the new plan to develop the refugee zone. That would not only help refugees, it would help their host communities. And it would alleviate growing opposition to rights for refugees. “The Ugandan government is under pressure from politicians who see the government giving favored treatment to refugees,” Mr. Boutroue said. “If we want to change the perception of refugees from recipients of aid to economic assets, we have to showcase that refugees bring development.”

      The World Bank has so far approved two projects — one for water and sanitation and one for city services such as roads and trash collection. But they haven’t gotten started yet.

      Mr. Devictor said that tackling long-term development issues was much slower than providing emergency aid. “The reality is that it will be confusing and confused for a little while,” he said. Water, for example, is trucked in to Uganda’s refugee settlements, as part of humanitarian aid. “That’s a huge cost,” he said. “But if we think this crisis is going to last for six more months, it makes sense. If it’s going to last longer, we should think about upgrading the water system.”

      Most refugee crises are not surprises, Mr. Devictor said. “If you look at a map, you can predict five or six crises that are going to produce refugees over the next few years.” It’s often the same places, over and over. That means developmental help could come in advance, minimizing the burden on the host. “Do we have to wait until people cross the border to realize we’re going to have an emergency?” he said.

      Well, we might. If politicians won’t respond to a crisis, it’s hard to imagine them deciding to plan ahead to avert one. Political commitment, or lack of it, always rules. The world’s new approach to refugees was born out of Europe’s panic about the Syrians on their doorstep. But no European politician is panicking about South Sudanese or Rohingya refugees — or most crises. They’re too far away. The danger is that the new approach will fall victim to the same political neglect that has crippled the old one.


      #Ouganda #modèle_ougandais #réinstallation #intégration

      avec ce commentaire de #Jeff_Crisp sur twitter :

      “Camps are stagnant places. Refugees have access to water and medical care and are fed and educated, but are largely idle.”
      Has this prizewinning author actually been to a refugee camp?


    • Appreciating Uganda’s ‘open door’ policy for refugees

      While the rest of the world is nervous and choosing to take an emotional position on matters of forced migration and refugees, sometimes closing their doors in the face of people who are running from persecution, Uganda’s refugee policy and practice continues to be liberal, with an open door to all asylum seekers, writes Arthur Matsiko


    • Ouganda. La générosité intéressée du pays le plus ouvert du monde aux réfugiés

      L’Ouganda est le pays qui accueille le plus de réfugiés. Un million de Sud-Soudanais fuyant la guerre s’y sont installés. Mais cette noble intention des autorités cache aussi des calculs moins avouables : l’arrivée massive de l’aide internationale encourage l’inaction et la #corruption.


    • Refugees in Uganda to benefit from Dubai-funded schools but issues remain at crowded settlement

      Dubai Cares is building three classrooms in a primary school at Ayilo II but the refugee settlement lacks a steady water supply, food and secondary schools, Roberta Pennington writes from Adjumani



      Luis zappa, prepara dei fori per tirare su una casa in attesa di ritrovare la sua famiglia. Il terreno è una certezza, glielo ha consegnato il Governo ugandese. Il poterci vivere con i suoi cari non ancora. L’ultima volta li ha visti in Sud Sudan. Nel ritornare a casa sua moglie e i suoi otto figli non c’erano più. É sicuro si siano messi in cammino verso l’Uganda, così da quel giorno è iniziata la sua rincorsa. É certo che li ritroverà nella terra che ora lo ha accolto. Quella di Luis è una delle tante storie raccolte nei campi profughi del nord dell’Uganda, in una delle ultime missioni di Amref, in cui era presente anche Giusi Nicolini, già Sindaco di Lampedusa e Premio Unesco per la pace. 

      Modello Uganda? Dell’Uganda il mondo dice «campione di accoglienza». Accoglienza che sta sperimentando da mesi nei confronti dei profughi sud sudanesi, che scappano da uno dei Paesi più drammaticamente in crisi al mondo. Sono 4 milioni le persone che in Sud Sudan hanno dovuto lasciare le proprie case. Chi muovendosi verso altri Paesi e chi in altre regioni sud sudanesi. In questi ultimi tempi arrivano in Uganda anche persone che fuggono dalla Rep. Democratica del Congo.


    • As Rich Nations Close the Door on Refugees, Uganda Welcomes Them

      President Trump is vowing to send the military to stop migrants trudging from Central America. Europe’s leaders are paying African nations to block migrants from crossing the Mediterranean — and detaining the ones who make it in filthy, overcrowded camps.

      But Solomon Osakan has a very different approach in this era of rising xenophobia. From his uncluttered desk in northwest Uganda, he manages one of the largest concentrations of refugees anywhere in the world: more than 400,000 people scattered across his rural district.

      He explained what he does with them: Refugees are allotted some land — enough to build a little house, do a little farming and “be self-sufficient,” said Mr. Osakan, a Ugandan civil servant. Here, he added, the refugees live in settlements, not camps — with no barbed wire, and no guards in sight.

      “You are free, and you can come and go as you want,” Mr. Osakan added.

      As many nations are securing their borders and turning refugees away, Uganda keeps welcoming them. And they keep coming, fleeing catastrophes from across this part of Africa.

      In all, Uganda has as many as 1.25 million refugees on its soil, perhaps more, making it one of the most welcoming countries in the world, according to the United Nations.

      And while Uganda’s government has made hosting refugees a core national policy, it works only because of the willingness of rural Ugandans to accept an influx of foreigners on their land and shoulder a big part of the burden.

      Uganda is not doing this without help. About $200 million in humanitarian aid to the country this year will largely pay to feed and care for the refugees. But they need places to live and small plots to farm, so villages across the nation’s north have agreed to carve up their communally owned land and share it with the refugees, often for many years at a time.

      “Our population was very few and our community agreed to loan the land,” said Charles Azamuke, 27, of his village’s decision in 2016 to accept refugees from South Sudan, which has been torn apart by civil war. “We are happy to have these people. We call them our brothers.”

      United Nations officials have pointed to Uganda for its “open border” policy. While the United States, a much more populous nation, has admitted more than three million refugees since 1975, the American government settles them in the country after they have first been thoroughly screened overseas.

      By contrast, Uganda has essentially opened its borders to refugees, rarely turning anyone away.

      Some older Ugandans explain that they, too, had been refugees once, forced from their homes during dictatorship and war. And because the government ensures that spending on refugees benefits Ugandans as well, younger residents spoke of how refugees offered them some unexpected opportunities.

      “I was a farmer. I used to dig,” Mr. Azamuke said. But after learning Arabic from refugees from South Sudan, he got a better job — as a translator at a new health clinic that serves the newcomers.

      His town, Ofua, is bisected by a dirt road, with the Ugandans living on the uphill side and the South Sudanese on the downhill side. The grass-thatched homes of the Ugandans look a bit larger and sturdier, but not much.

      As the sun began to set one recent afternoon, a group of men on the Ugandan side began to pass around a large plastic bottle of waragi, a home brew. On the South Sudanese side, the men were sober, gathered around a card game.

      On both sides, the men had nothing but tolerant words for one another. “Actually, we don’t have any problems with these people,” said Martin Okuonzi, a Ugandan farmer cleaning his fingernails with a razor blade.

      As the men lounged, the women and girls were still at work, preparing dinner, tending children, fetching water and gathering firewood. They explained that disputes did arise, especially as the two groups competed for limited resources like firewood.

      “We’ve been chased away,” said Agnes Ajonye, a 27-year-old refugee from South Sudan. “They say we are destroying their forests.”

