By Gaiane Yenokian
TEGH, Armenia, Nov 8 2023 – From the balcony of the house she’s lived in for the past weeks, 32-year-old Margarita Ghushunts says she often looks in the direction of her home, in Nagorno Karabakh.

“Every time I look that way, I remember the hellish journey we took to escape from home. It feels like losing it over and over again,” she tells IPS.

Also called “Artsakh” by its Armenian former residents, Nagorno-Karabakh was a self-proclaimed republic within Soviet Azerbaijan which had sought international recognition and independence since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

“An international fully mandated mechanism needs to be deployed in Azerbaijan to protect Armenians in case they face security issues. Without a substantial change in the situation, no one will return,” says Siranush Sahakyan
The First Nagorno-Karabakh War (1988-1994) ended with an Armenian victory. Azerbaijan would unleash its armed forces in 2020 and take back many of the areas lost years before.

But grievances were still not settled.

On September 19, Azerbaijan launched a massive attack against Nagorno Karabakh. All the population —more than 100,000 ethnic Armenians— fled the region for Armenia within a few days.

Panicked by the Azerbaijani attack, the civilian population rushed to evacuate. The sole road connecting Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia —closed by a 9-month blockade imposed by Azerbaijan— had just been reopened, but it could be closed again at any moment.

After a 28-hour, exhausting ride to the Armenian border from Nagorno Karabakh´s capital city Stepanakert, Margarita, her husband Harutyun and their three minor children arrived at her father’s house in Tegh village, in southern Armenia.

The village is located right on the Azerbaijani border. Margarita can even see the Azerbaijani military positions and their flags waving from the neighbouring mountain peaks.

“We can also hear the periodic gunshots so my children cannot sleep peacefully. Even when they hear the sound of thunder, they come to me and ask: “Mama, are they shooting at us again?”

Refugees in Kornidzor, the first town on the Armenian side of the border, on September 25. Many arrived empty-handed after fleeing on foot through the forest and under shelling. Credit: Gaiane Yenokian/IPS

Killed and tortured

On September 28, the last leader of Nagorno Karabakh, Samvel Shajramanian, issued a decree dissolving the self-proclaimed Nagorno Karabakh Republic as of January 1, 2024.

Today, the population of the evacuated enclave is spread throughout the regions of Armenia. Some of them are in the accommodations provided by the government, while others rent houses or live in free accommodations offered by caring individuals.

In several public speeches and international meetings, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has repeatedly emphasized that the rights of Armenians living in Nagorno Karabakh would be safeguarded “with Azerbaijan’s national legislation and international commitments”.

But there’s little trust among the Armenians. Less than 40 remain in the besieged enclave. They are now provided with humanitarian aid by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

On October 19, the Armenian Human Rights Defender, Anahit Manasyan, reported that the bodies of the victims in Nagorno-Karabakh during the Azeri attack from September 19-21 showed signs of torture and mutilation.

It matches data issued by Armenia’s Investigative Committee on the 31st of October which points to 14 people being tortured by the Azerbaijani military and 64 people dying on the road from Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia.

In an interview with IPS in Yerevan, southern Armenia, International law and human rights expert Siranush Sahakyan notes that previously recorded cases of brutal murders among the civilian population of Nagorno-Karabakh demonstrate the futility of Aliyev´s words.

“After the 2020 war, up to 70 civilians decided to remain in their settlements of Hadrut, Shushi and other regions which came under Azerbaijani control. All these civilians were either captured, taken to Baku, tortured and killed or murdered in their own houses. Their bodies were desecrated,” recalls Siranush Sahakyan.

UN also called on Azerbaijan that “Rights and security of Karabakh Armenians must be guaranteed”. Other than just making calls, says Siranush Sahakyan, the UN should also create the conditions for it.

“The first condition is to eliminate hatred against Armenians. Also, an international fully mandated mechanism needs to be deployed in Azerbaijan to protect Armenians in case they face security issues. Without a substantial change in the situation, no one will return,” stresses the lawyer.

