A new Europe for people, planet and prosperity for all

Europe is at a crossroads, and the future of European cooperation and the benefits it brings are at stake. This is about the future of our society and how we want to be viewed by the wider world. The future of our planet and the kind of Europe our children will grow up in. The current crisis highlights the urgent need to reflect on fundamental questions: how do we ensure that the European project reclaims its promise of peace, democracy and solidarity? How can Europe work for its people?

Too many people across Europe are dissatisfied and disillusioned with the European Union and feel remote from its institutions and policies. But there are groups of committed politicians, trade unions, community groups and non-governmental organisations across Europe who are ready to take action and work for a renewed Europe. Together, we can shape a Europe that is inclusive, open, just, sustainable, and that works for people of all ages, social backgrounds and nations.

Where do we go from here to build the Europe we want and need?

Reject populist solutions 

This crisis in confidence comes as people struggle with decreasing living standards, declining buying power and the rise of precarious work, hardship created by austerity policies, anxiety over movements of people to our shores, and the impacts of climate change and environmental destruction. As people search for answers, euroscepticism and nationalism, intolerance and misinformation are winning out over cooperation, humanity and solidarity with one other. We must all – leaders, media and individuals – actively and at every opportunity speak out and act against division, marginalisation of different groups in society and those that play on fears for their own political ends.

Tackle challenges together 

Many of the challenges facing Europe – such as inequalities, climate change, natural resource depletion, and a global economy that benefits the few and not the many – are better tackled together than by countries individually.

The European Union, which embodies international cooperation and collaboration, needs to be leading in ensuring sustainable and inclusive development, advancing human rights, and allowing for dignified movements of people, where refugees are welcome and all people feel safe.

Fight for a sustainable, social Europe for people and for our planet 

There needs to be a decisive and transformational change in political will, direction and policy. Such a vision is provided in the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, in which people, social justice, environmental and health protection, democracy and transparency take centre stage. Guided by this agenda, EU economic policies need to go hand in hand with strong social and environmental policies. The EU single market and international policies must promote enforceable rules to protect workers, consumers, all citizens – men and women, young and old – and the planet. EU policies must support democracy, dialogue and more equality within and beyond the EU. We need a Europe that aims at improving the living standards of everyone.

Work for better Europe, not less Europe 

The current tendency to weaken EU institutions and to strip away protections for people and planet in the name of ‘deregulation’ is not the answer. Current economic policies of reducing deficits and boosting ‘competitiveness’ have promoted too narrow an interpretation of growth, and corporate profits have failed to make it into workers’ wages or trickle down to improve people’s lives.

It is these policies, not ‘too much Europe’, that have alienated people, leaving them feeling disempowered and left behind. We now need new, progressive European initiatives to deliver tangible benefits for people and to win back their confidence and trust. A ‘better Europe’ is where joint European action creates tangible benefits for people and planet. This includes a new focus on equality and inclusion, a relaunch of the European social model to provide decent work, quality jobs and better living conditions, strong environmental protection, meaningful action on climate change, and an EU-wide effort to welcome and integrate migrants.

Listen and engage 

EU leaders, prime ministers, presidents, chancellors and parliamentarians must listen and engage actively with citizens of all ages and social backgrounds to understand and respond better to people’s concerns and propose a new, positive vision of Europe. Everyone, perhaps most importantly the young, needs to be more actively involved in decisions that have an impact on our future. Together, we can take the decisions and actions on the issues that matter.

Make the case for Europe 

We need a genuine, democratic and inclusive dialogue on the future of Europe, and on how the EU can deliver tangible benefits for Europeans. We stand ready to play an active role in this dialogue, and to work even harder in making the case for the benefits that working together have brought to European citizens, and the values for which this Union stands.

