Quantcast
Channel: ReliefWeb - Updates on Afghanistan
Viewing all 321 articles
Browse latest View live

World: Climate impacts on food security and livelihoods in Asia - A review of existing knowledge

0
0
Source: Government of the United Kingdom, Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers, World Food Programme
Country: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Lao People's Democratic Republic (the), Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Viet Nam, World

Introduction

There is agreement in the scientific community that the global food system will experience unprecedented pressure in the coming decades – demographic changes, urban growth, environmental degradation, increasing disaster risk, food price volatility, and climate change will all affect food security patterns.

Climate change can act as a hunger risk multiplier, exacerbating drivers of food insecurity. Climate change disproportionately affects the poorest and most food insecure through a combination of decreasing crop production, and changes in the frequency and intensity of climate-related hazards, all of which can result in more humanitarian and food security crises.

Climate change affects the different dimensions of food security in complex ways. The availability of food can be affected through variations in yields – especially in key producing areas – due to increasing temperatures as well as changes in the quantity of arable land and water available for agriculture. Changes in production, in turn, can affect the ability of households to access food and as such impact on dietary diversity. Moreover, changes in rainfall and temperature patterns directly impact livelihoods that depend on climate-sensitive activities, such as rain-fed agriculture and livestock rearing. Changes in the timing and availability of water may create sanitation problems and impact quality of available drinking water, leading to increased health concerns, including diarrheal diseases. Together with other vector-borne infections, it has the potential to increase malnutrition, and affect food utilization.

Extreme weather effects disrupt the stability of food supply as well as people’s livelihoods.

Understanding the specific impacts of climate change on food security is challenging because vulnerabilities are highly contextual and are unevenly spread across the world. Ultimately, these vulnerabilities also depend on the ability of households, communities, and countries to manage risks. Under climate change, some regions of the world may experience gains in terms of food security outcomes, but the poorest and more isolated parts of the world tend to be more adversely affected in the absence of adaptation efforts.

The Asian continent is particularly vulnerable to climate change due to a combination of: high reliance on climate-sensitive livelihoods, high incidence of poverty and food insecurity, and high population densities in vulnerable and areas highly exposed to climate-related hazards such as floods, cyclones and droughts, and long-term climate change such as gradual changes in monsoon patterns, glacier melt and sea-level rise.

The purpose of this primer is to review the current state of knowledge on the relationship between climate change and food security, focusing specifically on the Asian context, to provide an evidence base for discussion and further analysis.


World: CrisisWatch August 2016

0
0
Source: International Crisis Group
Country: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, occupied Palestinian territory, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Western Sahara, World, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

CrisisWatch is a monthly early warning bulletin designed to provide a regular update on the state of the most significant situations of conflict around the world.

Global Overview, August 2016

The month saw Yemen’s peace talks collapse with violence there intensifying, and the Syrian conflict escalate following Ankara’s launch of a cross-border ground offensive against Islamic State (IS) and Kurdish forces, days after a major terror attack in Turkey’s south east. Troop deployments in Western Sahara threatened to bring about clashes, and violence flared in the Central African Republic. In Ethiopia and Zimbabwe, security forces brutally suppressed anti-government protests, while in Gabon, the president’s disputed re-election triggered violent clashes. In Asia, a suicide bombing killed over 70 people in Pakistan, while suspected militants in Thailand’s southern insurgency launched attacks on targets outside the traditional conflict zone. In positive news, peace talks between the Philippines government and communist rebel groups resumed after a four-year hiatus. On 24 August, Colombia and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) declared that they had reached a final peace accord, paving the way for an end to 52 years of armed conflict.

Australia: Pathways to Protection: A human rights-based response to the flight of asylum seekers by sea

0
0
Source: Government of Australia
Country: Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Eritrea, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Viet Nam

Executive summary

Background to the project The aim of this paper is to start a conversation about how we can answer the question: What is a rights-based alternative to the current model of third country processing in Nauru and Papua New Guinea?

The Commission has endeavoured to identify options for responding to flight by sea which are consistent with Australia’s international human rights obligations.

In publishing this paper, the Commission is seeking to make a positive contribution to this difficult policy area. We have sought to provide the framework for an alternative policy response, rather than an exhaustive overview of all relevant measures or a detailed plan for implementation. The policy options set out in this paper are offered so that they can be debated, refined and, if they are deemed fit for purpose, implemented.

The Commission also acknowledges that the options put forward in this report could benefit from further policy development and economic analysis prior to implementation. Careful analysis will need to be undertaken of the likely flow-on effects of expanding the opportunities for safe entry in Australia and altering some of the Government’s foreign policy strategies in the ways that are set out in this paper. Further research, consultation and planning would also be required to tailor these measures to conditions in different countries, and to the needs of particular groups.

This paper sets out some alternative policy approaches that aim to protect human rights while also achieving the overall policy objective of preventing dangerous journeys by sea. The Commission is confident that the options proposed in this paper are compliant with Australia’s international human rights law obligations.

This paper does not specifically address the human rights issues arising from other policy measures aimed at deterring flight by sea, such as boat turnbacks and Temporary Protection Visas. However, the Commission considers that the rights-based options proposed in this paper could also be considered as alternatives to these policies.

This paper also does not address the situation of the approximately 30,000 people seeking asylum who are currently in Australia awaiting processing of their claims. The human rights implications of policies affecting these asylum seekers have been considered in other Commission publications.4 Methodology In March 2016, the Commission conducted a series of consultations to discuss alternative policy responses to flight by sea.

Consultation participants were selected on the basis of their expertise in the areas of refugee policy, human rights, international law and protection issues in the Asia–Pacific region. The feedback gathered through the consultations was supplemented through desktop research undertaken between February and June 2016.

In conducting this research and analysis, the Commission adopted a human rights-based approach to policy development.