      And disputes broke out at the well, where Ugandan women insist they should be allowed to skip ahead of refugees.

      “If we hadn’t given you the land you live on, wouldn’t you be dying in Sudan?” said Adili Chandia, a 62-year-old refugee, recounting the lecture she and others got from a frustrated Ugandan woman waiting in line.

      Ugandan officials often talk about the spirit of Pan-Africanism that motivates their approach to refugees. President Yoweri Museveni, an autocratic leader who has been in power for 32 years, says Uganda’s generosity can be traced to the precolonial days of warring kingdoms and succession disputes, when losing factions often fled to a new land.

      This history of flight and resettlement is embedded in some of the names of local groups around western Uganda, like Batagwenda, which means “the ones that could not continue traveling.”

      The government encourages the nation to go along with its policy by directing that 30 percent of foreign aid destined for refugees be spent in ways that benefit Ugandans nearby. So when money for refugees results in new schools, clinics and wells, Ugandans are more likely to welcome than resent them.

      For Mr. Museveni, hosting refugees has given him relevance and political capital abroad at a time when he would otherwise have little.

      A former guerrilla fighter who quickly stabilized much of his country, Mr. Museveni was once hailed as an example of new African leadership. He was relatively quick to confront the AIDS epidemic, and he invited back Ugandans of Indian and Pakistani descent who had been expelled during the brutal reign of Idi Amin in the 1970s.

      But his star has fallen considerably. He has clung to power for decades. His security forces have beaten political opponents. Freedom of assembly and expression are severely curtailed.

      Even so, Uganda’s openness toward refugees makes Mr. Museveni important to European nations, which are uneasy at the prospect of more than a million refugees heading for Europe.

      Other African nations also host a significant number of refugees, but recent polls show that Ugandans are more likely than their neighbors in Kenya or Tanzania to support land assistance or the right to work for refugees.

      Part of the reason is that Ugandans have fled their homes as well, first during the murderous reign of Mr. Amin, then during the period of retribution after his overthrow, and again during the 1990s and 2000s, when Joseph Kony, the guerrilla leader who terrorized northern Uganda, left a trail of kidnapped children and mutilated victims.

      Many Ugandans found refuge in what is today South Sudan. Mark Idraku, 57, was a teenager when he fled with his mother to the area. They received two acres of farmland, which helped support them until they returned home six years later.

      “When we were in exile in Sudan, they also helped us,” Mr. Idraku said. “Nobody ever asked for a single coin.”

      Mr. Idraku has since returned the favor, loaning three acres to a South Sudanese refugee named Queen Chandia, 37. Ms. Chandia said the land — along with additional plots other Ugandans allow her to farm — has made all the difference.

      Her homestead of thatched-roof huts teemed with children tending their chores, grinding nuts into paste and maize into meal. Ms. Chandia is the mother of a girl and two boys. But over the years, as violence hollowed out her home country, Ms. Chandia started taking in the orphaned children of relatives and friends. Now 22 children call her “mom.”

      A refugee for nearly her entire life, Ms. Chandia arrived in Uganda as a young girl nearly 30 years ago. For years, she worried about being expelled.

      “Maybe these Ugandans will change their minds on us,” she said, describing the thought that plagued her. Then one day the worry stopped.

      But Mr. Osakan, the administrator who oversees refugee affairs in the country’s extreme northwest, is anxious. There is an Ebola outbreak over the border in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Mr. Osakan fears what might happen if — or when — a refugee turns up in Uganda with the dreaded illness.

      “It would destroy all the harmony between refugees and host communities,” he said, explaining that it would probably lead to calls to seal the border.

      For now, the border is very much open, although the number of refugees arriving has fallen significantly. In one of the newer settlements, many of the refugees came last year, fleeing an attack in a South Sudanese city. But some complained about receiving too little land, about a quarter acre per family, which is less than previous refugees had received.

      “Even if you have skills — in carpentry — you are not given a chance,” said one refugee, Simon Ludoru. He looked over his shoulder, to where a construction crew was building a nursery school. The schoolhouse would teach both local Ugandan and South Sudanese children together, but the workers were almost entirely Ugandan, he said.

      At the construction site, the general contractor, Sam Omongo, 50, said he had hired refugees for the job. “Oh, yes,” he exclaimed.

      How many?

      “Not a lot, actually,” he acknowledged. “I have about three.” Mr. Omongo called one over.

      “Are you a refugee?” Mr. Omongo asked the slight man.

      “No, I’m from Uganda,” he said softly. His name was Amos Chandiga, 28. He lived nearby and owned six acres of land, though he worked only four of them. He had lent the other two to a pair of refugees.

      “They asked me, and I gave it to them,” Mr. Chandiga explained. He patted his chest. “It comes from here, in my heart.”


    • Nell’ex fabbrica di penicillina, un #ghetto di Roma

      Oggi viene presentata la seconda edizione di “Fuori campo”, il rapporto di Medici Senza Frontiere sulla marginalità, secondo il quale “sono almeno 10.000 le persone escluse dall’accoglienza, tra richiedenti e titolari di protezione internazionale e umanitaria, con limitato o nessun accesso ai beni essenziali e alle cure mediche”. Una cinquantina gli insediamenti mappati dall’organizzazione in tutta Italia, 3500 le persone che vivono in occupazioni, baracche e “ghetti” nella sola Roma. Open Migration è entrata dentro il “gran ghetto” della capitale: un’ex fabbrica di penicillina in cui le condizioni di vita sono estreme.

      Appena finisce di spaccare le cassette della frutta e il legname di recupero, Alecu Romel entra nella casa in cui vive con la moglie Maria. Nella stanza d’ingresso, una luce fioca illumina il fornello, collegato ad una bombola a gas. A destra, in un locale spoglio, la coppia tiene una bicicletta e dei passeggini, riadattati per raccogliere ferrivecchi e oggetti abbandonati per strada. Sulla sinistra, una porta rossa separa dalla zona notte: una camera con due letti, la televisione e stampe colorate appese alle pareti.

      “Viviamo in questo appartamento da cinque anni e cerchiamo di tenerlo sempre in ordine”, dice Maria. A cedere loro lo spazio, un altro cittadino della Romania, che dentro la Ex-Penicillina, una delle più grandi aree industriali dismesse di Roma, si era inventato un angolo di intimità arredando alcuni dei locali più piccoli, che un tempo erano probabilmente uffici. In cinque anni di vita fra i capannoni scrostati, Alecu e Maria hanno visto cambiare l’insediamento. “Prima eravamo più rumeni e ci sono state anche famiglie italiane”, continua la donna, “mentre adesso gli abitanti sono cresciuti, e quasi tutti sono africani”.

      Oggi, come allora, il sogno di ricongiungersi con i due figli, affidati ai nonni in Romania, appare lontano: “questo non è un posto per bambini, ci sono topi e sporcizia, non ci si sente sicuri, ma almeno quei pochi soldi che guadagnamo ci permettono di mantenerli a casa, di fargli fare una vita migliore della nostra”, conclude Maria, la voce rassegnata.
      Fra i capannoni del “grande ghetto”

      Sempre più sogni si infrangono dietro la facciata del complesso, che costeggia via Tiburtina, una delle arterie più trafficate della città. Qui i cantieri per il raddoppio della carreggiata vanno avanti da anni: “finite ‘sti lavori!! più che una consolare sembra una via Crucis” è l’urlo che i cittadini hanno affidato ai cartelli affissi sui muri. Siamo all’altezza della periferia operaia di San Basilio, oggi nota alle cronache anche come base per lo spaccio di stupefacenti.

