Children sing a song in class at the Shri Pashupati Praja Primary School in the village of Tanglichowk, in the Gorkha District of Nepal. Photo: Paul Jeffrey

This year’s theme for the High-Level Political Forum, the first since agreement of the SDGs, has been ‘leaving no one behind’, a theme which has very much resonated here at Christian Aid, and which speaks directly to our objective of achieving ‘Equality for All’, as well as ACT’s strategic aim of ‘human dignity’ which we believe is inherent and inalienable to all.

However as with all political slogans, there is a risk that this phrase will ring hollow without action. At Christian Aid we’ve been thinking through what ‘leaving no one behind’ will tangibly mean for our programming and our advocacy, and at the HLPF, we have been sharing some of our thinking.

In India, we are learning from the Poorest Areas Civil Society (PACS) Programme, a UK Aid funded initiative, which has been working in 95 of the poorest districts in 7 of India’s states: Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. PACS has worked through more than 23,000 community-based organisations and between 2009 and 2016 it will have reached over 16 million people. The work is focused on supporting those who have been traditionally excluded: Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Disabled People, Muslims and Women. It also recognises that people may face multiple forms of discrimination, that outcomes will be poorer and vulnerability to violence greater, for example, for a disabled dalit woman.

As a result, PACS has focused on increasing the uptake of entitlements amongst the socially excluded communities –by focusing on some of the flagship programmes of the Government of India. These include MGNREGA (the Mahatama Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act), which commits to providing 100 days of paid manual labouring work to any rural household that demands it. PACS has also focused on the relief and rehabilitation of manual scavengers protected under legislation such as the 2013 Prohibition of Manual Scavenging Act. Despite this legislation, there are still estimated to be 180,000 households employed in manual scavenging (of human waste), the vast majority of whom are dalit women, struggling to overcome intergenerational poverty and exclusion, and dreaming to have a decent and dignified alternative livelihoods.

Through PACS, we have seen the importance of a rights-based approach, the strength of working in collaboration with local civil society organisations, and the power in promoting strong leadership among the socially excluded communities. We have also seen the importance of engaging with the structural and critical policy issues such as land-rights, decent work, affirmative action and budgetary allocations. An interpretation of ‘leave no one behind’ which is purely charitable in approach, and which fails to address structural inequalities, such as class, gender and caste, will fail to achieve transformational change.

Leaving no one behind will also require us to think about particular vulnerabilities – for example to conflict or climate change. We know how disasters and crises can erode development gains, and push people back into chronic poverty, and so in working out what this principle means in practice, governments and donors should demonstrate their commitment to building resilient communities including through social protection and strengthening health systems, and investment in disaster risk reduction.

Finally, Christian Aid has also called on governments to think about ‘leave no one behind’ from the global perspective. Whilst all governments should be seeking to reduce domestic inequality, we must acknowledge that global inequality remains extreme. So in approaching global challenges such as climate change, forced migration or illicit financial flows, wealthier and more powerful governments still need to step up – whether that’s with cash, other resources, or through brave policy commitments. Our briefing paper for the HLPF has called on richer governments to report against SDG targets using a ‘global equity lens’, and we hope that future national reviews will involve a deeper exploration of these key questions. We look forward to working with ACT Alliance colleagues over the coming years, learning from our programmes and collaborating on global advocacy, to turn ‘leave no one behind’ from vision to reality.

__________
Helen Dennis is Christian Aid‘s acting Head of Advocacy and for last 3 years, has led their work on the Sustainable Development Goals, contributing to the ACT Alliance sub-working group on the post-2015 development agenda.

Recent Yakkum activities on national CBO meeting and rally with focus on No one Left Behind, and National Exhibition during International DRR day with focus on SDGs. Photo: Yakkum

Although the 2030 development agenda, based on 17 goals, were agreed by United Nations in September last year, you can still feel the enthusiasm of the world’s development actors today – the enthusiasm to contribute, to make those goals and the dream a reality, to find a solution to solving different kinds of problems in their fields of work.

As a member of ACT Alliance my organisation, YAKKUM, is no exception.  At the local level, in a very practical way we document best and bad practices of development activities in society as part of Indonesian Civil Society Coalition for post-2015 Development Agenda. At national level we mobilise representatives of victims of social injustice to have direct dialogue with policy influencers and policy makers, offering alternative approaches based on our field experience of what works and what is needed on the ground.