A human rights-based approach sees strengthening the enjoyment of human rights as both a means and an end. Policies and programs which are based on this approach should further the realisation of human rights, and their planning and implementation should be guided by international human rights standards.5 Summary of findings The key driver of flight by sea towards Australia is the lack of effective protection for refugees and people seeking asylum in the Asia–Pacific region. As such, improving access to effective protection represents the most effective and sustainable means of preventing flight by sea. This is something that can only be achieved through cooperation and partnership with our regional neighbours.

Two core principles emerged from the research and consultation process which have guided the Commission in identifying alternative options:

  • The top priority of an alternative response should be enhancing protection for people fleeing persecution, in accordance with our international human rights obligations.

  • The focus of Australia’s policy response should shift from deterrence to prevention. Rather than seeking simply to discourage asylum seekers from embarking on dangerous journeys, an alternative response should aim to address the human rights violations which compel people to undertake these journeys in the first place.

While Australia is well-placed to support efforts to improve access to protection, there are two key obstacles which currently hamper these efforts:

  • There are few effective mechanisms for cooperation on refugee protection issues amongst states in the Asia– Pacific region, which hampers the region’s capacity to respond effectively to the needs of forcibly displaced people (including by ensuring appropriate settlement options across the region)

  • There are limited opportunities for safe entry for people wishing to seek protection in Australia.
    Based on the information and evidence gathered through the research and consultation process, the Commission has identified two thematic areas (each encompassing a number of specific options) which are designed to overcome these obstacles and which together comprise an alternative, human rights-based policy response to flight by sea:

  • Expand opportunities for safe entry to Australia • Enhance foreign policy strategies on migration in the Asia–Pacific region.

The options put forward in this paper aim directly to address the key driver of flight by sea through creating and enhancing pathways to protection. They seek to achieve this by facilitating access to safe migration options, improving protection for refugees and people seeking asylum who are living in the region, and building towards more effective regional responses to refugee protection issues.
They respond to the human rights violations experienced by refugees and people seeking asylum during flight and in the context of displacement. They are also consistent with the Refugee Convention in that they avoid imposing penalties on the basis of a person’s mode of arrival or lack of documentation.

An overview of the various options identified by the Commission is contained in the table commencing on the next page.

World: Internal Displacement Update, January - August 2016

0
0
Source: Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre
Country: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Canada, China, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Italy, Myanmar, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Ukraine, World, Yemen

This update is based on internal displacement figures made available to IDMC across 16 countries from January-August 2016. These figures will be updated and expanded upon regularly and can be accessed via IDMC’s Global Internal Displacement Database (GIDD) which can be viewed at http://www.internal-displacement.org/database.

Australia: Immigration Detention and Community Statistics Summary - 31 August 2016

0
0
Source: Government of Australia
Country: Afghanistan, Australia, China, Christmas Island (Australia), India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Viet Nam

Immigration Detention And Community Statistics Summary

At 31 August 2016, there were 1602 people in immigration detention facilities, including 1355 in immigration detention on the mainland and 247 in immigration detention on Christmas Island.

A further 619 people were living in the community after being approved for a residence determination and 27,453 were living in the community after grant of a Bridging Visa E.

The table below reflects figures based on records in Department of Immigration and Border Protection systems.

World: Internal Displacement Update, 1 September - 10 October 2016

0
0
Source: Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre
Country: Afghanistan, Bahamas, Central African Republic, China, China - Taiwan Province, Colombia, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Iraq, Nigeria, Philippines, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, South Sudan, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Turks and Caicos Islands, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, World

This update presents key internal displacement developments and policy updates

World: Communicable Disease Threats Report, 16-22 October 2016, Week 42

0
0
Source: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
Country: Afghanistan, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Finland, France, French Guiana (France), Germany, Guadeloupe (France), Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Lao People's Democratic Republic (the), Luxembourg, Malta, Martinique (France), Mauritius, Mexico, Myanmar, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, occupied Palestinian territory, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Saint Barthélemy (France), Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Martin (France), Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Viet Nam, World

​The ECDC Communicable Disease Threats Report (CDTR) is a weekly bulletin for epidemiologists and health professionals on active public health threats. This issue covers the period 16-22 October 2016 and includes updates on Zika virus, Salmonella and extremely drug-resistant TB.

World: Internal Displacement Update, 6 -19 October 2016

0
0
Source: Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre
Country: Afghanistan, Central African Republic, China, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Iraq, Myanmar, Philippines, Somalia, South Sudan, Viet Nam, World

Highlights

Instances of internal displacement caused by conflict, violence, and disasters between 6 - 19 October


World: OFID Quarterly October 2016 - Asia: A New Horizon?

0
0
Source: OPEC Fund for International Development
Country: Afghanistan, Burundi, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic (the), Nepal, occupied Palestinian territory, Papua New Guinea, United Arab Emirates, World

Asia: Catching the wave of success

As the highest performing region under the Millennium Development Goals, Asia has much to shout about. Among other notable achievements, poverty has been slashed by more than two-thirds, great strides have been made in the delivery of healthcare, and primary school enrolments have surged.

The results are remarkable for a continent that is the largest on earth and home to more than half the world’s population.

Led by China, India and Indonesia, economies across the region are booming—on a platform of structural change, increased productivity and a shift from agriculture to manufacturing. At the same time, greater investment in education has equipped populations with the skills to turn opportunity into advantage.

Riding high on this wave of success, Asia has become the poster child for economic and social transformation.

As impressive as these accomplishments are, however, it’s not all positive news. For the statistics mask stubborn discrepancies among and within countries. Vulnerability to poverty remains high, as does hunger. Some 600 million people are still living without electricity. And, while access to education and health services has improved, there are still questions over equity and quality.

So, while prosperity and a bright new future beckon for the majority, vast numbers of people are being left behind.