      Rifugiati e richiedenti asilo, arrivati in Italia negli ultimi anni e usciti dal sistema d’accoglienza, hanno infatti trovato qui un riparo precario, aprendo un nuovo capitolo nella storia del complesso, un tempo orgoglio dell’industria italiana. Aperta come Leo – Industrie Chimiche Farmaceutiche Roma, la Ex-Penicillina è stata la prima fabbrica italiana a produrre antibiotici. Una storia complessa, intrecciata ai piani di investimento del secondo dopoguerra, supportati dagli Usa, e alle speculazioni edilizie che avrebbero cambiato il volto della capitale.

      All’inaugurazione dell’impianto, nel 1950, fu invitato lo stesso sir Alexander Fleming, scopritore della penicillina. Un graffito, nello scheletro esterno della struttura, lo ritrae pensieroso: “ti ricordi quando eravamo i più grandi?”, recita la scritta. Il quotidiano “L’Unità” aveva dedicato un paginone all’evento, col titolo “la più grande fabbrica di penicillina d’Europa inaugurata a Roma”. Dagli oltre 1300 operai degli anni Sessanta, si passò però presto a poche centinaia, fino all’abbandono totale dell’attività, alla fine degli anni Novanta. Un altro sogno, quello di una cordata di imprenditori, che volevano demolirla per fare spazio a un maxi-albergo di alta categoria, si infranse di fronte ai costi per lo smaltimento di rifiuti chimici e amianto, tuttora presenti nell’area.

      “Questo posto lo chiamano il grande ghetto”, ci dice Ahmad Al Rousan, coordinatore per Medici senza frontiere dell’intervento nei campi informali, mentre entriamo dentro uno degli stabilimenti con una torcia, perché qui manca tutto, anche l’elettricità. Camminiamo tra spazzatura, escrementi e resti della vecchia fabbrica: ampolle, fiale, scatole di medicinali su cui c’è ancora la bolla di accompagnamento. “C’è un posto qui vicino, il piccolo ghetto, qui ci sono circa 500 persone, lì 150”, aggiunge. “Non solo chiamano questi luoghi ghetti, ma chi ci vive si sente anche ghettizzato”.

      In questa area industriale abbandonata ci sono persone che arrivano da diverse parti del mondo: nord Africa, Sub Sahara, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Romania, e c’è anche un italiano. La maggior parte sono titolari di protezione internazionale, altri in attesa di essere ascoltati dalla commissione territoriale che dovrà decidere sulla richiesta d’asilo, altri ancora hanno il permesso di soggiorno scaduto. Tutti sono fuori dall’accoglienza per qualche motivo.
      Il rapporto di Medici Senza Frontiere

      Come denuncia “Fuori campo”, l’ultimo rapporto di Medici Senza Frontiere, in tutta Italia ci sono almeno 10 mila persone in questa condizione, alloggiate in insediamenti informali con limitato o nessun accesso ai beni essenziali e alle cure mediche. Nella capitale la maggior parte si concentra proprio qui, nella zona est, tra la Tiburtina e la Casilina, passando per Tor Cervara. Edifici abbandonati, ex fabbriche e capannoni, sono diventati la casa di centinaia tra migranti e rifugiati. Che ci vivono da invisibili in condizioni disumane, senza acqua, luce e gas, spesso a ridosso di discariche abusive.

      Da novembre 2017, l’Ong ha avviato un intervento con un’unità mobile composta da un medico, uno psicologo e un mediatore culturale, e da qualche settimana il camper è arrivato anche all’ex Leo. Quella di Msf è l’unica presenza esterna negli spazi dell’occupazione: gli operatori vengono qui una volta alla settimana, dal primo pomeriggio alla sera, per portare assistenza medica e psicologica agli abitanti. Un piccolo gazebo allestito nella parte esterna degli edifici fa da ambulatorio, la sala d’attesa è, invece, lo spazio antistante, un tavolino da campeggio, qualche sedia pieghevole e una lampada. Per chi abita qui questo momento è diventato un rito, c’è chi viene per la prima volta, chi torna per un controllo, chi viene solo per chiacchierare.

      Un ragazzo si avvicina con aria timida: “they rescued me”, ci dice, raccontando di aver riconosciuto il logo di Msf sul gazebo, lo stesso visto sulla pettorina delle persone che lo avevano soccorso nel mezzo del Mediterraneo, nel 2016. Ora, due anni dopo l’approdo in Italia, è sbarcato anche lui all’ex fabbrica della penicillina. Entra e inizia la sua prima visita: lamenta mal di testa frequenti. La dottoressa misura la pressione e compila una scheda.

      “I problemi di salute qui sono legati soprattutto alle condizioni di vita: non ci sono servizi igienici e c’è solo una presa d’acqua fredda, per centinaia di persone”, spiega Al Rousan. La patologia più comune, aggiunge “è quella respiratoria dovuta al freddo o all’aria che respirano; l’unico modo che hanno per scaldarsi è accendere il fuoco, con tutti i rischi connessi: qualche giorno fa abbiamo assistito una persona completamente ustionata, in modo grave. Ha aspettato il nostro arrivo, non ha voluto andare a farsi vedere in un ospedale”. Di incendi qui ce ne sono stati diversi, come rivelano i muri anneriti di interi spazi. L’ultimo, a fine gennaio 2018, ha richiesto l’intervento dei vigili del fuoco, dopo l’esplosione di una bombola del gas. Quando cala la sera, le luci dei fuochi accesi e le fiammelle delle candele spezzano il buio totale degli edifici.

      “Questo è un posto estremo, dove l’esclusione è totale”, sottolinea Al Rousan. Dopo aver subito vari traumi nel viaggio e poi in Libia, trovarsi in questa condizione significa vedere infranto il sogno di potersi integrare, di costruirsi una nuova vita. Lavoro da tanti anni in situazioni simili, ma non ho mai visto una cosa del genere. E non pensavo potesse esserci un posto così a Roma”.
      La normalità dell’esclusione

      La fabbrica è occupata da diversi anni, e come in tutti gli insediamenti informali, gli abitanti hanno ricostruito una parvenza di normalità. Lamin, che viene dal Gambia, gestisce un piccolo market all’ingresso di uno dei capannoni principali. I prodotti li acquista al mercato di piazza Vittorio, dove si trovano i cibi di tutto il mondo. Qui vende aranciata, farina, zucchero, fagioli, candele e i dadi marca Jumbo, indispensabili – ci dice – per preparare qualsiasi piatto africano.

      Ha poco più di vent’anni e prima di arrivare qui viveva a via Vannina, in un altro stabile occupato, poco lontano. Nel violento sgombero del giugno 2017, è volato giù dalle scale e ancora, dice, “ho dolori frequenti alle ossa”. La fabbrica è diventata la sua nuova casa.

      Victor, 23 anni, è arrivato invece all’ex Penicillina dopo un periodo trascorso in un centro di accoglienza a Lecce, mentre era in corso la sua domanda d’asilo. Ottenuto lo status di rifugiato ha deciso di spostarsi a Roma per cercare lavoro, ma non parla neanche una parola di italiano. Il suo sogno è fare il giornalista. Nel suo paese, la Nigeria, ha studiato Comunicazione: “sono grato al governo italiano per quanto ha fatto per me”, dice, “ma non pensavo che una volta arrivato in Italia mi sarei trovato in questa situazione: quando sono arrivato a Roma ho vissuto un periodo alla stazione Termini. Faceva freddo e la temperatura di notte arrivava quasi allo zero. Un connazionale mi ha parlato di questo posto, mi ha detto che qui almeno potevo farmi una doccia. Invece, una volta arrivato ho scoperto che c’era solo una fontanella per l’acqua”. Come tutti, spera di andarsene presto. “Questo luogo cambia le persone, rallenta ogni aspirazione e io, invece, il mio sogno lo vorrei realizzare”, ci dice con uno sguardo vivace.