The Sustainable Development Goals have already become a global commitment.  So what comes next? As development workers, we should see the SDGs as the foundational tool, which should be used to demand action and delivery on the promise already made by all UN member states. There are two key focuses that can help achieve this.

Firstly, gathering the power of civil society as the ‘goalkeeper.’ NGOs and CSOs so often become the implementers of development projects with and for the state. This will likely remain true in the implementation of the SDGs. This role as partners in implementation of development commitments is but part of the role of CSOs will play in the next 15 years. CSOs and NGOs also must hold governments accountable to their political, moral and legal commitments. This can be done through the initiation of public campaigns, mass rallies and events that specifically keep the focus on those who are typically left behind in development process.

Secondly, ensuring the regulatory, budget management, and institutional adaptation of SDGs in national constitution or legal systems. This could, for example, take the form of compiling a constitutional draft of SDG implementation and an SDG implementation toolkit for different areas, and should ensure that all stakeholders in the SDGs, at the national level, have space to contribute to National Voluntary Reviews on success or challenges to the SDGs.

The point is, the time has passed for us to have debates on development concepts. It is time for action, action, and action. The High Level Political Forum meeting currently underway in New York must ensure all countries to realise their commitments and that no one is left behind in the implementation process of the Agenda 2030.

____________

Sigit Wijayanta, Deputy executive board, former Executive Director of Yakkum, Christian Foundation of Public Health Indonesia, member of ACT alliance. He is now member of Advisory Group on Advocacy (AGA) of ACT Alliance, Chair of Advisory Board of Indonesian Christian Association for Health Service, and Board of Humanitarian Forum Indonesia. Special for SDGs he establish SDGs234.com. His PhD is in non profit management and health economics.

A bridge near Pueblo Nuevo in northern Nicaragua, that no water has passed under for months. The rains just didn’t come. In wide areas across El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua, harvests have been completely destroyed by the drought causing enormous hardship for many thousands of poor subsistence farming families. The drought in this area is believed to be an effect of climate change. Photo: Sean Hawkey

Climate change is a challenge we all have to face. Development and growth have, until now, been connected with increased gas emissions, which in the end contribute to global warming and climate change. This development is not sustainable, and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals which are set to shape our future, must therefore all integrate climate change’s two crosscutting themes.

Low carbon development

Firstly, we must make sure that future development, in all parts of the world, is based on a low carbon approach. We should choose solutions with low emissions, and ensure that the energy we use is renewable. This means harnessing the sun, wind and water instead of using extractive carbon-based resources like petroleum, oil, coal and gas. We should also take more care of those natural sinks such as forests, land and sea, where carbon is kept and stored in a natural way.

Despite promising local and national developments to lower carbon use due to raising consciousness in society regarding the impacts of carbon on the environment, there is still a need for significant partnerships between countries in technology transfer and cooperation, financial support and investment, and solidarity and policy making. New technologies are expensive and often not adjusted to the developing country context as well as difficult to maintain and sustain. While developed countries discuss a switch from petrol to electric cars, developing countries consider how they can leapfrog fossil fuel based development.

It is true that technical solutions will play an important role towards Low carbon development, but these alone will not be enough. Big parts of our current emissions stem from our way of life, cultures and traditions. How we cook, what we eat, how we travel, and how we work, all influence our emissions, and the 17 global goals can only be reached if we also make changes in our everyday lives. In order to reduce over-consumption, excessive waste and cultures of greed will require a new focus and awareness to grow in industrialized states, while balancing the prioritization of the production of new goods on global ‘needs’ first and lessen the emphasis on the ‘wants’ of a few.

Adapting to a changing climate

The second crosscutting theme is how to live with a changing climate. Even if greenhouse gas emissions were to stop tomorrow we would still see dramatic weather phenomenon’s such as hurricanes, droughts and flooding. These natural disasters will continue with intensified strength, and we have to adapt.

However, many of the adaptation solutions already exist. For example, in western countries, insurance companies, both private and non-profit, strive to handle the most drastic situations. When people have lost or seen their property damaged due to sea-level rise, devastating cyclones or endless droughts, they provide some support, and local authorities, non-governmental organizations and charities will step in if additional help is needed.