Sucked under by the same wave that is sweeping others forward, these groups are mostly the victims of entrenched discrimination and marginalization.

On top of the challenges relating to social welfare and inclusion, the region must also confront the even bigger problems of water scarcity and environmental degradation.

With the lowest per capita renewable water resources in the world and multiplying CO2 emissions, these are probably the most pressing issues of all for the continent.

Tackling them and getting onto a path of long-term sustainable development must be Asia’s priority.

OFID’s association with Asia goes back to August 1976, when balance of payments loans to 10 of the region’s “Most Seriously Affected Countries” were among the first ever batch of approvals by the then-named OPEC Special Fund.

Since then, our cooperation has widened to embrace 40 nations, a diverse group spread across the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Together they have shared a cumulative US$5.7bn in OFID financing for projects covering all economic and social sectors. The list ranges from some of the region’s least developed countries, such as Afghanistan, Myanmar and Yemen, to the transitioning nations of the Commonwealth of Independent States, to the “tiger” economies of China, India and Vietnam.

As elsewhere in the world, our chief objective in Asia is to alleviate poverty among the most vulnerable populations, while promoting economic growth, integration and competitiveness. In doing so, we respect and support the individual priorities of the partner governments. In a continent so diverse, with countries at different points on the development spectrum, a tailored response is essential.

Given the region’s needs—and its potential—it is no coincidence that almost one-half of OFID financing to Asia has gone to the strategically critical energy–water–food nexus. Once the nexus-enabling transportation sector is added, the total comes to around US$3.5bn, or over 60 percent of all approvals to the region. In terms of widening access to safe drinking water, modern and affordable energy, and an adequate food supply, these resources have been well used.

To boost employment, productivity and competitiveness, we have channeled close to US$1bn to the Asian private sector. With the aim of promoting financial inclusion, the bulk of this has gone in support of micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), a sector that plays a pivotal role in driving growth across the region. We have also provided over US$660m in trade finance to partner countries to help bridge the yawning trade finance gap that is stifling opportunities, especially for MSMEs.

We are aided in our endeavors by a formal partnership agreement with the Asian Development Bank, which sees us cofinance priority projects in specific countries.

All told, OFID is truly proud of its contribution to Asia’s transformation. While modest in the grand scheme of things, our support over the past four decades has made a genuine difference to communities the length and breadth of the continent. From smallholder farmers in Armenia to fisher folk in the Maldives, from schoolchildren in Palestine to commuters in the Laotian capital Vientiane, our work has touched millions.

That said, there is still much left to do, as the region strives to continue its rise while tackling the multiple challenges blocking the way. OFID will remain a steadfast partner on this journey, as we work together to ensure that everyone gets to catch the wave that is Asia’s success.

World: Trafficking in persons, especially women and children (A/71/303) [EN/AR]

0
0
Source: UN General Assembly
Country: Afghanistan, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Serbia, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, World

Seventy-first session
Item 69 (b) of the provisional agenda*
Promotion and protection of human rights: human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms

Summary

In her 2015 report to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/29/38, the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, identified the linkage between trafficking in persons and conflict as one of the areas under her mandate on which she intended to focus and to carry out further research.

In follow-up to her report presented to the Human Rights Council at its twentysixth session (A/HRC/32/41, the present report raises international awareness of the forms and nature of trafficking related to the complex situation of conflict. The first section provides the contextual background and identifies trafficking in persons as an increasingly common feature of modern conflict.

The second section focuses on the contextual perspective by considering the most common forms of trafficking in conflict from three perspectives: (a) trafficking of persons fleeing conflict, addressing the situation of trafficking of persons internally displaced by conflict and that of refugees and asylum seekers fleeing conflict; (b) trafficking during conflict, which investigates trafficking in persons, including boys, girls and migrants, for military service and for purposes of sexual and labour exploitation; and (c) trafficking in post-conflict situations, including trafficking involving peacekeepers.

Lastly, the report offers recommendations to address trafficking in conflict and post-conflict situations in collaboration with States, the United Nations, civil society and the international community in relation to: (a) trafficking of persons in conflict areas or trafficking of persons fleeing conflict; (b) protecting children from trafficking; (c) strengthening responses to address trafficking of women and girls for purposes of sexual exploitation in conflict and post-conflict situations; (d) prevention of trafficking in persons for labour exploitation in conflict and post-conflict areas; and (e) anti-trafficking activities in peacekeeping operations.

World: Rapport de la Rapporteuse spéciale sur la traite des êtres humains, en particulier les femmes et les enfants (A/71/303)

0
0
Source: UN General Assembly
Country: Afghanistan, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Serbia, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, World

Soixante et onzième session
Point 69 b) de l’ordre du jour provisoire*
Promotion et protection des droits de l’homme : questions relatives aux droits de l’homme, y compris les divers moyens de mieux assurer l’exercice effectif des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales

Résumé

Dans son rapport de 2015 au Conseil des droits de l’homme (A/HRC/29/38), la Rapporteuse spéciale du Conseil sur la traite des êtres humains, en particulier des femmes et des enfants, a identifié le lien entre la traite des êtres humains et les conflits comme étant un thème qui entrait dans le cadre de son mandat et qu’elle comptait étudier plus avant.

Le présent rapport, qui fait suite à celui que la Rapporteuse spéciale a soumis à la vingt-sixième session du Conseil des droits de l’homme (A/HRC/32/41), s’emploie à sensibiliser l’opinion internationale aux formes et à la nature de la traite dans les situations complexes que sont les conflits. La première partie replace le problème de la traite d’êtres humains dans son contexte et le présente comme un aspect de plus en plus fréquent des conflits modernes.