      Nel reticolo di capannoni, corridoi e cortili, ci sono altri piccoli bar e negozi: l’ultimo è stato aperto pochi giorni fa. Sulla facciata troneggia la bandiera giallorossa della squadra di calcio della Roma. Raffigura la lupa capitolina che allatta Romolo e Remo: qui è quasi un paradosso, quell’immagine simbolo di mamma Roma, patria dell’accoglienza.


    • Il sistema di accoglienza italiano verso il default organizzativo e morale

      Sono pubblicate da tempo le relazioni della Commissione di inchiesta della Camera dei deputati sui Centri per stranieri. Relazioni che censuravano l’utilizzo degli Hotspot come strutture detentive e chiedevano la chiusura del mega CARA di Mineo. Ma il governo e le prefetture non hanno svolto quel lavoro di pulizia con la estromissione del marcio che risultava largamente diffuso da nord e sud. Una operazione che sarebbe stata doverosa per difendere i tanti operatori e gestori dell’accoglienza che fanno il proprio dovere e che avrebbe permesso di rintuzzare uno degli argomenti elettorali più in voga nella propaganda politica delle destre, appunto gli sprechi e gli abusi verificati da tutti ormai all’interno dei centri di accoglienza, soprattutto in quelli appaltati direttamente dalle prefetture, i Centri di accoglienza straordinaria (CAS), la parte più consistente del sistema di accoglienza italiano.


    • Ventimiglia. Prima della neve. Un report del gruppo di medici volontari del 27 febbraio scorso tratto dal blog Parole sul Confine

      Sabato 27 febbraio è stata una giornata di lavoro intenso sotto al ponte di via Tenda.

      Avremmo fatto almeno 40 visite.

      Rispetto alla scorsa estate ci sono più persone che vivono sotto al ponte del cavalcavia lungo al fiume, con un numero senza precedenti di donne e bambini anche molto piccoli.

      L’insediamento sembra sempre più stabile, con baracche costruite con pezzi di legno e teli di plastica. Le persone che vivono lì sono prevalentemente eritree e sudanesi. Al momento, tutte le donne sole e le madri sono eritree.

      Le persone che abbiamo visitato erano giovanissime. Tantissime affette da scabbia. Spesso con sovra-infezioni molto importanti. Grazie alla nostra disponibilità di farmaci e grazie alle scorte di indumenti stivati presso l’infopoint Eufemia abbiamo potuto somministrare il trattamento anti scabbia a molte persone, dopo esserci assicurati che avessero compreso come eseguire correttamente tutta la procedura.

      #froid #hiver

    • Purgatory on the Riviera

      Ventimiglia is idyllic. It sits just across the Italian border from the French Riviera. The piercingly blue waters of the Mediterranean churn against its rocky beaches, and its buildings, painted in earthy pastels, back up against the foothills of the Alps. On Fridays, the normally quiet streets are bustling with French tourists who cross the border by car, train, and bicycle to shop in its famous markets where artisans and farmers sell clothes, leather items, fresh produce, truffles, cheeses and decadent pastries. Families with young children and elderly couples stroll along the streets and sit at sidewalk cafes or eat in one of the many restaurants along the shore.


  • Tsunami en Indonésie : « Les ONG étrangères peuvent être un fardeau » - Libération

    Rony Brauman, ancien président de Médecins sans frontières, justifie la décision de Jakarta de privilégier l’aide locale. Selon lui, l’arrivée de milliers de secouristes internationaux peut mener à une « catastrophe dans la catastrophe ».

    Dix jours après le tremblement de terre suivi d’un tsunami survenu sur l’île des Célèbes en #Indonésie, le bilan continue de s’alourdir, avec plus de 2 000 morts, 80 000 sans-abri et 5 000 disparus, nombre d’entre eux ayant été ensevelis par le phénomène de liquéfaction des sols qui a englouti un pan entier de la ville de #Palu. Après avoir déclaré la semaine dernière qu’elles acceptaient de l’aide venue de l’étranger, les autorités indonésiennes ont finalement annoncé jeudi compter 10 000 secouristes sur le terrain et ne pas avoir besoin d’assistance extérieure, à part pour les quatre priorités qu’elles ont identifiées, soit des tentes, des appareils de traitement d’eau, des générateurs et des véhicules. Depuis quelques jours, la presse se fait l’écho du désarroi des petites associations de pompiers ou de médecins qui avaient fait le voyage. Comme d’autres équipes venues d’Europe, elles se sont retrouvées bloquées par les autorités, leurs chiens de recherches mis en quarantaine, leurs dons de médicaments refusés, et ont dû revenir en France sans avoir pu accéder à la zone sinistrée. Seuls des Pompiers de l’urgence internationale, qui collaboraient depuis dix ans avec l’organisation locale Jakarta Rescue, semblent avoir pu travailler sur place, recherchant en vain des survivants dans les décombres de l’hôtel Mercure. Rony #Brauman, un des pionniers de l’humanitaire, président de Médecins sans frontières France de 1982 à 1994 et désormais directeur d’études à la fondation #MSF, défend la position de #Jakarta.

    Que pensez-vous du choix indonésien de limiter l’aide internationale ?

    Les autorités ont raison de filtrer l’arrivée des #ONG étrangères, qui peuvent être plus un fardeau qu’une aide. Lors du tsunami de 2004, le débarquement de milliers de secouristes inexpérimentés et désordonnés avait été une catastrophe dans la catastrophe. Les administrations locales ont déjà fort à faire, elles doivent s’occuper des routes encombrées, de la sécurité, du manque d’eau, d’essence, de logements. Il leur est impossible de gérer des centaines d’ONG qui vont peser sur les ressources locales et qui n’ont souvent pour elles que leur bonne volonté, le besoin de s’assurer un crédit en termes d’image ou, plus rarement, des motivations crapuleuses [se rendre sur les lieux d’une catastrophe permet de faire un appel aux dons, ndlr]. D’où l’importance d’une autorité locale qui organise, cadre, dirige. Ce n’est pas agréable de se faire imposer un lieu et une forme d’action, mais c’est indispensable.

    MSF n’a pas envoyé d’aide aux Célèbes, à part une mission d’évaluation des besoins. Est-ce par choix ou parce que l’Indonésie refuse ?

    Un peu des deux. Nous avons une très longue expérience des catastrophes naturelles et nous savons que, sauf exception notable, les premiers secours d’urgence sont assurés par les forces locales et par les structures politiques, religieuses ou militaires. La solidarité collective s’organise spontanément. Plus tard, les ONG peuvent prendre le relais, pallier la fatigue et l’épuisement. Mais la coordination avec le pouvoir local et les Nations unies est indispensable. Même si la société est bouleversée par un événement inattendu, on ne peut pas débarquer comme ça au bout du monde.

    Que pensez-vous des critiques émises contre le pouvoir indonésien, accusé à mots couverts de laisser mourir sa population ?