_________

This common statement was drafted on the initiative of WWF, CONCORD, ETUC and European Youth Forum, and supported by the 177 signatories below. European and International signatories 

For media inquiries: 

Angelika Pullen, WWF European Policy Office, apullen@wwf.eu, +32 473 947 966

Helene Debaisieux, CONCORD, helene.debaisieux@concordeurope.org, +32 2 743 87 93

Sarah Farndale, European Youth Forum, sarah.farndale@youthforum.org, +32 496 396 765

Julian Scola, European Trade Union Confederation, jscola@etuc.org, +32 2 224 04 30

 

European and International signatories

ACT Alliance EU

ActionAid International

ADG

Africa e Mediterraneo

AGE Platform Europe

ANME – Association for Natural Medicine in Europe

BirdLife Europe

BLOOM ASSOCIATION

CARE International

Civil Society Europe

Climate Action Network Europe

COFACE Families Europe

CONCORD

Culture Action Europe

Don Bosco International

Don Bosco Youth Network West Africa

Dynamo International – Réseau International des Travailleurs sociaux de rue

EASPD

EFFAT

ENAR – European Network Against Racism

ENNA – European Network of National Civil Society Associations

ENSIE – European Network of Social Integration Enterprises

ERGO Network

Eurocadres – Council of European Professional and Manageral Staff

Eurochild

Eurodiaconia

EuroHealthNet

European Anti Poverty Network (EAPN)

European Central Council of Homeopaths

European Citizen Action Service (ECAS)

European Confederation of Independent Trade Unions (CESI)

European Disability Forum

European Environmental Bureau

European Federation of Building and Woodworkers

European Federation of Public Service Unions

European Humanist Federation

European Institute Foundation

European Institute of Women’s Health

European Medical Students’ Association

European Movement International

European Network for Smoking and Tobacco Prevention (ENSP)

European Parents’ Association

European Public Health Alliance

European Race and Imagery Foundation (ERIF)

European Trade Union Confederation

European Transport Safety Council

European Transport Workers’ Federation

European Volunteer Centre (CEV)

European Women’s Lobby

European Youth Forum

Fair Trade Advocacy Office

FEANTSA

Fédération Européenne des Femmes Actives en Famille

FEMS – European Federation Salaried Doctors

Friends of the Earth Europe

Fundación Jóvenes y Desarrollo

Greenpeace

HEAL – Health and Environment Alliance

Housing Europe

IBFAN Africa

IBFAN Europe

IBFAN LATIN AMÉRICA AND CARIBBEAN

ICSW – International Council on Social Welfare

IFSW-Europe – International Federation of Social Workers Europe

IGLYO

ILGA-Europe – European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association

International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN)

International Disability and Development Consortium (IDDC)

International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations (IFMSA)

International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network

International Union of Tenants (IUT)

Light for the World International

Mental Health Europe

Migrant Tales

Misiones Salesianas

Naturefriends International

Network of European LGBTIQ* Families Associations (NELFA)

Oxfam International

PICUM – Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants

Plan International

Social Platform

SOLIDAR

SOS Children’s Villages International

The Club of Rome EU-Chapter

The European Federation of Older Persons – EURAG

The Oslo Times

The Salvation Army EU Affairs Office

Transport & Environment

UNI Europa

Volonteurope

World Vision

WWF

YES Forum

 

National and regional signatories

ACT Grupa

Active Retirement Ireland

AEPADO – European Association for the Defense of Human Rights

Alaturi de Voi Romania Foundation

Albanian Society for All Ages (ASAG)

All Ears TM

arbeit plus – Social Integration Enterprises Austria

Artenave Atelier – Associação de Solidariedade

Asociación Nacional Presencia Gitana

ASPUR

ATDAL Over40

Ateliere Fara Frontiere

Atelierul de panza SRL

Ateljee vzw

Baby Milk Action/IBFAN UK

BAGSO

BirdLife Finland

BirdWatch Ireland

Bulgarian Red Cross

CEIPES Belgium

Centar za životnu sredinu/FoE Bosnia and Herzegovina

Center for Equality Advancement

Centre for Peace Studies, Zagreb

CHEN, patient fertiltiy association, Israel

Conference of Religious of Ireland and Irish Missionary Union

Conseil de la Jeunesse

Consorzio di cooperative sociali EVT

Consorzio Sociale Abele Lavoro

Coordination SUD

CRIES

Cultúr Migrants Centre

Czech Society for Ornithology

De Omslag

EcoPolítica

ENEA apa

Estonian Green Movement

Estonian Human Rights Centre

FAEDEI – Federación de Asociaciones Empresariales de Empresas de Inserción

FATEC (Federació d’Associacions de Gent Gran de Catalunya)