La deuxième partie traite essentiellement des formes les plus courantes de la traite en situation de conflit, qui sont abordées sous les trois angles suivants : a) la traite des personnes qui fuient des conflits, notamment la situation des personnes déplacées par un conflit ainsi que des réfugiés et des demandeurs d’asile fuyant un conflit; b) la traite durant un conflit, notamment celle d’êtres humains dont des garçons, des filles et des migrants, à des fins d’enrôlement dans les rangs de forces armées, d’exploitation sexuelle et d’exploitation par le travail; et c) la traite dans les situations d’après conflit, notamment celle qui met en jeu des soldats de la paix.

Le rapport énonce en conclusion une série de recommandations tendant à ce que l’on lutte contre la traite en situation de conflit et d’après conflit, dans le cadre d’une collaboration entre les États, l’Organisation des Nations Unies, la société civile et la communauté internationale, et en particulier à ce que l’on : a) s’attaque à la traite des personnes présentes dans les zones de conflits ou qui fuient un conflit; b) protège les enfants contre la traite d’êtres humains; c) renforce les moyens de lutter contre la traite des femmes et des filles à des fins d’exploitation sexuelle, pendant et après un conflit; d) prévienne la traite d’êtres humains à des fins d’exploitation par le travail dans les régions touchées par un conflit ou qui s’en relèvent; et e) intègre les activités menées en vue de lutter contre la traite dans les opérations de maintien de la paix.

World: Informe de la Relatora Especial sobre la trata de personas, especialmente mujeres y niños (A/71/303)

0
0
Source: UN General Assembly
Country: Afghanistan, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Serbia, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, World

Septuagésimo primer período de sesiones
Tema 69 b) del programa provisional*
Promoción y protección de los derechos humanos: Cuestiones de derechos humanos, incluidos otros medios de mejorar el goce efectivo de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales

Resumen

En su informe de 2015 presentado al Consejo de Derechos Humanos (A/HRC/29/38), la Relatora Especial del Consejo de Derechos Humanos sobre la trata de personas, especialmente mujeres y niños, indicó que la relación entre la trata de personas y los conflictos era una de las esferas incluidas en su mandato en la que tenía intenciones de centrarse y llevar adelante más investigaciones.

Como seguimiento del informe presentado al Consejo de Derechos Humanos en su 26° período de sesiones (A/HRC/32/41), en el presente informe se promueve la conciencia de la comunidad internacional acerca de las formas y la naturaleza de la trata en relación con la compleja situación de conflicto. En la primera sección se presentan los antecedentes contextuales, y se describe la trata de personas como una característica cada vez más frecuente de los conflictos modernos.

En la segunda sección se centra la atención en la perspectiva contextual, y se analizan las formas más comunes de la trata en los conflictos, considerando tres perspectivas: a) la trata de personas que huyen de conflictos, en particular la manera de hacer frente a la situación de trata de los desplazados internos a causa de los conflictos y la de los refugiados y solicitantes de asilo que huyen de ellos; b) la trata durante los conflictos, donde se investiga la trata de personas, incluidos los niños, las niñas y los migrantes, para su enrolamiento en el servicio militar y con fines de explotación sexual y laboral; y c) la trata en situaciones posteriores a conflictos, en particular la trata de personas relacionada con el personal de mantenimiento de la paz.

Por último, en el informe se formulan recomendaciones para hacer frente a la trata en situaciones de conflicto y posteriores a conflictos, en colaboración con los Estados, las Naciones Unidas, la sociedad civil y la comunidad internacional en relación con: a) la trata de personas en zonas de conflicto, o la trata de person as que huyen de conflictos; b) la protección de los niños contra la trata; c) el fortalecimiento de las medidas de respuesta orientadas a hacer frente a la trata de mujeres y niñas con fines de explotación sexual en situaciones de conflicto y posteriores a conflictos; d) la prevención de la trata de personas con fines de explotación laboral en zonas donde hay o ha habido conflictos; y e) las actividades de lucha contra la trata en las operaciones de mantenimiento de la paz.

World: Worldwide attack on rights: over three billion people living in countries where civic freedoms are violated

0
0
Source: CIVICUS
Country: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Honduras, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Lao People's Democratic Republic (the), Libya, Mexico, Myanmar, occupied Palestinian territory, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, World, Yemen, Zimbabwe

  • Global impact laid bare by the CIVICUS Monitor, a new online research tool that rates civic space around the world and documents violations of rights

  • Governments shutting down civic space and shutting up dissenting voices

    Johannesburg, 24 October 2016 – More than three billion people live in countries where the rights to protest, organize and speak out are currently being violated according to the CIVICUS Monitor, the first-ever online tool to track and compare civic freedoms on a global scale.

The new tool, launched in beta today by the global civil society alliance CIVICUS, rates countries based on how well they uphold the three fundamental rights that enable people to act collectively and make change: freedom of association, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of expression.

Of the 104 countries currently rated, it finds that civic space in 16 countries - Bahrain, Burundi, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, UAE and Vietnam - is closed, a rating characterised by an atmosphere of fear and violence, and severe punishment for those who dare to disagree with authorities. A further 32 countries are rated repressed, meaning that 3.2 billion people live in countries where civic space is either repressed or closed.

Twenty-one countries are rated obstructed and 26 narrowed. Just nine countries were rated as open, meaning the state safeguards space for civil society and provides platforms for dialogue. There were violations of civic freedoms in every region of the world, but these are more concentrated in Africa, the Middle East and the Americas - Annex I below provides full country ratings.

“The CIVICUS Monitor shows that far from valuing citizen action, states are cracking down on protesters, shutting down organisations on the flimsiest of pretexts, and brutally silencing dissent,” said Dr Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah, Secretary-General of CIVICUS. “Governments should not fear people power, they should be harnessing its potential.”

“Time and time again, civil society is at the forefront of the response to the world’s most pressing problems: the refugee crisis, climate change, corruption. A truly free and vibrant civil society is our best response to exclusion and intolerance – if the assault on civic freedoms continues at this pace, we cannot hope to achieve the brighter future for all imagined by the Sustainable Development Goals,” said Sriskandarajah.