Romela Avanesyan prepares a traditional dish from Nagorno-Karabakh. As winter approaches, these displaced people depend on both government and international aid. Credit: Gaiane Yenokian/IPS

Fear of new attacks

Margarita Ghushunts’s little daughter, Rozi, was born under the blockade of Nagorno Karabakh during which they were deprived of gas, electricity, food, medicine, and fuel, and the healthcare system was almost non-functional.

But it was not the harsh living conditions that forced Margarita to leave Stepanakert

“We could bear all the cruelty of the blockade to protect our right of self-determination, but as Artsakh’s government was forced to surrender arms to save the civil population, we could not stay there anymore,” explains the displaced woman.

Life in Artsakh without its defence army, she claims, “simply equates to death for the population.”

Today, Ghushunts her neighbours often ask if they will stay in the village. Her answer, however, is unsettling for everyone. The displaced woman fears Azerbaijani troops “may launch an attack on Armenia at any moment.”

It can happen. According to the Armenian MFA, after the 2020 war Azerbaijan has occupied 150 square kilometres of the internationally recognized territories of the Republic of Armenia.

Displaced children from Nagorno Karabakh play in the only park in the town of Kalavan. According to the Armenian government, around 30,000 of the more than 100,000 refugees are minors. Credit: Gaiane Yenokian/IPS

On November 1st, The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention issued a “Red Flag Alert” for the Republic of Azerbaijan in the Republic of Armenia, due to the alarming potential for an invasion of Armenia by Azerbaijan in the coming days and weeks.

Siranush Sahakyan, the International law expert interviewed by IPS, claims that the ratification of the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court (ICC) by Armenia’s parliament on the 3rd of October could open the door to an international investigation of Azerbaijan’s crimes against Armenia.

“Non-ratification of the Rome Statute by Azerbaijan creates obstacles to investigate their crimes in Artsakh, but it will fall under jurisdiction for the crimes committed on the internationally recognised territory of Armenia starting from May 2021. This could be one of the ways to protect Armenia from future international crimes,” Sahakyan states.

The Avanesyans also left Nagorno Karabakh to settle in Vazashen, another border village in Armenia’s north. But they soon decided to move again.

“Our neighbour pointed out the Azerbaijani positions right in front of the village. He mentioned that they could not graze the cattle because the Azerbaijanis were stealing it. The children got scared, so we had to seek another shelter,” Lusine Avanesyan, a 35-year-old mother of five children told IPS from Kalavan village.

That´s where they moved again after the local guesthouse offered its rooms for the family allowing them to stay as long as they wished.

Romela Avanesyan, Lusine Avanesyan’s mother-in-law, began exploring the resources available in Kalavan to start a farm as soon as they arrived.

The displaced 61-year-old remembers the pomegranate garden she planted many years ago but was forced to leave behind. While they were rushing to evacuate Karabakh, she held onto what was most precious to her: the seeds of plants and vegetables from her garden.

“I was urging my grandchildren to pick only the cracked pomegranates and leave the beautiful ones to ripen,” Avansesyan tells IPS. Today, she adds, “those pomegranates are lost, and so is our entire homeland.”

By Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana and Natalia Kanem
BANGKOK, Thailand, Nov 8 2023 – Asia and the Pacific is an economic powerhouse, fuelled by its vibrant and diverse population. Comprising 60 per cent of the world’s population, this region is bursting with both a wealth of experience and untapped potential.

Exciting advancements have been made here, in education; health care, including sexual and reproductive health; jobs, and sustainable development. Yet there is a catch: this progress has not been evenly distributed. In fact, inequity pervades the region, especially within individual countries.

Women still lose their lives during childbirth at alarming rates, and in many countries we have seen limited progress in reducing maternal mortality in the past decade. In several countries, less than 30 per cent of women of reproductive age use contraception. Unemployment rates among young women remain high, reaching up to 25 per cent in some places.

Women are still struggling for a seat at the political table, with less than a quarter of national parliamentary seats being occupied by women in 35 countries across the region. Progress towards gender equality and women’s empowerment has been sluggish, creating a roadblock to sustainable development.