    Elles tiennent de l’arrogance et de la présomption, lesquelles peuvent prendre des proportions effarantes. Il y a dix ans, lors du cyclone en Birmanie, certaines ONG avaient publié des bilans cataclysmiques. Des éditos assassins accusaient le pouvoir birman de mettre en danger un million de personnes. Il y a même eu des menaces d’intervention par la force de la part des Etats-Unis, du Royaume-Uni ou de la France. Or le risque de famine et d’épidémie était nul, et la société et l’armée avaient pris en main la distribution d’eau potable et de nourriture. Même si les chiffres sont forcément très imprécis, c’est immoral d’exagérer sciemment les besoins pour mieux se mettre en valeur.

    Lors de ces catastrophes, a-t-on tendance à mettre en lumière l’aide occidentale ?

    L’aide locale ne se voit pas sur les images, les gens sont habillés comme les autres, ont la même allure. L’information est souvent centrée sur les équipes venues de l’étranger. En #Haïti, une seule personne désincarcérée par des pompiers occidentaux avait accaparé les médias, qui semblaient ignorer que 1 500 autres survivants avaient été sortis à mains nues par les habitants. Au Sri Lanka, en 2004, une bande de terre de 50 à 200 mètres avait été touchée par le tsunami. Dès les premières 24 heures, le pays avait mobilisé un millier de médecins et d’infirmiers qui connaissaient la langue, l’organisation de soins et la pharmacopée locales. Malgré cette réponse forte, on continuait d’envoyer depuis l’étranger des équipes médicales inutiles.

    Mais n’y avait-il pas urgence à soigner les blessés à Palu ?

    Contrairement à un mythe infondé, même si les besoins médicaux ont un aspect spectaculaire, ce n’est pas le problème fondamental. Haïti a été une exception en 2010, puisqu’il y a eu un très grand nombre de blessés en quelques minutes à Port-au-Prince à cause de l’habitat construit en dur avec de mauvais scellements. Les structures locales n’étaient pas capables de répondre à des attentes aussi spécifiques que des interventions chirurgicales orthopédiques. Nous avions donc effectué 15 000 procédures chirurgicales d’urgence pour environ 10 000 blessés [les patients peuvent avoir plusieurs blessures]. A Palu, la plupart des victimes sont mortes écrasées dans l’effondrement des immeubles ou noyées par le tsunami. Les autres ne sont en général que légèrement blessées ou ont perdu leur logement. La question des abris est un enjeu primordial. Le manque de sommeil est rarement évoqué, pourtant, si les gens ne peuvent pas dormir à cause de la pluie ou du vent, ils vont tomber malades, devenir agressifs…

    Sur place, des journalistes racontent que les habitants, affamés et assoiffés, espéraient pourtant de l’aide étrangère…

    A l’évidence, le gouvernement indonésien n’a pas mis en place un dispositif d’information à destination de la population de Palu. Les délais d’arrivée des vivres, de l’eau potable, des générateurs sont difficiles à juger faute de connaissance des réalités de terrain. La mobilisation et le transport de grandes quantités de matériels et de biens de survie prennent toujours du temps, en fonction de la localisation des dégâts, de l’état des ports et des aéroports, de l’isolement des villages gravement touchés… Et seules les armées disposent des moyens logistiques nécessaires.

    La menace du choléra est souvent agitée pour justifier une intervention extérieure. Est-ce un mythe ?

    En tant que médecin, j’ai été frappé de voir les Indonésiens regrouper les corps et les enterrer rapidement après les avoir recouverts de chaux, comme si on croyait encore à la génération spontanée de micro-organismes meurtriers. Les cadavres en grand nombre sont une source d’anxiété, dégagent une odeur intenable mais ils ne génèrent pas de risque épidémique. Certes, une canalisation peut se rompre, entrer en contact avec des corps en décomposition, ce qui créera des foyers de gastro-entérites très désagréables et des problèmes sérieux pour les bébés et les personnes fragiles. Et s’il y avait déjà du #choléra sur place, le séisme ne va pas arranger les choses. Mais c’est tout. Cette croyance qui date de l’Antiquité a des conséquences juridiques, financières et psychologiques importantes : sans les rites funéraires, la sublimation de la mort n’aura pas lieu ; si le décès de leurs proches n’est pas déclaré, les survivants vont se trouver face à des casse-tête juridiques, etc. On pourrait attendre des autorités sanitaires qu’elles rétablissent la vérité. Or les ONG et les agences des Nations unies contribuent à partager et diffuser un mythe potentiellement problématique.

    De crise en crise, le secteur de l’humanitaire apprend-il de ses erreurs ?

    Depuis une vingtaine d’années, les choses ont tendance à s’améliorer, grâce à des dispositifs d’information et aux critiques. Il ne faut pas tout jeter par-dessus bord. Comme les ressources locales ne sont pas inépuisables, une assistance internationale bien organisée peut se révéler extrêmement utile dans un deuxième temps, en amenant par exemple des moyens de télécommunication, du matériel de construction ou de l’aide alimentaire si les récoltes sont détruites. Je pense qu’il faudrait créer un système d’accréditation des organisations non gouvernementales pour les situations d’urgence, qui serait basée sur des critères d’expérience, de logistique et d’autonomie matérielle totale.
    Laurence Defranoux

    #humanitaire #rapport_colonial

  • Sri Lanka: Government Slow to Return Land. Create Consultative Process to End Military Occupation

    The Sri Lankan government has yet to fully restore civilian ownership of land and property nearly a decade since the end of the civil war in 2009, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Progress, particularly since the election of a new government in 2015, has been hindered by broad military claims of national security and the lack of a transparent process.

    The 80-page report, “‘Why Can’t We Go Home?’: Military Occupation of Land in Sri Lanka,” details security force occupation of land both during and after the armed conflict. It identifies the lack of transparency and due process, failure to map occupied land, inadequate support to affected people and communities, and prolonged delays in providing appropriate reparations for decades of loss and suffering. The military has also used some confiscated lands for commercial profit rather than national security and returned damaged or destroyed property to owners without compensation.

    “All those displaced during Sri Lanka’s brutal civil war are entitled to return to their homes,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director. “Despite repeated pledges by the authorities, the military has been frustratingly slow to restore land to its rightful owners.”

    The report is based on over 100 interviews between August 2017 to May 2018 with members of affected communities, activists, local officials, and lawyers. It looks into cases of military occupation and land release in 20 areas in six districts, primarily in Sri Lanka’s north and east.

    The three-decade civil war in Sri Lanka ended with the decisive defeat of the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May 2009. Large areas, including those previously held by the LTTE in the north and east, came under military control. At the end of the war, some 300,000 people ended up in a military detention camp.

    While the administration of then-President Mahinda Rajapaksa released some land to its original owners, the military retained control over large areas for military but also non-military purposes, such as agriculture, tourism, and other commercial ventures.

    The new government, led by President Maithripala Sirisena, took some steps to release civilian land held by the security forces. At the United Nations Human Rights Council in October 2015, the government promised to address conflict-related issues, including returning land to its original owners. However, the government’s response has fallen far short of its promises. On October 4, 2018, the president ordered the state to release all civilian land by December 31, 2018.

    The military has also retained control of land it previously announced it would return. For instance, in April 2017, the navy responded to protests by displaced communities from the Mullikulam area in Mannar by announcing it would release 100 acres of the land that security forces had been occupying. More than a year later, people are still waiting.

    “Now there is no war,” said Francis Crooss, a village elder. “It’s now peacetime. So why can’t we go back home?”

    State agencies have exchanged properties without releasing the land to civilians. In Pallimunai in Mannar, land belonging to residents displaced since 1990 was occupied first by the army and then the police. At war’s end, the police promised to release their land and homes, but instead, the navy took control.