The CIVICUS Monitor also documents attacks on civil society with updates every weekday. Analysis of more than 200 updates to the CIVICUS Monitor over the past four months has found:

  • Detention of activists (68 cases), use of excessive force against protesters (62 cases) and attacks on journalists (37 cases) were the three most common violations of civic freedoms

  • Activists were most likely to be detained over criticism of authorities (37%), human rights monitoring (29%) or political divisions or conflict (16%)

  • Excessive force was most likely to be used against protesters who criticise government decisions or corruption (29%), call for action on human rights abuses (20%) or call for basic social or economic freedoms (20%)

  • Journalists were most likely to be attacked covering protests (26%) or conflicts (19%), or because of their ethnicity, religious or political affiliation (14%)

  • In the vast majority of cases, the state is the perpetrator of violations

“Attacks on those who speak out against their leaders are becoming increasingly brazen – and it’s because governments know they can act with impunity,” said lead researcher Cathal Gilbert. “By collating these attacks, we hope the CIVICUS Monitor will serve as a wake-up call to the international community. We are inspired by the innovative ways that local civil society is resisting this assault, but it is imperative that global leaders do not stand by silently as their allies and trade partners crush domestic dissent.”

Ratings are based on a combination of inputs from local civil society activists, regional civil society experts and research partners, existing assessments by national and international civil society organisations, user-generated input and media-monitoring. Local views are prioritised. At launch the CIVICUS Monitor will offers ratings of civic space in 104 countries and updates for most countries in the world. The number of countries rated will increase over time, with ratings for all countries available in 2017.

Unique amongst global measures of freedom, democracy and governance, the CIVICUS Monitor will be updated each weekday, and users are invited to contribute in order to improve accuracy.

CIVICUS hopes the CIVICUS Monitor will be an invaluable tool allowing activists, journalists, civil society organisations, academic institutions and the general public to assess how well their governments are enabling civic freedoms, as enshrined in national constitutions and guaranteed in international law, as well as through intergovernmental commitments such as the Sustainable Development Goals, Open Government Partnership and the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation.


Annex I – CIVICUS Monitor ratings, October 2016

Closed (16 countries): Bahrain, Burundi, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, UAE and Vietnam

Repressed (32 countries): Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Cambodia, Cameroon, CAR, Chad, China, Colombia, Djibouti, DRC, Egypt, Gambia, Honduras, Iraq, Mexico, Myanmar, Pakistan, Palestine, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Swaziland, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe

Obstructed (21 countries): Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Malaysia, Moldova, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Ukraine

Narrowed (26 countries): Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, El Salvador, France, Georgia, Japan, Poland, South Africa, Spain, United Kingdom, Uruguay, USA

Open (9 countries): Andorra, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden

Regional breakdown

Closed countries: Africa 7, Middle East 5, Asia 3, Americas 1

Repressed countries: Africa 14, Middle East 3, Asia 7, Americas 4, Europe 4

Obstructed countries: Africa 4, Middle East 1, Asia 7, Americas 5, Europe 4

Narrowed countries: Africa 4, Americas 10, Asia 2, Europe 10

Open countries: Europe 9

World: Attaques sur les droits dans le monde entier : plus de trois milliards de personnes vivent dans des pays où les libertés civiques sont violées

0
0
Source: CIVICUS
Country: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Honduras, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Lao People's Democratic Republic (the), Libya, Mexico, Myanmar, occupied Palestinian territory, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, World, Yemen, Zimbabwe

  • L’impact mondial est exposé au grand jour par le CIVICUS Monitor, un nouvel outil de recherche en ligne notant l'espace civique dans le monde et documentant les violations des droits.

  • Les gouvernements referment l'espace civique et font taire les voix dissidentes

Johannesburg, le 24 octobre 2016 - Plus de trois milliards de personnes vivent dans des pays où les droits de manifestation, d'organisation et d'expression sont actuellement violés selon le CIVICUS Monitor, le premier outil en ligne qui suit et compare les libertés civiques à l’échelle mondiale.

Le nouvel outil, lancé aujourd'hui en version bêta par CIVICUS, l'alliance mondiale de la société civile, note les pays selon le respect qu'ils accordent aux trois droits fondamentaux permettant aux citoyens d'agir collectivement et d'initier un changement : la liberté d'association, la liberté de réunion pacifique et la liberté d'expression.

Sur les 104 pays actuellement notés, il révèle que l'espace civique dans 16 pays - au Bahrein, au Burundi, à Cuba, en Guinée équatoriale, en Érythrée, en Éthiopie, en Iran, au Laos, en Libye, en Corée du Nord, en Arabie saoudite, au Soudan du Sud, au Soudan, en Syrie, aux EAU et au Vietnam - est fermé, une classification qui se caractérise par une atmosphère marquée par la peur et la violence, et des punitions sévères pour tous ceux qui osent exprimer leur désaccord avec les autorités. 32 pays supplémentaires voient leur espace civique classé comme réprimé, ce qui signifie que 3,2 milliards de personnes vivent dans des pays où l'espace civique est soit réprimé, soit fermé.

Vingt-et-un pays voient leur espace civique classé comme obstrué et 26 comme réduit. Seulement neuf pays sont classés comme disposant d'un espace civique ouvert, ce qui signifie que l'État protège l'espace dédié à la société civile et fournit des plateformes de dialogue. Des violations des libertés civiques ont été relevées dans chaque région du monde, mais celles-ci sont davantage concentrées en Afrique, au Moyen-Orient et aux Amériques - l'Annexe 1 ci-dessous fournit le classement complet par pays.