The region is particularly susceptible to the effects of climate change and environmental degradation, with disasters claiming 2 million lives since 1970. Financial losses from these calamities add up to $924 billion every year, eating up nearly 3 per cent of the region’s GDP. Humanity’s environmental footprint has expanded dramatically. The region’s greenhouse gas emissions have risen by 54 per cent since 1990, largely due to the energy and agricultural sectors.

Population ageing is another mega-trend affecting this part of the world. More people are enjoying longer and healthier lives, and in this new reality we need policies that adapt to these shifts and invest in every stage of life. Rather than perceiving older persons as a drain on resources, we should recognize them as individuals with human rights who make important contributions to society in various ways all the time.

The same applies to persons with disabilities, migrants and other groups who have much to contribute, yet too often face stigma and discrimination. Let us build societies for people of all abilities and ages.

Over 60 per cent of the population in the Asia Pacific region has access to the internet, and this has turbocharged development across many sectors. Nevertheless, these technological advances bring new challenges, from the digital divide between the haves and the have-nots, to privacy violations and a disturbing rise in technology-facilitated gender-based violence.

While it is important that we celebrate the region’s many achievements, we must simultaneously confront its population and development challenges. We have a unique opportunity to do so as we mark 60 years since the first Asian and Pacific Population Conference and 30 years since the International Conference on Population and Development – two important milestones on the path towards sustainable progress.

At the midpoint of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as countries seek to accelerate action towards our global goals, we urgently need comprehensive, forward-thinking, intergenerational approaches to harness the opportunities of population dynamics for sustainable development. To be effective, such approaches must be based on individual human rights and rooted in evidence and data.

Innovative solutions, financing and political commitment through inclusive partnerships are our path forward. Let us ensure young and older persons have a voice in decision-making and in designing solutions. Let us tap into the goldmine of shared knowledge and proven methods we have built over the past few decades.

Investing in people, through improved health, education and training, while providing social protection for all to retain development gains, lays the foundation for inclusive, just and sustainable societies. It is also our route to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

The Seventh Asian and Pacific Population Conference taking place this week is the perfect launchpad for collective action. Governments, civil society, young people and others can come together and make a real difference, building on their collective investments and successes to date. Together, we can protect people and the planet and ensure prosperity for all, now and in the future.

Let us refocus our actions to ensure human rights and choices for everyone, driving us closer to peace and a sustainable future for this generation and those that follow.

Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP); Natalia Kanem is UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Joyce Chimbi
NAIROBI, Nov 8 2023 – As the countdown to COP28 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, continues, IPS caught up with Dr Oldman Koboto, Mauritius-based Manager for the Commonwealth Climate Finance Access Hub (CCFAH).

The hub was established through the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in 2013 to provide technical assistance aimed at enhancing the countries’ access to international climate finance. This is achieved through technical assistance around project proposal development, policy support, human and institutional capacity building, knowledge management, and learning, all of which are anchored on gender and youth mainstreaming.

The hub embeds climate finance experts in individual government ministries to work with and offer technical support. The experts help identify project proposals, provide policy support, and, above all, build the capacity of both technical and institutional capacity in those ministries to develop bankable funding proposals. Since its operationalization in 2016, the hub has supported member countries to access USD 315 million in climate finance. Additionally, projects amounting to over USD 800 million are in the pipeline.

Here are excerpts from the interview.

Dr Oldman Koboto

IPS: What is the nature of climate negotiations thus far?

Koboto: Negotiations are progressing well, in my view, considering the historical background. Negotiations started when climate jurisprudence was still in its infancy. It has since progressed to a point of more certainty around legal systems and transformative approaches to address the climate change convention’s objectives. Negotiations have moved from the actual architect for implementing the convention to innovative approaches toward achieving the 1.5°C Paris Agreement aspiration.

One of the pending issues, especially on finance, is the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund – to be operationalized through the COP28. The draft outcome document for the Transitional Committee on operationalizing the Loss and Damage Fund showed consensus that could catalyze its operation. That being said, critical gaps still exist.  IPCC cautions that even if we were to implement all the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), we would still not achieve the 1.5°C targets, many of them centered around mitigation actions.