    “We’ve been made refugees in our own village,” said Helena Perera, one of the residents.

    All three major ethnic communities in the country – the Sinhalese, Tamils, and Muslims – are affected by military occupation of land in the north and east. However, the vast majority of cases impact the Tamil community.

    Human Rights Watch documented a number of cases in which properties were destroyed while held by the military after the war, including Hindu temples, churches, mosques, and Buddhist shrines.

    Government authorities have also carried out land grabs since the end of the war. In July 2010, the military forcibly evicted residents of Ragamwela, Panama, in southeastern Ampara district. In November 2011, 200 soldiers arrived in Ashraf Nagar village in Ampara district and demanded that all its occupants leave. In such cases, the security forces set up military camps or used the land for other purposes, including commercial use.

    The government’s failure to establish a uniform policy on resettlement remains a critical problem, Human Rights Watch said. Some displaced families did not receive proper resettlement assistance when they returned to formerly occupied lands. The government transferred others from displacement camps, but they then entered into other forms of displacement, such as living with friends and relatives, or moving to other camps closer to their original properties, which the military still occupied. Those resettled more than once were denied full resettlement assistance when their land was eventually released.

    A 70-year-old fisherman from Myliddy said his family had moved 24 times in 27 years until the military released his property in July 2017. But without resettlement assistance, he is severely in debt. “We hope the government will at least help us restart our lives this one last time,” he said.

    Partial releases pose particular problems for returnee communities. Military control of neighboring areas hinders access to services and jobs, and heightens fears of surveillance and harassment by soldiers.

    Establishing ownership of land where multiple displacements have occurred over decades is difficult, Human Rights Watch said. But instead of leaving it exclusively to the military, the government should urgently set up a transparent and consultative process, including displaced communities, to establish land claims and restore civilian ownership.

    “The government has adopted an arbitrary, piecemeal approach to land returns, which is fomenting deep distrust among communities wary that the military is still in charge,” Ganguly said. “It should address rights violations and provide remedies to end the distress of those who have long suffered because of the military’s occupation of land.”

    #terre #Sri-Lanka #guerre #conflit #occupation #occupation_militaire #retour #rapport #IDPs #déplacés_internes #réfugiés #restitution_des_terres

    Lien vers le rapport:

    • Tiré de :
      Global Gender Gap Report 2017

      Gender parity is fundamental to whether and how economies and societies thrive. Ensuring the full development and appropriate deployment of half of the world’s total talent pool has a vast bearing on the growth, competitiveness and future-readiness of economies and businesses worldwide. This year’s edition of the report dives into the dynamics of gender gaps across industry talent pools and occupations. The Global Gender Gap Report benchmarks 144 countries on their progress towards gender parity across four thematic dimensions: Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health and Survival, and Political Empowerment.


      #statistiques #2017 #chiffres #rapport #base_de_données

  • Migration: the riddle of Europe’s shadow population
    Lennys — not her real name — is part of a shadow population living in Europe that predates the arrival of several million people on the continent in the past few years, amid war and chaos in regions of the Middle East and Africa. That influx, which has fuelled Eurosceptic nativism, has if anything complicated the fate of Lennys and other irregular migrants.

    Now she is using a service set up by the Barcelona local administration to help naturalise irregular migrants and bring them in from the margins of society. She is baffled by the anti-immigrant rhetoric of politicians who suggest people like her prefer living in the legal twilight, without access to many services — or official protection.❞

    The fate of Lennys and other irregulars is likely to take an ever more central role in Europe’s deepening disputes on migration. They are a diverse group: many arrived legally, as Lennys did, on holiday, work or family visas that have since expired or become invalid because of changes in personal circumstances. Others came clandestinely and have never had any legal right to stay.

    The most scrutinised, and frequently demonised, cohort consists of asylum seekers whose claims have failed. Their numbers are growing as the cases from the surge in migrant arrivals in the EU in 2015 and 2016 — when more than 2.5m people applied for asylum in the bloc — work their way through the process of decisions and appeals. Almost half of first instance claims failed between 2015 and 2017, but many of those who are rejected cannot be returned to their home countries easily — or even at all.

    The question of what to do about rejected asylum applicants and the rest of Europe’s shadow population is one that many governments avoid. Bouts of hostile rhetoric and unrealistic targets — such as the Italian government’s pledge this year to expel half a million irregular migrants — mask a structural failure to deal with the practicalities.

    Many governments have sought to deny irregular migrants services and expel them — policies that can create their own steep human costs. But authorities in a growing number of cities from Barcelona to Brussels have concluded that the combination of hostile attitudes and bureaucratic neglect is destructive.

    These cities are at the frontline of dealing with irregular status residents from Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere. Local authorities have, to varying degrees, brought these populations into the system by offering them services such as healthcare, language courses and even legal help.

    The argument is part humanitarian but also pragmatic. It could help prevent public health threats, crime, exploitative employment practices — and the kind of ghettoisation that can tear communities apart.

    “If we provide ways for people to find their path in our city . . . afterwards probably they will get regularisation and will get their papers correct,” says Ramon Sanahuja, director of immigration at the city council in Barcelona. “It’s better for everybody.”

    The size of Europe’s shadow population is unknown — but generally reckoned by experts to be significant and growing. The most comprehensive effort to measure it was through an EU funded project called Clandestino, which estimated the number of irregular migrants at between 1.9m and 3.8m in 2008 — a figure notable for both its wide margin of error and the lack of updates to it since, despite the influx after 2015.

    A more contemporaneous, though also imprecise, metric comes from comparing the numbers of people ordered to leave the EU each year with the numbers who actually went. Between 2008 and 2017, more than 5m non-EU citizens were instructed to leave the bloc. About 2m returned to countries outside it, according to official data.

    While the two sets of numbers do not map exactly — people don’t necessarily leave in the same year they are ordered to do so — the figures do suggest several million people may have joined Europe’s shadow population in the past decade or so. The cohort is likely to swell further as a glut of final appeals from asylum cases lodged since 2015 comes through.

    “The volume of people who are in limbo in the EU will only grow, so it’s really problematic,” says Hanne Beirens, associate director at Migration Policy Institute Europe, a think-tank. “While the rhetoric at a national level will be ‘These people cannot stay’, at a local community level these people need to survive.”

    Barcelona: cities seek practical solutions to ease migrant lives

    Barcelona’s pragmatic approach to irregular migration echoes its history as a hub for trade and movement of people across the Mediterranean Sea.

    It is one of 11 cities from 10 European countries involved in a two-year project on the best ways to provide services to irregular status migrants. Other participants in the initiative — set up last year by Oxford university’s Centre on Migration, Policy, and Society — include Athens, Frankfurt, Ghent, Gothenburg, Lisbon, Oslo, Stockholm and Utrecht.

    A report for the group, published last year, highlights the restrictions faced by undocumented migrants in accessing services across the EU. They were able to receive only emergency healthcare in six countries, while in a further 12 they were generally excluded from primary and secondary care services.

    Some cities have made special efforts to offer help in ways that they argue also benefit the community, the report said. Rotterdam asked midwives, doctors, and schools to refer children for vaccinations, in case their parents were afraid to reveal their immigration status.

    The impact of some of these policies has still to be demonstrated. Ramon Sanahuja, director of immigration at the city council in Barcelona, says authorities there had an “intuition” their approach brought benefits, but he admits they need to do a cost-benefit analysis. As to the potential for the scheme to be exploited by anti-immigrant groups, he says Europe needs “brave politicians who explain how the world works and that the system is complicated”.