Federació d’Organitzacions Catalanes de Gent Gran, Dones i Família – FOCAGG

Fédération des entreprises d’insertion

Filipino Women’s Council

FONSS – Federatia Organizatiilor Neguvernamentale pentru Servicii Sociale din Romania

France Nature Environnement

Friends of the Earth Cyprus

Friends of the Earth Finland – Maan ystävät ry

Fundació Trinijove

Generation 2.0 Rights, Equality & Diversity

Generation Earth

Hellenic Ornithological Society

Initiative for Development and Cooperation

Inter Environnement Wallonie

JURATRI

KISA – Action for Equality, Support, Anti-Racism

Latvian Ornithological Society

Liga para a Protecção da Natureza

Lipu BirdLife Italy

Mayo Intercultural Action

NABU – Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union (German partner of Birdlife International)

National Youth Council of Ireland

natur&emwelt

Natuurpunt

Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities

Old’up

OVN -NL

Polish Society for the Protection of Birds

QED Foundation

RESIT – Rede de Empresas Sociais de Inserção pelo Trabalho

Roma Community Centre Vilnius

Slovenian Coalition for Public Health, Environment and Tobacco Control

Social Firms England

SOF – BirdLife Sverige

SOS/BirdLife Slovakia

Sport Against Racism Ireland

SST vzw

Stichting Laka

Tallinn Children’s Hospital Foundation

The Integraiton and Support Unit

türkiye emekliler derneği

BirdLife The Netherlands

volare a s.stefano

WERVEL – Working Group for a Fair and Responsible Agriculture

Youth for Human Rights Denmark

Združenie Slatinka

 

 

Bogota, July 4^th, 2016

Our churches and faith-based organisations are committed to providing accompaniment for the civilian population in the demobilization zones in the context of the Colombian peace-process, through the implementation of protection measures, peace education and reconciliation, and verification of the ceasefire and demobilization process.

On June 23, 2016, the Colombian Government and the largest guerrilla group in Colombia, the FARC-EP, made a Joint Statement[1] announcing their agreement on Bilateral and Definitive Ceasefire, End of Hostilities and Disarmament. The agreement defines 31 areas for the demobilization of the FARC over a period of 6 months[2]. As with the previous partial agreements, the bilateral ceasefire and disarmament will begin to operate once the final peace agreement is signed, which is expected to occur within the next few months.

We welcome this agreement and recognize its importance for building a just and sustainable peace in Colombia. At the same time we are concerned about the implications for the local civilian population of the establishment of these Demobilization Zones, and the risk of incursions by other armed groups into the territories where the FARC has traditionally had a presence. We believe there is an increased risk of confrontation in these areas between other non-state armed actors, such as post- or neoparamilitary groups and the ELN  guerrilla group.

Since July 20 last year, when the FARC-EP guerrilla declared a unilateral ceasefire, the members of the Inter-Ecclesiastical Dialogue for Peace (DiPaz) have conducted pastoral visits to verify compliance with the ceasefire. During these visits we have witnessed the vulnerability of the civilian population in the territories and as we have expressed in a previous statement[3], we are deeply concerned about the huge challenge that this vulnerability, as well as the continuity of paramilitary structures and the prolongation of the armed confrontation between the national government and the ELN, represent for the implementation of the Final Peace Agreement.

The civilian population that lives in the demobilization zones has also expressed uncertainty, fear and anxiety over the peace-process, in particular regarding the demobilization process.