This is an indictment on the international community, through these negotiations, to make progress on adaptation-related issues. And fast-track resilience building and adaptative capacities of small and other vulnerable member states. One of the innovative approaches is leveraging private sector finance for NDCs towards climate mitigation action. But, the design parameters for both adaptation and mitigation projects are such that mitigation actions are attractive to the private sector more than adaptation measures. This creates innovation gaps toward adaptation actions, and yet mitigation initiatives do not build significant resilience. There are, therefore, successes and challenges to these negotiations.

IPS: Have countries voiced concerns regarding these negotiations?

Koboto: Almost all countries raise concerns around the pending areas and celebrate progressive areas. Countries prepare to go into the COPs by developing country positions informed by developments in international negotiations. They then build interventions around points of divergence to be ironed out in upcoming negotiations to inform or shape COP outcomes. This, on its own, is a demonstration of the countries’ concerns around those specific agenda items. It is not about one country speaking about being unhappy, but the process itself, through the established legal frameworks, enables countries to raise their concerns through platforms where such consensus could become part of the formal documentation for the COP process.

IPS: Is Africa better placed for COP28 negotiations, having recently held its inaugural Climate Summit?

Koboto: The inaugural Africa Climate Summit was a step in the right direction. It allowed African countries to paint their own vision and develop a basket of issues to push forward within international negotiations. The Nairobi Summit was consistent with other platforms for engagement on development challenges facing Africa. The message was that Africa is part of the solution and requests to be treated as equals, which is consistent with the messaging at the World Economic Forums and UN General Assembly. The draft outcome of the Loss and Damage Fund Transitional Committee indicates that developed countries’ parties will contribute to the financing of loss and damage and that developing country parties are also encouraged to contribute.

IPS: What sustains the impasse on climate financing between developed and developing countries? What will it take to break the impasse?

Koboto: This is a tough one because it falls at the heart of the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities of the UNFCCC. Having said that, it is also very difficult to target one country with the capability or capacity to provide support because of foundational principles of state policy, which sets the direction of each country regarding national and international interests. It goes without saying that national interests take precedence over international interests in areas where the two compete.

There is a willingness at the international level for developed countries to help. Meanwhile, the African continent must design innovative financing instruments to facilitate access to climate finance and attract investments to the continent. Such innovative mechanisms can be developed in subsequent African climate summits. The global climate solution lies in Africa, for the continent still has a lot of unexploited potential both in resources and opportunities around geothermal, hydrothermal, and solar energy.

IPS: What are the expectations from small island states and other vulnerable countries on new funding mechanisms and the Loss and Damage Fund going into COP28?

Koboto: The newest funding mechanism is the Loss and Damage Fund. Others are the Global Environment Facility, the Green Climate Fund, and the Adaptation Fund. African countries are unrelenting about the USD100 billion pledge made at COP15. All these funds must trickle down to developing states so that the Loss and Damage Fund becomes just an additional funding to existing funding sources.

African countries are focused on building enough consensus and influencing developed countries to deliver on promises made. Institutions such as the Commonwealth Climate Finance Access Hub, which I lead, stand ready to facilitate African countries’ access to those Funds as soon as there is predictable and adequate funding in those Funds.

CCFAH can provide technical assistance to enhance access to climate investments at a country level and to build capacities to access these funds without the use of third parties. But these countries are unrelenting and are firmly focused on unlocking much-needed climate finance to establish and or accelerate climate action.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Nov 8 2023 – Public-private partnerships (PPPs) for infrastructure and service provision are both costly and risky. Worse, PPPs typically fail to ensure universal, let alone fair access to public amenities.

Public-private partnerships?
PPPs usually involve long-term contractual arrangements in which private businesses provide infrastructure and services traditionally provided by governments. In recent years, PPPs have built or run hospitals, schools, prisons, roads, airports, railways, water and sanitation.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Risk-sharing between public and private sectors has long been widespread. In recent years, more than two dozen different types of PPPs have been identified. Such variations reflect differences in deals between governments and commercial partners.

Most international financial institutions (IFIs) advise governments to guarantee profits for their private partners. The IFIs continue to urge governments to ‘de-risk’ commercial providers to attract their investments.