"Le CIVICUS Monitor montre que, loin d'accorder de la valeur à l'action citoyenne, les États répriment les manifestants, obligent les organisations à fermer pour les prétextes les plus fallacieux, et passant brutalement sous silence les voix contestataires", a déclaré Dr. Dr Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah, Secrétaire Général de CIVICUS. "Les gouvernements ne devraient pas craindre la puissance des citoyens, ils devraient au contraire en exploiter le potentiel".

"À maintes reprises, la société civile se retrouve en première ligne de la réponse aux problèmes les plus pressants de la planète : la crise des réfugiés, le changement climatique, la corruption. Une société civile véritablement libre et dynamique est notre meilleure réponse à l'exclusion et à l'intolérance - si les attaques sur les libertés civiques se poursuivent à ce rythme, nous ne pouvons espérer atteindre l'avenir meilleur pour tous imaginé par les Objectifs de développement durable", a affirmé Sriskandarajah.

Le CIVICUS Monitor documente également les attaques sur la société civile en fournissant des informations à jour chaque jour ouvré. L'analyse de plus de 200 mises à jour pour le CIVICUS Monitor au cours des quatre derniers mois a révélé ce qui suit :

  • La détention d'activistes (68 cas), le recours à la force excessive contre des manifestants (62 cas) et les attaques contre des journalistes (37 cas) ont représenté les violations des libertés civiques les plus fréquentes.

  • Les activistes ont été le plus souvent détenus pour avoir critiqué les autorités (37 %), contrôlé le respect des droits de l'homme (29 %) ou pour des raisons de divisions ou de conflits politiques (16 %)

  • Une force excessive a été le plus souvent exercée contre des manifestants critiquant les décisions ou la corruption du gouvernement (29 %), pour des appels à l'action contre les violations des droits humains (20 %) ou pour avoir lancé un appel en faveur des libertés sociales ou économiques fondamentales (20 %)

  • Les journalistes ont été le plus souvent attaqués lorsqu'ils couvraient des manifestations (26 %) ou des conflits (19 %) ou en raison de leur appartenance ethnique, religieuse ou pour des raisons d'affiliation politique (14 %)

  • Dans la grande majorité des cas, l'État est l'auteur des violations

"Les attaques contre ceux qui s'expriment contre leurs dirigeants sont de plus en plus éhontées - et c'est parce que les gouvernements savent qu'ils peuvent agir en toute impunité", affirme Cathal Gilbert, chercheur principal pour le CIVICUS Monitor. "En rassemblant ces attaques, nous espérons que le CIVICUS Monitor permettra d'éveiller la conscience de la communauté internationale. Nous trouvons notre inspiration dans les moyens innovants adoptés par la société civile locale pour résister à ces attaques, mais il est urgent que les dirigeants de la planète cessent d’assister silencieusement à l'écrasement du mécontentement national par leurs alliés et partenaires commerciaux.

Les notes attribuées se fondent sur une combinaison de contributions émanant d'activistes de la société civile locale, de partenaires de recherche au niveau régional et de spécialistes de la société civile, d'évaluations existantes par des organisations de la société civile nationales et internationales, de contributions apportées par les utilisateurs et d'un suivi effectué par les médias. Les points de vue locaux se voient accorder la priorité. Lors de son lancement, le CIVICUS Monitor proposera un classement de l'espace civique dans 104 pays et des informations à jour pour la plupart des pays de la planète. Le nombre de pays évalués augmentera au fil du temps, tous les pays devant être classés en 2017.

Le CIVICUS Monitor, une plateforme unique parmi les mesures prises au niveau mondial en faveur de la liberté, de la démocratie et de la gouvernance, sera mis à jour quotidiennement, et les utilisateurs sont invités à y contribuer afin d'en améliorer la précision.

CIVICUS espère que le CIVICUS Monitor sera un outil précieux permettant aux activistes, aux journalistes, aux organisations de la société civile, aux institutions académiques et au grand public d'évaluer dans quelle mesure leurs gouvernements favorisent les libertés civiques, tel que cela est inscrit dans les constitutions nationales et garanti par le droit international, ainsi que par le biais des engagements intergouvernementaux tels que les Objectifs de développement durable, le Partenariat pour un gouvernement transparent et le Partenariat de Busan pour une coopération efficace au développement.

**** Annexe I - Classement du CIVICUS Monitor, octobre 2016

Fermé (16 pays) : Bahreïn, Burundi, Cuba, Guinée équatoriale, Érythrée, Éthiopie, Iran, Laos, Libye,
Corée du Nord, Arabie saoudite, Soudan du Sud, Soudan, Syrie, EAU et Vietnam

Réprimé (32 pays) : Afghanistan, Algérie, Angola, Azerbaïdjan, Bangladesh, Biélorussie, Cambodge,
Cameroun, RCA, Tchad, Chine, Colombie, Djibouti, RDC, Égypte, Gambie, Honduras, Irak, Mexique,
Myanmar, Pakistan, Palestine, République du Congo, Russie, Rwanda, Swaziland, Thaïlande, Turquie,
Ouganda, Venezuela, Yémen, Zimbabwe

Obstrué (21 pays) : Arménie, Bhoutan, Brésil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Équateur, Hongrie, Inde, Indonésie, Israël, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Malaisie, Moldavie, Nicaragua,
Nigeria, Paraguay, Pérou, Philippines, Ukraine

Rétréci (26 pays) : Albanie, Antigua-et-Barbuda, Argentine, Australie, Autriche, Belize, Bénin, Bolivie,
Bosnie Herzégovine, Botswana, Bulgarie, Canada, Chili, Comores, Costa Rica, Croatie, Salvador,
France, Géorgie, Japon, Pologne, Afrique du Sud, Espagne, Royaume Uni, Uruguay, É.U.