The challenges related to adaptation are thus to a large extent linked to poverty and the capacity of local communities to cope. Those with the least responsibility for climate change are the ones who are facing the biggest challenges. Scientists point to the links between climate change and conflicts and migration. The only way forward is therefore increased global cooperation, between countries with responsibility and capacity to support poor and vulnerable countries.

Addressing the main causes of climate change is one of the biggest challenges of the Sustainable Development Goals. It will require addressing issues of climate policy in all levels, from the SDGs and Climate Agreement from Paris, France 2015 to the local and community level. The United Nation’s High Level Political Forum, which is reviewing the SDGs in their first year of implementation has an opportunity to highlight the urgent need to ensure that all future development interventions consider environmental and climate impacts and lower dependency on carbon-based resources.

___________

Mattias Söderberg, Senior advocacy advisor in DanChurchAid. Was elected co-chair for the ACT Alliance advisory group on climate change advocacy and was the acting head of the ACT delegations to UN climate talks from 2010 to 2015. Was co-chair of the ACT EU climate change working group from 2007 to 2009, and head of the ecumenical COP15 secretariat in 2009. Mattias is originally from Sweden, but live in Denmark.

‘I plan to use this grant money to buy a sack of rice for my family,” said Lim Ean (79), from Cambodia. ACT members provide CASH transfer in several emergency responses. Photo: Paul Jeffrey

A group of mostly elderly women in Zinga village in Tanzania tell me what it’s like to receive cash transfers from Tanzania’s flagship social protection programme the Productive Social Safety Net. Since the cash transfer is targeted to the “poorest of the poor” (about 10 percent of the village), I ask what reactions they get from neighbours who do not get the transfer. The reply is that some of their neighbours say “they are only getting the cash because they are old and useless women”.

There has been a great deal of talk about social protection in Agenda 2030. Five of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) goals explicitly highlight social protection as a tool for reaching them. Yet, social protection is still a fuzzy concept to many. Access to health care and education, perhaps, sound more familiar. Or pensions and child grants. All of these make up social protection. Things like cash transfers, free school lunches and free access to child care, schools and clinics. Most importantly, social protection is a human right which guarantees a minimum standard of living for all.[1]

Cash-in-hand in particular has proven to be one of the most efficient forms of poverty eradication, and is also rapidly gaining attention in humanitarian work. It rests on the assumption that people living in poverty know best for themselves what they and their families need, therefore they should have the choice on how to spend the money rather than development agencies.

It is when we combine poverty eradication with reducing inequalities that social protection gets really powerful. This means advocating for public social protection as a part of economic justice and fair redistribution of wealth. It includes stopping illicit financial flows and tax dodging by multinational companies, and calling for transparency in government spending as a necessity to make funds for social protection sustainable.

What stake do churches have in this? Religious actors of all faiths have a long tradition of discussing the issues brought out by high inequality – both in terms of the necessity to share with the poor, but also possibly the problematic sides of wealth. Churches and faith based organisations are often providers of social services and assist people living in poverty through diaconal activities. Churches have also many times, as parts of civil society, played an important role in calls for social justice. This gives faith based actors a voice in the discussion about inequality and social protection.

Two ACT Alliance members have initiated a collaboration on social protection as a tool to fight inequality: Church of Sweden, which works extensively with promotion of social protection as a rights-based tool for poverty eradication, and Norwegian Church Aid, which addresses the issue of global inequality through campaigning against tax evasion and capital flight from developing countries.

Back in Zinga village, at a workshop on tax funded social protection with partner organisations, we learnt that there is also another role for faith based actors to play in reaching the Sustainable Development Goals.

Because it is not just to give out cash transfers anyhow that does the trick. Many social protection programmes that are funded by development partners, such as the one in Tanzania, are targeted to the very poorest. Not only does such a programme design bring challenges in terms of accuracy and costly poverty assessments. It also goes against the human rights approach to social protection – to receive a benefit not because you are considered as “old, poor and useless” but because you are a human being entitled to social and economic rights.

Guided by the belief that every human being has the right to a life with dignity, faith based actors should speak up for rights-based social protection initiatives that leave no one behind, and compromises  no-one’s dignity.

To end poverty and reduce inequality with everyone’s dignity preserved all the way, that is what I hope that faith based actors will advocate for during this year’s High Level Political Forum underway this week in New York, and onwards to 2030.

__________

[1] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (art. 22), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (art. 9, 10).