    “A lot of people in Barcelona are part of the system — they have [for example] a cleaning lady from Honduras who they pay €10 per hour under the counter,” he says. “Someone has to explain this, that everything is related.” Michael Peel

    #naturalisation #villes-refuge #ville-refuge #citoyenneté #sans-papiers #migrerrance #régularisation #statistiques #chiffres #Europe #Etat-nation #limbe #pragmatisme #Barcelone

    cc @isskein


    Au niveau de la #terminologie (#mots, #vocabulaire), pour @sinehebdo:

    Belgian policy towards irregular migrants and undocumented workers has stiffened under the current government, which includes the hardline Flemish nationalist NVA party. It has prioritised the expulsion of “transmigrants”— the term used for people that have travelled to Europe, often via north Africa and the Mediterranean and that are seeking to move on from Belgium to other countries, notably the UK. Several hundred live rough in and around Brussels’ Gare du Nord.

    –-> #transmigrants

    • Le rapport glaçant du Giec
      Aude Massiot, Libération, le 7 octobre 2018

      Le Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat rend publique ce lundi sa première étude sur les effets d’un réchauffement de 1,5 °C des températures mondiales. Cette limite que 197 Etats s’étaient engagés à respecter fin 2015, lors de la COP 21, aura tout de même de graves conséquences sur la planète.

      Al’issue d’une semaine de négociations ardues à Incheon, en Corée du Sud, le Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat (Giec) publie ce lundi un rapport très attendu sur le réchauffement mondial de 1,5°C (par rapport à l’époque préindustrielle). Commandé au Giec lors de la conférence des Nations unies de décembre 2015 en France (COP 21), c’est le premier rapport spécial jamais produit. Il donne à voir l’état de notre planète si l’accord de Paris rédigé lors de cette conférence était respecté. Ce traité international, signé par 197 Etats et ratifié par 188, vise à faire le maximum pour limiter le réchauffement du climat provoqué par les activités humaines à 2 °C, voire 1,5 °C. La rédaction des 250 pages a nécessité la participation de 86 auteurs principaux de 39 pays (seulement 39 % de femmes) et de dizaines d’experts pour la relecture. Sa structure et son contenu sont validés par l’ensemble des gouvernements membres. Ce n’est donc pas uniquement un travail scientifique, mais aussi le résultat des orientations nationales de la plupart des Etats. Les conclusions du texte sont publiées ce lundi pour aider les Etats à augmenter leurs ambitions climatiques en vue de la COP 24, organisée en décembre en Pologne.

      Que nous enseigne ce nouveau rapport ?

      Les émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES) des activités humaines sont la principale cause du réchauffement climatique. Il n’y a plus de doute là-dessus. Ce dernier se produit à un taux de 0,17 °C par décennie depuis 1950. Ainsi, au rythme actuel, le monde connaîtrait une hausse de 1,5 °C de la moyenne des températures entre 2030 et 2052. En 2017-2018, nous avons déjà atteint 1 °C d’augmentation du mercure depuis l’époque préindustrielle. L’objectif de l’accord de Paris est donc de ne « gagner » que 0,5 °C maximum d’ici à 2100. Pourra-t-on y arriver ? « Notre mandat est d’être descriptif et non prescriptif », rappelle Jean-Charles Hourcade, économiste au Centre international de recherche sur l’environnement et le développement (Cired), et l’un des principaux auteurs du rapport. « Le rôle du Giec n’est pas de déterminer si 1,5 °C est faisable, ajoute Henri Waisman, chercheur à l’Institut du développement durable et des relations internationales (Iddri), corédacteur du rapport. Rien dans la littérature scientifique ne dit que c’est infaisable, alors nous présentons les conditions nécessaires pour y arriver. C’est ensuite aux décideurs de prendre leurs responsabilités. » Or la trajectoire est mal engagée pour limiter la hausse à 1,5 °C. Même si les Etats respectent leurs engagements pris à la COP 21, ce qui n’est pour l’instant pas le cas pour la majorité des pays, la planète se réchaufferait de 3 °C d’ici à la fin du siècle. Ce qui entraînerait des catastrophes irréversibles autant pour les humains que pour beaucoup d’autres espèces vivantes. Pour ne pas discréditer l’accord de Paris, le groupe intergouvernemental a envisagé des scénarios où l’on dépasserait les 1,5 °C, avant d’y revenir avant la fin du siècle. Cela nécessiterait le développement et l’utilisation à grande échelle de techniques de capture du CO2 pour produire ce qui est appelé « émissions négatives ». Seulement, pour l’instant, les technologies sont embryonnaires. Reste les forêts et les sols, et leur capacité à capter et garder le carbone. « S’appuyer sur l’usage massif de la biomasse pour stocker le CO2 pourrait induire des tensions avec des objectifs de développement durable, notamment concernant la production agricole, dont les surfaces utilisables se verraient limitées, détaille Henri Waisman. Cela exacerberait la compétition pour les sols. »

      Infographie : Evolution de la température moyenne de la planète

      Quelles sont les projections climatiques mises en avant ?

      Un des principaux intérêts de ce rapport est qu’il compile les connaissances scientifiques sur les répercussions d’un réchauffement de 1,5 °C par rapport à 2 °C. Cela n’a jamais été fait auparavant. Même si on respecte l’accord de Paris, les territoires les plus vulnérables pourraient ne pas avoir le temps de s’adapter. C’est le cas des petites îles situées au niveau de la mer. Ce dernier devrait continuer à monter pendant plusieurs siècles. Et sous la surface, les océans subissent déjà des changements sans précédent. Des basculements pour certains écosystèmes devraient être observés dès + 1,5 °C. Les espèces dépourvues de capacité à se déplacer assez vite souffriront d’une importante mortalité. De même, il faudrait des millénaires pour lutter contre les changements dans la chimie océanique produits par l’acidification.

      Dans un monde à + 1,5 °C, le changement climatique affectera tous les territoires, peu importe leur niveau de développement, mais spécialement les plus pauvres. Par ailleurs, déjà plus d’un quart de la population mondiale vit dans des régions où le thermomètre dépasse de 1,5 °C la température moyenne au moins une saison par an. L’hémisphère Nord souffrira le plus de la multiplication et l’intensification des vagues de chaleur. « Nous sommes face à un risque de voir le sud de l’Europe basculer dans une désertification d’ici à la fin du siècle, souligne Pierre Cannet, de l’ONG WWF. Le précédent rapport du Giec, publié en 2014, était déjà clair sur le fait qu’atteindre + 2 °C est un point de non-retour. » Les risques d’inondation et de sécheresse seraient aussi renforcés, touchant principalement l’Amérique du Nord, l’Europe et l’Asie. Les cyclones tropicaux deviendraient plus violents.

      Le retard dans la transformation sociétale entraîne déjà des effets irréversibles pour certaines parties de la Terre. Et la situation sera bien pire si on atteint + 2 °C de hausse des températures. « Chaque dixième de degré de réchauffement supplémentaire porte en lui un risque mortel », interpelle Emilie Both, porte-parole d’Oxfam France.

      Quelles solutions sont favorisées ?

      Bien que ce ne soit pas son rôle initial, le Giec présente certaines solutions pour respecter le + 1,5 °C. Ce chapitre est l’objet des principales crispations des Etats. Comme le montre un document récupéré par le site Climate Home News, les Etats-Unis veulent mettre l’accent sur les techniques de capture de CO2, sur lesquelles ils sont à la pointe. Ils misent sur leur développement pour faire moins d’efforts de réduction des émissions de GES.