Ouvert (9 pays) : Andorre, Belgique, Chypre, Danemark, Finlande, Allemagne, Pays-Bas, Norvège,
Suède

Décomposition régionale

Pays fermés : Afrique 7, Moyen-Orient 5, Asie 3, Amériques 1

Pays réprimés : Afrique 14, Moyen-Orient 3, Asie 7, Amériques 4, Europe 4

Pays obstrués : Afrique 4, Moyen-Orient 1, Asie 7, Amériques 5, Europe 4

Pays en rétrécissement : Afrique 4, Amériques 10, Asie 2, Europe 10

Pays ouverts : Europe 9

World: Ataques contra los derechos en todo el mundo: más de tres mil millones de personas viven en países donde se violan las libertades civiles

0
0
Source: CIVICUS
Country: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Honduras, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Lao People's Democratic Republic (the), Libya, Mexico, Myanmar, occupied Palestinian territory, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, World, Yemen, Zimbabwe

  • El CIVICUS Monitor, una nueva herramienta de investigación online que califica el espacio cívico y documenta las violaciones a los derechos en todo el mundo, pone de manifiesto un impacto global.

  • Los gobiernos restringen el espacio cívico y callan las voces disidentes

Johannesburgo, 24 de octubre de 2016 – Más de tres mil millones de personas viven en países en los que los derechos a la protesta, a organizarse y a expresarles son actualmente violados, según lo comprueba el CIVICUS Monitor, la primera herramienta online en su género para monitorear y comparar las libertades civiles a escala global.

La nueva herramienta, cuya versión beta fue lanzada hoy por la alianza mundial CIVICUS, califica a los países con base en el respeto a los tres derechos fundamentales que permiten a la ciudadanía reunirse y demandar cambios: el derecho de asociación, el derecho a la reunión pacífica y el derecho de expresión.

De los 104 países que han sido calificados, se ha encontrado que el espacio cívico en 16 países – Arabia Saudita, Bahréin, Burundi, Corea del Norte, Cuba, Guinea Ecuatorial, Emiratos Árabes, Eritrea,
Etiopía, Irán, Laos, Libia, Sudán del Sur, Sudán, Siria, y Vietnam– está cerrado, una calificación caracterizada por una atmósfera de miedo y violencia, y castigo severo para quienes se atreven a estar en desacuerdo con las autoridades. En otros 32 países, el espacio cívico está clasificado como represivo, lo que significa que más de 3 mil millones de personas viven en países donde el espacio cívico está cerrado o es represivo.

El espacio cívico en veintiún países recibe la calificación de obstruido y 26 como reducido. Solamente nueve países tienen según el Monitor un espacio cívico calificado como abierto, lo que quiere decir que el Estado otorga garantías para la sociedad civil y proporciona plataformas para el diálogo.
Existieron violaciones a las libertades civiles en todas las regiones del mundo, pero se presentan más concentradas en África, Oriente Medio y las Américas – El anexo I proporciona las clasificaciones de todos los países.

“EL CIVICUS Monitor muestra que, lejos de valorar la acción ciudadana, los estados están tomando medidas enérgicas contra manifestantes, están cerrando organizaciones con pretextos muy débiles, y están brutalmente silenciando a las personas disidentes," dijo el Dr. Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah,
Secretario General de CIVICUS. "Los gobiernos no deben temer el poder de la gente, sino que deben aprovechar su potencial".

"Una y otra vez, la sociedad civil está a la vanguardia de la respuesta a los problemas más acuciantes del mundo: la crisis de personas refugiadas, el cambio climático, la corrupción. Una sociedad civil verdaderamente libre y vibrante es nuestra mejor respuesta a la exclusión y la intolerancia - si el ataque a las libertades civiles continúa a este ritmo, no podemos esperar alcanzar el mejor futuro para todas las personas que se plantean los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible ", dijo Sriskandarajah.

El CIVICUS Monitor también documenta ataques a la sociedad civil con actualizaciones cada día de la semana. El análisis de las más de 200 actualizaciones recibidas en el CIVICUS Monitor los últimos cuatro meses muestran que:

  • La detención de activistas (68 casos), el uso excesivo de la fuerza contra manifestantes (62 casos) y ataques a periodistas (37 casos) fueron las tres violaciones más frecuentas a las libertades civiles.

  • Las personas activistas tuvieron altas probabilidades de ser detenidas debido a sus críticas a las autoridades (37%), por su defensa de los derechos humanos (29%) o por divisiones políticas o conflictos (16%)

  • El uso de la fuerza excesiva fue una probabilidad alta contra manifestantes que criticaron decisiones gubernamentales o corrupción (29%), que llamaron a la acción por violaciones contra los derechos humanos (20%) o que hicieron un llamado por las libertades sociales y económicas básicas (20%)

  • Las y los periodistas estuvieron altamente expuestos a ser atacados mientras cubrían protestas (26%) o conflictos (19%), o por a su origen étnico, religión o afiliación política (14%)

  • En la gran mayoría de los casos, el Estado es el autor de las distintas violaciones.

"Los ataques contra quienes hablan en contra de sus líderes son cada vez más desvergonzados, y esto sucede porque los gobiernos saben que pueden actuar con impunidad", dijo el investigador principal, Cathal Gilbert. "Al procesar y cotejar estos ataques, esperamos que el CIVICUS Monitor va a servir como una llamada de atención para la comunidad internacional. Nos hemos inspirado en las formas innovadoras con que la sociedad civil local resiste a estos ataques, pero es imperativo que los líderes mundiales no se mantengan en silencio cuando sus aliados y socios comerciales aplasten la disidencia interna".

Las puntuaciones se basan en una combinación de aportes proporcionados por activistas y defensores locales de la sociedad civil, aliados de investigación en las distintas regiones y personas expertas de la sociedad civil, evaluaciones existentes, insumos generados por los usuarios y monitoreo de medios de comunicación. Se priorizan las opiniones locales. Al momento del lanzamiento, el CIVICUS Monitor ofrece calificaciones sobre el espacio cívico en 104 países y actualizaciones de la mayoría de los países del mundo. El número de países calificados por el CIVICUS Monitor irá aumentando sucesivamente, para cubrir todos los países del mundo en 2017.