Gunilla Palm is a policy adviser for social protection and sustainable livelihoods at Church of Sweden, a member of the ACT Alliance. Her background is within human rights and conflict research. She tweets @GunillaPalm.

‘I plan to use this grant money to buy a sack of rice for my family,” said Lim Ean (79), from Cambodia. ACT members provide CASH transfer in several emergency responses. Photo: Paul Jeffrey

A group of mostly elderly women in Zinga village in Tanzania tell me what it’s like to receive cash transfers from Tanzania’s flagship social protection programme the Productive Social Safety Net. Since the cash transfer is targeted to the “poorest of the poor” (about 10 percent of the village), I ask what reactions they get from neighbours who do not get the transfer. The reply is that some of their neighbours say “they are only getting the cash because they are old and useless women”.

There has been a great deal of talk about social protection in Agenda 2030. Five of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) goals explicitly highlight social protection as a tool for reaching them. Yet, social protection is still a fuzzy concept to many. Access to health care and education, perhaps, sound more familiar. Or pensions and child grants. All of these make up social protection. Things like cash transfers, free school lunches and free access to child care, schools and clinics. Most importantly, social protection is a human right which guarantees a minimum standard of living for all.[1]

Cash-in-hand in particular has proven to be one of the most efficient forms of poverty eradication, and is also rapidly gaining attention in humanitarian work. It rests on the assumption that people living in poverty know best for themselves what they and their families need, therefore they should have the choice on how to spend the money rather than development agencies.

It is when we combine poverty eradication with reducing inequalities that social protection gets really powerful. This means advocating for public social protection as a part of economic justice and fair redistribution of wealth. It includes stopping illicit financial flows and tax dodging by multinational companies, and calling for transparency in government spending as a necessity to make funds for social protection sustainable.

What stake do churches have in this? Religious actors of all faiths have a long tradition of discussing the issues brought out by high inequality – both in terms of the necessity to share with the poor, but also possibly the problematic sides of wealth. Churches and faith based organisations are often providers of social services and assist people living in poverty through diaconal activities. Churches have also many times, as parts of civil society, played an important role in calls for social justice. This gives faith based actors a voice in the discussion about inequality and social protection.

Two ACT Alliance members have initiated a collaboration on social protection as a tool to fight inequality: Church of Sweden, which works extensively with promotion of social protection as a rights-based tool for poverty eradication, and Norwegian Church Aid, which addresses the issue of global inequality through campaigning against tax evasion and capital flight from developing countries.

Back in Zinga village, at a workshop on tax funded social protection with partner organisations, we learnt that there is also another role for faith based actors to play in reaching the Sustainable Development Goals.

Because it is not just to give out cash transfers anyhow that does the trick. Many social protection programmes that are funded by development partners, such as the one in Tanzania, are targeted to the very poorest. Not only does such a programme design bring challenges in terms of accuracy and costly poverty assessments. It also goes against the human rights approach to social protection – to receive a benefit not because you are considered as “old, poor and useless” but because you are a human being entitled to social and economic rights.

Guided by the belief that every human being has the right to a life with dignity, faith based actors should speak up for rights-based social protection initiatives that leave no one behind, and compromises  no-one’s dignity.

To end poverty and reduce inequality with everyone’s dignity preserved all the way, that is what I hope that faith based actors will advocate for during this year’s High Level Political Forum underway this week in New York, and onwards to 2030.

__________

[1] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (art. 22), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (art. 9, 10).

Gunilla Palm is a policy adviser for social protection and sustainable livelihoods at Church of Sweden, a member of the ACT Alliance. Her background is within human rights and conflict research. She tweets @GunillaPalm.

‘I plan to use this grant money to buy a sack of rice for my family,” said Lim Ean (79), from Cambodia. ACT members provide CASH transfer in several emergency responses. Photo: Paul Jeffrey

A group of mostly elderly women in Zinga village in Tanzania tell me what it’s like to receive cash transfers from Tanzania’s flagship social protection programme the Productive Social Safety Net. Since the cash transfer is targeted to the “poorest of the poor” (about 10 percent of the village), I ask what reactions they get from neighbours who do not get the transfer. The reply is that some of their neighbours say “they are only getting the cash because they are old and useless women”.