Private investor preferences for specific types of PPPs may vary over time and with circumstances, often reflecting changing needs and priorities. As no one type fits all, changing circumstances and preferences have increased the variety of PPPs.

PPP problems
PPPs are far more complex than suggested by their cheerleaders’ narratives. Their negative impacts on infrastructure and public service delivery have been highlighted again by a Eurodad-led report. Public expenses rise as governments bear private costs and risks.

Following World Bank and other IFI advice, national authorities attract commercial financial investments by appealing to private greed. PPPs have been used to ‘de-risk’ such investment, by using their terms to ensure profits for private investors.

The report also exposed PPPs’ negative impacts for democratic governance. PPP arrangements typically lack transparency, and rarely involve prior consultation with affected communities. Thus, they have been more prone to corruption and abuse.

While private partners are guaranteed profits, their PPPs may still fail. In recent years, PPPs’ fiscal and other costs kept mounting as their shortfalls grew despite their rising profitability. As such problems grow, criticisms and dissent have risen.

Why PPPs fail?
PPPs have increasingly been touted as the magic solution to many problems, particularly financial constraints, poor management and delivery. PPPs have become popular among elites in the global South, where their ‘middle classes’ were enticed by the promise of better services and ‘trickle-down’.

The private sector is supposedly more efficient and better able to deliver public amenities including energy, education, health, water and sanitation. But better value for money has rarely ensued, as many studies show. Instead, the converse is more typical.

A 2020 study by the European Federation of Public Service Unions and Eurodad identified eight major reasons why PPPs in Europe have not improved outcomes.

First, PPPs rarely raised additional funds. Instead, they have typically incurred more public debt in the form of government guarantees, rather than direct borrowing. But such additional public debt has often been obscured from the public.

Second, private commercial loans generally cost much more than government borrowings. Third, public authorities, especially central governments, still bear ultimate responsibility, especially in the event of project failure.

Fourth, PPPs have rarely delivered better ‘value for money’ than reasonably managed public projects. Fifth, seeming PPP efficiency gains have been largely due to risky cost-cutting, e.g., in public infrastructure or healthcare provision.

Sixth, PPPs distort public policy priorities, typically requiring even more cost-cutting. Seventh, PPPs have rarely delivered both ‘on-time’ and ‘on-budget’. Eighth, PPP deals are typically opaque, rather than transparent, often involving abuses and corruption.

From early 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic exposed the long-term adverse effects of earlier austerity and underfunding of public health. More recently, inflation, stagnation and more extreme weather have exposed other vulnerabilities and their causes.

What can be done?
As the world faces multiple and interconnected crises, PPPs offer bogus, even dangerous solutions. Eurodad has made policy recommendations to national governments and development finance institutions (DFIs) to improve infrastructure and public service financing.

• Stop promoting PPPs. The World Bank, IMF, regional development banks and DFIs should all end the promotion of PPPs, especially for social services. Access to health, education, water and sanitation should not depend on capacity to pay.

• Fiscal and other major PPP risks should be publicly acknowledged. Governments should be warned of PPPs’ generally poor outcomes, and of the pros and cons of various financing arrangements. DFIs should all more effectively finance national plans for sustainable and equitable development.

Countries should be helped to find the best financing means to deliver responsible, transparent, gender-sensitive, environmentally and fiscally sustainable public infrastructure and social services consistent with national and multilateral obligations.

• Informed public consultations should always precede any infrastructure and public service provision agreement by PPPs. These should include ensuring the rights of all affected communities, including those to fair remedy or compensation.

• Exercise rigorous and transparent government regulation, especially for public spending, PPP contract values, project impacts, and long-term fiscal implications. The public interest must always prevail over commercial ones.

DFIs should only finance projects serving the public interest. Appropriate, publicly funded public services should be promoted, with transparent contracts for and accountable reporting on social service and infrastructure project delivery.

PPPs have often proved to be budgetary frauds, exacerbating, rather than reducing national fiscal deficits. Far from being the financial silver bullet they have been touted as, PPPs have proven to be blanks, making much noise, but with little real benefit.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);