De carácter único entre las evaluaciones globales sobre libertad, democracia y gobernabilidad, el CIVICUS Monitor se actualizará todos los días de la semana, y los usuarios están invitados a contribuir con el fin de mejorar su calidad y precisión.

CIVICUS espera que el CIVICUS Monitor se convierta en una valiosa herramienta que permita a activistas, periodistas, organizaciones de la sociedad civil, instituciones académicas y el público en general evaluar si sus gobiernos están permitiendo las libertades civiles, consagradas en las constituciones nacionales y garantizadas en el derecho internacional y a través de compromisos intergubernamentales tales como los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible, la Alianza para el Gobierno Abierto y la Alianza de Busán para la Cooperación Eficaz al Desarrollo.

**** Anexo I – Calificaciones del espacio cívico según el CIVICUS Monitor, octubre de 2016

Cerrado (16 países): Arabia Saudita, Bahréin, Burundi, Corea del Norte, Cuba, Emiratos Árabes Unidos, Eritrea, Etiopía, Guinea Ecuatorial, Irán, Laos, Libia, Sudán del Sur, Sudán, Siria y Vietnam.

Represivo (32 países): Afganistán, Argelia, Angola, Azerbaiyán, Bangladesh, Belarús, Camboya,
Camerún, Chad, China, Colombia, Djibouti, Egipto, Gambia, Honduras, Irak, México, Myanmar,
Pakistán, Palestina, República Centroafricana, República del Congo, República Democrática del Congo, Rusia, Ruanda, Suazilandia, Tailandia, Turquía, Uganda, Venezuela, Yemen y Zimbabue.

Obstruido (21 países): Armenia, Bután, Brasil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Costa de Marfil,
Ecuador, Filipinas, Hungría, India, Indonesia, Israel, Kazajstán, Kenia, Malasia, Moldavia, Nicaragua,
Nigeria, Paraguay, Perú y Ucrania.

Reducido (26 países): Albania, Antigua y Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belice, Benín,
Bolivia, Bosnia y Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canadá, Chile, Comoras, Costa Rica, Croacia, El Salvador, España, Estados Unidos, Francia, Georgia, Japón, Polonia, Reino Unido, Sudáfrica y Uruguay.

Abierto (9 países): Alemania, Andorra, Bélgica, Chipre, Dinamarca, Finlandia, Noruega, Países Bajos y Suecia.

Distribución regional

Países con espacio cívico cerrado: África 7, Medio Oriente 5, Asia 3, Las Américas 1

Países con espacio cívico represivo: África 14, Medio Oriente 3, Asia 7, Las Américas 4, Europa 4

Países con espacio cívico obstruido: África 4, Medio Oriente 1, Asia 7, Las Américas 5, Europa 4

Países con espacio cívico reducido: África 4, Las Américas 10, Asia 2, Europa 10

Países con espacio cívico abierto: Europa 9


World: CrisisWatch October 2016

0
0
Source: International Crisis Group
Country: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, occupied Palestinian territory, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Western Sahara, World, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Global Overview OCTOBER 2016

October saw Venezuela’s tense political standoff at new heights amid economic stress and popular unrest, and Haiti’s weak political and security equilibrium struck by a major natural disaster and humanitarian crisis. In Africa, violence worsened in the Central African Republic (CAR), north-eastern Kenya, Mozambique and western Niger, while in Ethiopia the government hardened its response to continued protests. In Myanmar, unprecedented attacks on police in the north triggered deadly clashes and displacement threatening to exacerbate intercommunal tensions across the country, while Russia’s North Caucasus saw an increase in conflict-related casualties, detentions and counter-terrorism operations. In the Middle East, the election of Michel Aoun as president of Lebanon signals a long-awaited breakthrough ending two years of political deadlock.

Australia: Immigration Detention and Community Statistics Summary - 31 July 2016

0
0
Source: Government of Australia
Country: Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, China, Christmas Island (Australia), India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Viet Nam

Immigration Detention And Community Statistics Summary

At 31 July 2016, there were 1588 people in immigration detention facilities, including 1346 in immigration detention on the mainland and 242 in immigration detention on Christmas Island.

A further 627 people were living in the community after being approved for a residence determination and 27,801 were living in the community after grant of a Bridging Visa E.

Australia: Immigration Detention and Community Statistics Summary - 30 September 2016

0
0
Source: Government of Australia
Country: Afghanistan, Australia, China, Christmas Island (Australia), India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Viet Nam

Immigration Detention And Community Statistics Summary

At 30 September 2016, there were 1454 people in immigration detention facilities, including 1203 in immigration detention on the mainland and 251 in immigration detention on Christmas Island.

A further 608 people were living in the community after being approved for a residence determination and 26,842 were living in the community after grant of a Bridging Visa E.

World: Internal Displacement Update, 20 October - 2 November 2016

0
0
Source: Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre
Country: Afghanistan, China, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Italy, Mozambique, Pakistan, Philippines, Somalia, Syrian Arab Republic, World

This update presents key internal displacement developments and policy updates from 20 October to 2 November 2016.

Australia: Immigration Detention and Community Statistics Summary - 31 October 2016

0
0
Source: Government of Australia
Country: Afghanistan, Australia, China, Christmas Island (Australia), India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Viet Nam

Immigration Detention And Community Statistics Summary

At 31 October 2016, there were 1403 people in immigration detention facilities, including 1150 in immigration detention on the mainland and 253 in immigration detention on Christmas Island.

A further 557 people were living in the community after being approved for a residence determination and 26,642 were living in the community after grant of a Bridging Visa E.

Viewing all 321 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images