There has been a great deal of talk about social protection in Agenda 2030. Five of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) goals explicitly highlight social protection as a tool for reaching them. Yet, social protection is still a fuzzy concept to many. Access to health care and education, perhaps, sound more familiar. Or pensions and child grants. All of these make up social protection. Things like cash transfers, free school lunches and free access to child care, schools and clinics. Most importantly, social protection is a human right which guarantees a minimum standard of living for all.[1]

Cash-in-hand in particular has proven to be one of the most efficient forms of poverty eradication, and is also rapidly gaining attention in humanitarian work. It rests on the assumption that people living in poverty know best for themselves what they and their families need, therefore they should have the choice on how to spend the money rather than development agencies.

It is when we combine poverty eradication with reducing inequalities that social protection gets really powerful. This means advocating for public social protection as a part of economic justice and fair redistribution of wealth. It includes stopping illicit financial flows and tax dodging by multinational companies, and calling for transparency in government spending as a necessity to make funds for social protection sustainable.

What stake do churches have in this? Religious actors of all faiths have a long tradition of discussing the issues brought out by high inequality – both in terms of the necessity to share with the poor, but also possibly the problematic sides of wealth. Churches and faith based organisations are often providers of social services and assist people living in poverty through diaconal activities. Churches have also many times, as parts of civil society, played an important role in calls for social justice. This gives faith based actors a voice in the discussion about inequality and social protection.

Two ACT Alliance members have initiated a collaboration on social protection as a tool to fight inequality: Church of Sweden, which works extensively with promotion of social protection as a rights-based tool for poverty eradication, and Norwegian Church Aid, which addresses the issue of global inequality through campaigning against tax evasion and capital flight from developing countries.

Back in Zinga village, at a workshop on tax funded social protection with partner organisations, we learnt that there is also another role for faith based actors to play in reaching the Sustainable Development Goals.

Because it is not just to give out cash transfers anyhow that does the trick. Many social protection programmes that are funded by development partners, such as the one in Tanzania, are targeted to the very poorest. Not only does such a programme design bring challenges in terms of accuracy and costly poverty assessments. It also goes against the human rights approach to social protection – to receive a benefit not because you are considered as “old, poor and useless” but because you are a human being entitled to social and economic rights.

Guided by the belief that every human being has the right to a life with dignity, faith based actors should speak up for rights-based social protection initiatives that leave no one behind, and compromises  no-one’s dignity.

To end poverty and reduce inequality with everyone’s dignity preserved all the way, that is what I hope that faith based actors will advocate for during this year’s High Level Political Forum underway this week in New York, and onwards to 2030.

__________

[1] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (art. 22), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (art. 9, 10).

Gunilla Palm is a policy adviser for social protection and sustainable livelihoods at Church of Sweden, a member of the ACT Alliance. Her background is within human rights and conflict research. She tweets @GunillaPalm.

PRESS RELEASE

The renewed fighting in South Sudan has raised serious concerns around safety and security of the people of the new, and increasingly fragile country. The situation has rapidly deteriorated over the last couple of days, with a reported death toll of nearly 300 people, and armed violence erupting in Juba and surrounding areas.

South Sudan, which has just marked five years of independence has experienced a politically instigated civil war since December 2013, occasioned by a conflict between President Salva Kiir and Vice president Riek Machar. A peace deal was reached in August 2015.

“We are alarmed by the developments and concerned that what was achieved in the last decade and through last year’s peace agreement may be lost in a matter of days,” said Pauliina Parhiala, ACT Alliance Director.

Church leaders and churches in South Sudan have decried the violence and called for its cessation. In a statement the South Sudan Council of Churches, said: “We, the leaders of the Church in South Sudan, are extremely disturbed about the fatal shootings which occurred in Juba on the evenings of 7th and 8th July 2016 and the morning of 10th July. We make no judgement as to how or why they occurred, nor who is to blame, but we note with concern that there have been a number of incidents recently, and that tension is increasing.”

“We condemn all acts of violence without exception. The time for carrying and using weapons has ended; now is the time to build a peaceful nation,” the statement further said.

With the renewed conflict comes an important humanitarian mandate to protect and safeguard the lives of innocent people in South Sudan, ACT Alliance said.

“While we join our members and the voice of churches in South Sudan to call for peace and immediate end to the violence, we also highlight the absolute need that those resorting to violence and the international community ensure humanitarian access for the sake of the affected populations,” said Parhiala. “International Human Rights Law and humanitarian principles remain sacrosanct and must be upheld without exception, by all.”