      En outre, dans son rapport, le Giec souligne à plusieurs reprises la nécessité de réduire drastiquement la demande en énergie des bâtiments, de l’industrie et des transports. Les émissions de GES mondiales doivent quant à elles baisser de 45 % d’ici à 2030 (par rapport à 2010) et la part des énergies renouvelables pour l’électricité passer à 70 %-85 % en 2050. Le rapport met aussi en lumière que la réduction de la pollution de l’air permet de limiter le réchauffement et d’améliorer la santé humaine, tout comme la qualité de l’environnement.

      Crucial, un paragraphe est consacré à l’indispensable implication du secteur financier dans la lutte contre le dérèglement climatique. « Ce rapport montre qu’un changement sociétal profond est nécessaire, insiste Pierre Cannet, de WWF. Pourtant, la transition écologique en France et en Europe reste à ses balbutiements. L’humanité est confrontée à une nouvelle guerre, cette fois contre elle-même. D’ici à 2040, nous aurons perdu la bataille si des mesures ne sont pas prises et intensifiées. »

  • Bots at the Gate A Human Rights Analysis of Automated Decision. Making in Canada’s Immigration and Refugee System

    A new report from the Citizen Lab and the International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law investigates the use of artificial intelligence and automated decision-making in Canada’s immigration and refugee systems. The report finds that use of automated decision-making technologies to augment or replace human judgment threatens to violate domestic and international human rights law, with alarming implications for the fundamental human rights of those subjected to these technologies.

    The ramifications of using automated decision-making in the sphere of immigration and refugee law and policy are far-reaching. Marginalized and under-resourced communities such as residents without citizenship status often have access to less robust human rights protections and less legal expertise with which to defend those rights. The report notes that adopting these autonomous decision-making systems without first ensuring responsible best practices and building in human rights principles at the outset may only exacerbate pre-existing disparities and can lead to rights violations including unjust deportation.

    Since at least 2014, Canada has been introducing automated decision-making experiments in its immigration mechanisms, most notably to automate certain activities currently conducted by immigration officials and to support the evaluation of some immigrant and visitor applications. Recent announcements signal an expansion of the uses of these technologies in a variety of immigration decisions that are normally made by a human immigration official. These can include decisions on a spectrum of complexity, including whether an application is complete, whether a marriage is “genuine”, or whether someone should be designated as a “risk.”

    The report provides a critical interdisciplinary analysis of public statements, records, policies, and drafts by relevant departments within the Government of Canada, including Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. The report additionally provides a comparative analysis to similar initiatives occurring in similar jurisdictions such as Australia and the United Kingdom. In February, the IHRP and the Citizen Lab submitted 27 separate Access to Information Requests and continue to await responses from Canada’s government.

    The report concludes with a series of specific recommendations for the federal government, the complete and detailed list of which are available at the end of this publication. In summary, they include recommendations that the federal government:

    1. Publish a complete and detailed report, to be maintained on an ongoing basis, of all automated decision systems currently in use within Canada’s immigration and refugee system, including detailed and specific information about each system.

    2. Freeze all efforts to procure, develop, or adopt any new automated decision system technology until existing systems fully comply with a government-wide Standard or Directive governing the responsible use of these technologies.

    3. Adopt a binding, government-wide Standard or Directive for the use of automated decision systems, which should apply to all new automated decision systems as well as those currently in use by the federal government.

    4. Establish an independent, arms-length body with the power to engage in all aspects of oversight and review of all use of automated decision systems by the federal government.

    5. Create a rational, transparent, and public methodology for determining the types of administrative processes and systems which are appropriate for the experimental use of automated decision system technologies, and which are not.

    6. Commit to making complete source code for all federal government automated decision systems—regardless of whether they are developed internally or by the private sector—public and open source by default, subject only to limited exceptions for reasons of privacy and national security.

    7. Launch a federal Task Force that brings key government stakeholders alongside academia and civil society to better understand the current and prospective impacts of automated decision system technologies on human rights and the public interest more broadly.

    #frontières #surveillance #migrations #catégorisation #tri #Droits_Humains #rapport #Canada #réfugiés #protection_des_données #smart_borders #frontières_intelligentes #algorithme #automatisme
    signalé par @etraces sur seenthis

  • Good new report on Googlemaps and mapping Israeli apartheid: “The report reveals new insights about how Google Maps’ mapping process in the occupied Palestinian territories serves the interests of the Israeli government and contradicts Google’s commitment to international human rights frameworks.” http://7amleh.org/2018/09/18/google-maps-endangering-palestinian-human-rights

  • Human #Trafficking-Smuggling_Nexus in Libya

    Probably nowhere more than in Libya have the definitional lines between migrant smuggling and human trafficking become as blurred or contested. Hundreds of thousands of migrants have left Libya’s shores in the hope of a new life in Europe; tens of thousands have died in the process.

    The inhumane conditions migrants face in Libya are well documented. The levels of brutality and exploitation they experience in Libya’s turbulent transitional environment have led to smuggling and trafficking groups being bundled under one catch-all heading by authorities and policymakers, and targeted as the root cause of the migration phenomenon. In many respects, this would appear to conveniently serve the interests of EU leaders and governments, who choose to disguise the anti-migration drive they urgently seek support for behind a policy of cracking down on both trafficking and smuggling rings, which they conflate as a common enemy, and one and the same.

    Given the highly complex context of Libya, this report proposes instead that any intervention to address the so-called migrant crisis should place the human rights of migrants at its centre, as opposed to necessarily demonizing smugglers, who are often the migrants’ gatekeepers to a better existence elsewhere.

    #Libye #trafiquants #smugglers #passeurs #asile #migrations #réfugiés #milices #visualisation

    Pour télécharger le #rapport :

    cc @reka @isskein

  • Social Metrics Commission launches a new measure of UK poverty

    For the first time in a generation, the moment is right to propose new poverty metrics. With the abolition of the Child Poverty Act and its targets, and debates ongoing about the most appropriate way in which to measure, track and monitor poverty, players from all sides of the political spectrum are interested in what options could exist next.

    The Social Metrics Report 2018, published 17th September 2018, marks the culmination of two years of sustained work. It outlines a new approach to poverty measurement for the UK and provides original analysis that demonstrates the fundamental changes to our understanding of poverty it creates. Most importantly, the approach, results and recommendations in this report are supported by every Commissioner. They truly represent a consensus view of how we should measure and understand the incidence of poverty in the UK and the experiences of those who are in poverty.

    #pauvreté #UK #statistiques #chiffres #Angleterre #indicateur

    Pour télécharger le #rapport :
    cc @simplicissimus

    • #merci

      It presents a detailed articulation of how the approach to poverty measurement can be improved in the UK and elsewhere. The Commission’s new measure:
      • Takes account of all material resources, not just incomes. For instance, this means including an assessment of the available assets that families have;
      • Accounts for the inescapable costs that some families face, which make them more likely than others to experience poverty. These include, the extra costs of disability, and costs of childcare and rental and mortgage costs;
      • Broadens the approach of poverty measurement to include an assessment of housing adequacy. For example, by regarding those sleeping rough as being in poverty; and
      • Positions the measure of poverty within a wider measurement framework, which allows us to understand more about the nature of poverty in the UK.

      Propose, entre autres, une modification de l’échelle d’équivalence en #unité_de_consommation qui accroît sensiblement les dépenses de consommation d’un parent isolé (1,09 au lieu de 0,78, p. 55)