This situation has already caused concern among churches and faith-based organizations internationally. The Central Committee of the World Council of Churches (WCC) has committed to “studying – in collaboration with the ACT Alliance and other ecumenical partner organisations – ways of supporting and promoting the effective participation of churches, religious organisations and civil society in the following stages of dialogue between the Colombian Government and the FARC-EP” [4].

At this historic moment, when we have the opportunity to put an end to one of the longest running armed conflicts in the world, churches and other DiPaz member organisations consider that it is of vital importance to provide accompaniment for the civilian population, through the implementation of protection measures, pedagogical actions for peace and reconciliation, and verification of the ceasefire and demobilization process.

To do this, we the members of DiPaz, and members of the ACT Alliance Colombia Forum are committed to establish Humanitarian Protection Houses in some of these zones, with permanent national and international presence and accompaniment to the communities, and to contribute to their protection, while also urging the government and local, regional and national authorities to implement the necessary measures to maintain safety and security in these territories. We appeal to the international community to act as an observer of this process with the goal of safeguarding the rights and protection of the civilian population.

END

1. Asociación Menonita para la Paz, Justicia y Acción Noviolenta (Justapaz)
2. Comisión de Paz del Consejo Evangélico de Colombia – (CEDECOL).
3. Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz
4. Comunidades Construyendo Paz en los Territorios (CONPAZ)
5. Concilio de las Asambleas de Dios de Colombia (AD)
6. Confraternidad Carcelaria de Colombia
7. Consejo Latinoamericano de Iglesias (CLAI)
8. Corporación para el Desarrollo Social Comunitario (CORSOC)
9. Corporación Universitaria Reformada (CUR)
10. Fundación Menonita Colombiana para el Desarrollo (Mencoldes)
11. Fundación Universitaria Bautista (FUB)
12. Hermanas Franciscanas de Nuestra Señora de Lourdes, Colombia.
13. Iglesia Evangélica Luterana de Colombia (IELCO)
14. Iglesia Presbiteriana de Colombia (IPC)
15. Movimiento Estudiantil Cristiano de Colombia (MEC)
16. Visión Mundial Colombia

 

                         Colombia Forum

1. Lutheran World Federation (LWF)
2. Lutheran World Relief (LWR)
3. ICCO Cooperation
4. Christian Aid
5. Swiss Church Aid (HEKS EPER)
6. Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe (DKH)
7. Church of Sweden
8. Centro Regional Ecuménico de Asesoría y Servicio (CREAS)

___________

[1] http://www.altocomisionadoparalapaz.gov.co/procesos-y-conversaciones/documentos-y-comunicados-conjuntos/Paginas/Comunicado-Conjunto-No-75-22-junio-2016.aspx

[2] The “Transitory Normalization Zones” as these demobilization areas are called, have three objectives: facilitate the end of hostilities, guarantee disarmament and contribute to the transition of FARC-EP combatants to civilian life.

[3] https://dipazcolombia.wordpress.com/2016/06/23/dipaz-manifiesta-su-alegria-y-su-esperanza-por-lo-que-significa-el-historico-comunicado-conjunto-75/

[4] –http://www.oikoumene.org/es/resources/documents/central-committee/2016/statement-on-colombian-bilateral-ceasefire-agreement

 

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

 