ENDS

Notes to Editor:

1. ACT Alliance is a coalition of 140 churches and faith-based organisations working together in over 100 countries to create positive and sustainable change in the lives of poor and marginalised people regardless of their religion, politics, gender, sexual orientation, race or nationality in keeping with the highest international codes and standards.
2. ACT Alliance is supported by 25,000 staff from member organisations and mobilises about $1.5 billion for its work each year in the areas of humanitarian aid, development and advocacy.
3. For more information contact Estelle Marais at esm@actalliance.org , tel: +41 79 358 3171 or visit actalliance.org

Joint NGO statement ahead of the European Council of 28-29 June 2016

At the upcoming European Council, European Union (EU) leaders will discuss the European Commission’s Communication on a new Partnership Framework with third countries. The Communication proposes an approach which aims to leverage existing EU and Member States’ external cooperation instruments and tools in order to stem migration to Europe. The undersigned organisations express their grave concern about the direction the EU is taking by making deterrence and return the main objective of the Union’s relationship with third countries. More broadly, this new Partnership Framework risks cementing a shift towards a foreign policy that serves one single objective, to curb migration, at the expense of European credibility and leverage in defence of fundamental values and human rights.

The proposed approach is inspired by the EU-Turkey deal which although touted as a successful example of cooperation, has actually left thousands people stranded in Greece in inhumane and degrading conditions. This has particularly affected children, with the result that hundreds of unaccompanied children have been held in closed detention facilities on the islands or forced to sleep in police cells on the Greek mainland. The wider repercussions of this should not be underestimated. It is hard to see how Europe can ask partner countries to keep their doors open, to host large-scale refugee populations and prevent further movements while at the same time Member States refuse to shoulder their fair share of responsibility for protecting people who flee their homes. The right to asylum is being significantly undermined, and it will become more and more challenging for civilians in conflict zones to seek international protection.

The Commission’s proposal ignores all the evidence on the ineffectiveness of deterrence strategies aimed at stopping migration. This approach will not only fail to “break the business-model” of smugglers but increase human suffering as people are forced into taking more dangerous routes. Moreover, despite the stated commitment to respect the principle of non-refoulement, there are no safeguards envisaged to ensure that human rights, rule of law standards and protection mechanisms are in place.  As a result, people risk being deported to countries where their rights are not safeguarded.  Responsibility and liability for human rights violations do not end at Europe’s borders.

We are disappointed to see that once again the emphasis on deterrence leaves no clear commitments to open up safe and regular channels to Europe for those in need of international protection and for other migrants, e.g. through resettlement, humanitarian admission schemes, family reunification, educational visas, labour mobility and visa liberalisation. Resettlement, labour migration and visa liberalisation are only mentioned as possible leverage with partner countries in a quid pro quo approach.

Another major concern is the financing of the proposed Partnership Framework which would represent a wholesale re-orientation of Europe’s development programming towards stopping migration. This is an unacceptable contradiction to the commitment to use development cooperation with the aim to eradicate poverty, as enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty. Aid is for the benefit of people in need, and should not be used as a leverage for migration control.  EU funding should be transparent and adhere to clearly established principles, such as the Busan principles on effectiveness and the Paris principles of ownership by and alignment to partner countries’ strategies. In addition, striking ‘migration management’ agreements with countries where grave human rights violations are committed will be counter-productive in the longer term – undermining human rights around the globe and perpetuating the cycle of abuse and repression that causes people to flee.

Migration has many drivers; people may be on the move in search of new livelihood opportunities, an education or to reunite with family, while conflict and violence, human rights violations, climate change, poverty and unemployment can all trigger migration and forced displacement. Any cooperation to manage migration should take into consideration this complex and multi-faceted reality, be evidence and needs-based, and ensure that the benefits of migration are maximised and the risks are mitigated.

If the EU wants to call for more global solidarity, it needs to set the right example. The EU, a project built on the rubble of a devastating war, is about to embark on a dark chapter of its history. We urge EU leaders to choose a rights-based system to manage migration, based on a viable long-term strategic vision, rather than pursuing an unattainable and inhumane deterrence objective and thereby abandoning its core founding principles.