1.     ACT Alliance EU

2.     ActionAid

3.     Afrique Culture Maroc

4.     Agir Ensemble pour les Droits de l’Homme

5.     Aid Services

6.     Amnesty International

7.     Amycos

8.     Asgi – Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione

9.     Asociacion por ti mujer

10.  Asociacion Salud y Familia – Spain

11.  Association for action against violence and trafficking in human beings-Open Gate La  Strada Macedonia.

12.  Association for the Social Support of Youth

13.  Ayuda en Acción

14.  British Refugee Council

15.  CAFOD

16.  Care International

17.  CCOO de Andalucia

18.  Centre for Youths Integrated Development.

19.  Centro de Investigaciones en Derechos Humanos PRO IGUAL

20.  ChildFund Alliance

21.  Church of Sweden

22.  Churches’ Commission for Migrants in Europe

23.  Citizens’ association for combating trafficking in human beings and all forms of gender-based violence

24.  CNCD-11.11.11

25.  Comisión Española de Ayuda al Refugiado –CEAR-

26.  Concern Worldwide

27.  CONCORD Sweden

28.  Conseil des Béninois de France

29.  Consortium of Migrants Assisting Organizations in the Czech Republic

30.  Coordinadora Andaluza de ONGD

31.  Coordinadora Cantabra de ONGD

32.  Coordinadora de ONGD de  la Región de Murcia

33.  Coordinadora de ONGD del Principado de Asturias

34.  Coordinadora de ONGD España

35.  Coordinadora de ONGD Navarra

36.  Coordinadora Extremeña de ONGD

37.  Coordinadora Gallega de ONGD

38.  Coordinadora ONGD de Castilla y León

39.  Coordinadora Valenciana de ONGD

40.  Cordaid

41.  Detention Action

42.  Detention Forum

43.  Doctors of the World International network

44.  EU-CORD Network

45.  Eurochild

46.  EuroMed Rights

47.  European Association for the Defence of Human Rights

48.  European Council on Refugees and Exiles

49.  European Youth Forum

50.  Federación Aragonesa de ONGD

51.  Federación de Asociaciones de Derechos Humanos

52.  Federation of Christian NGOs in Italy

53.  FIACAT

54.  FIDH

55.  FIZ advocacy and support for migrant women and victims of trafficking

56.  Flüchtlingsrat Niedersachsen e.V.

57.  Forum des Organisations de Solidarité Internationale issues des Migrations

58.  Fundacion 1º de Mayo de Comisiones Obreras

59.  Fundación Alianza por los Derechos, la Igualdad y la Solidaridad Internacional –APS-

60.  Greek Forum of Refugees

61.  Habitat for Humanity International, Europe, Middle East and Africa

62.  Handicap International

63.  Human Rights Watch

64.  Human Rights Without Frontiers

65.  Instituto Sindical de Cooperación al Desarrollo –ISCOD-

66.  InteRed

67.  INTERSOS

68.  Islamic Relief UK

69.  Jesuit Refugee Service Europe.

70.  Justice and Peace Netherlands

71.  KISA-Action for Equality, Support, Antiracism

72.  Koordinierungsstelle der Österreichischen Bischofskonferenz für internationale Entwicklung und Mission

73.  La Strada International

74.  Lafede.cat – Organitzacions per a la Justícia Global

75.  Le Monde des Possibles

76.  Macedonian Young Lawyers Association

77.  Menedék – Hungarian Association for Migrants

78.  Migrant Voice UK

79.  Migrants’ Rights Network

80.  Movimiento contra la Intolerancia

81.  Movimiento por la Paz –MPDL-

82.  Nasc, the Irish Immigrant Support Centre

83.  Norwegian Refugee Council

84.  Oxfam

85.  PAX

86.  Pax Christi International

87.  PICUM-Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants

88.  Plan International EU office

89.  Platform Minors in exile / Plate-forme Mineurs en exil / Platform Kinderen op de vlucht (Belgium)

90.  Red Acoge

91.  Réseau de Compétences Solidaires – Groupement d’Economie Sociale et Solidaire  France – Europe – Afrique

92.  Réseau Immigration Développement Démocratie –  IDD

93.  Save the Children

94.  SOS Children’s Villages International

95.  SOS Racisme – Touche pas à mon pote

96.  Swedish Refugee Advice Centre

97.  Télécoms Sans Frontières

98.  Terre des Hommes International Federation

99.  The International Federation of Social Workers European Region

100.  The International Rehabilitation Council for Torture victims

101.  the Norwegian Centre Against Racism

102.  Trócaire

103.  World Vision Brussels and EU Representation

104.  ZOA