As human rights, humanitarian, medical, migration and development agencies, and key implementing partners of development programmes in third countries, we call on European leaders to:

1. Reject the current Commission Communication and develop a sustainable long-term and evidence-based strategy for migration management, in consultation with civil society and experts.
2. Facilitate safe mobility by opening and strengthening safe and regular channels to Europe both for those in need of international protection and other migrants including through resettlement, humanitarian admission and humanitarian visas, family reunification, worker mobility across skill levels and student visas. Member States must commit to clear benchmarks and appropriate timelines for implementing a migration framework that meets the needs of migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees, their families, as well as the needs and obligations of Member States.
3. Exclude any conditionality based on migration control indicators in the allocation of development aid to third countries. Development aid is a tool to fight poverty and inequality, not to manage migration. Vulnerable populations should not be punished because of concerns that are largely political.
4. Stop any readmissions or removals of people by the EU to a third country that violate – or risk violating – fundamental rights and rule of law, including the principle of non-refoulement. Ensure access to protection, justice and effective remedy for all people in migration and asylum procedures.
5. Ensure transparency in the development of any instruments to manage migration and accountability for human rights violations resulting from EU migration policies.
6. Commit to a foreign policy and action focused on preventing and unlocking protracted crises. While the Communication mentions the need to address root causes of displacement in the long term, it does not include engagement to prevent and manage crises.

Signatories

PRESS RELEASE

Governments must act now to address economic and social inequalities that divide people and countries, benefiting only a few and forcing the many into cycles of poverty, vulnerability and marginalization, international humanitarian and development network ACT Alliance has said.

Commenting as the World Wealth Report from CapGemini was released today, ACT Alliance said that there is an urgent need for governments to close the gap by promoting policies known to lower income and wealth disparities.

“Ending inequalities between countries and between people represents addressing issues of justice, issues of human rights, and issues that speak to the kind of society that people want to live in,” said John Nduna, ACT Alliance General Secretary.

Questioning the existing economic model, Nduna said: “We need a new paradigm that addresses the root causes of poverty, and policies that offer pathways to progressive taxation and greater wealth distribution.”

While there is an unprecedented trend in increasing income inequality within countries for the benefit of a few mega rich individuals, ACT Alliance highlighted that social protection programmes, progressive taxation and equity based structural policies such as the introduction of a minimum wage could play a significant role in reducing the growing gap between rich and poor.

ACT Alliance is a coalition of 140 churches and faith-based organisations working together in over 100 countries to create positive and sustainable change in the lives of people in need. ACT works through faith-based networks and communities to help inform and influence justice and rights-based policies at all levels that seek to address the existing gaps in income and other forms of inequality.

“Action today could mean that specific targets for equity could be achieved,” said Nduna. “For example, enhanced use of progressive taxation on business, foreign investments, income and wealth, or securing full and productive decent work for all, could have rapid impacts on people most in need. Closing these gaps requires intentional commitments by political leaders, business leaders and ambitious policies from governments at all levels. Without this, there will be no end to the broken economic system that makes a few rich and the majority poor.”

ACT Alliance is part of the Fight Inequality Alliance a group of organisations including ActionAid, Amnesty International, CIVICUS, Femnet, Focus on the Global South, Greenpeace, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and Oxfam.

ENDS

Note to Editors

1. ACT Alliance is a coalition of 140 churches and faith-based organisations working together in over 100 countries to create positive and sustainable change in the lives of people in need regardless of their religion, politics, gender, sexual orientation, race or nationality in keeping with the highest international codes and standards.
2. ACT Alliance is supported by 25,000 staff from member organisations and mobilises about $1.5 billion for its work each year in the areas of humanitarian aid, development and advocacy.
3. For more information contact Estelle Marais, Head of Communications at esm@actalliance.org, tel: +41 79 358 3171 or visitwww.actalliance.org

The ACT online security induction course is a useful tool for introducing new staff to some of the safety & security issues they may face in their work with the aid sector.

The course which is online on the ACT Safety & Security Community of Practice (SSCP) website features twelve modules consisting of a short video presentation and series of questions that must be answered by the user to proceed to the next topic. The course is set up so that if a user has to stop, or loses internet connection, their progress is saved for their next log in.

On completing the course, the user and their line manager receive an email informing them of the successful completion. The ACT Safety & Security Community of Practice (SSCP) encourages all ACT Members to make use of the course, and all our other security tools, to fulfil their duty of care and keep their staff safe as we do our valuable work around the world.