WAIT, WHAT?

German project helps refugees find work in Mexico

Many people flee South and Central America to get to the US, but some are forced to stay in Mexico. A German woman has set up an organization to help them find work.

    

Hannah Töpler founded Intrare to help refugees find jobs

Leydis Mirelis Delgado, a 41-year-old Venezuelan mother of two, is particularly grateful to one German woman, Hannah Töpler, for having been able to settle in Mexico. She is also pleased that she happened to be in the right place last year when she found out that there was an organization called Intrare that might help her find work.

She had run a cyber-café in the Venezuelan city of Maracay for many years and knew about people and business, so she had the right profile for a Mexican company that was looking for customer services personnel.

She became the first Venezuelan woman to be employed by the firm and now earns enough money for herself and her children. She can also send something to her family back in Venezuela each month.

'Light at the end of the tunnel'

"Hannah Töpler and the Intrare team helped me so much," she told DW. "They were the light at the end of the tunnel." 

Intrare is short for "Incubadora de trabajo para Refugiados y Retornados" (incubator for refugees and returnees). Töpler, who needed weeks to figure out Mexico's laws and regulations before setting up Intrare, came up with the name over breakfast with friends. "Many of them thought that I was completely crazy spending so many nights and weekends building up Intrare," she said. "They thought I was a super nerd and a workaholic."

She had done a Master's in political science in London before finding a job in Mexico with the non-profit group Oxfam. Mexico is a transit country for hundreds of people who set off daily for El Norte, northern America. But many fail to get across the border. Even if they do, it's not easy to remain in the US. In March alone, the US authorities arrested 171,000 refugees and sent them back to Mexico.

"There is far too much concentration on refugees integrating," Töpler told DW. "Hardly anybody is asking how society can be actively supported to be more open, to develop acceptance," said Töpler. "So, I said to myself, I want to at least try to solve this."

Leydis Delgado says she feels "one third Mexican already"

Right now, Intrare is still a small organization that connects refugees with potential employers but Töpler has ambitious plans. In two years, the organization has already helped almost 50 people to find jobs. "It's a win-win solution," said Töpler. "While many people think that refugees are taking jobs away from the locals and are criminals, more and more companies want to work with us." 

German dual system

The project works according to a dual system set up to help refugees integrate in Germany. Special education and vocational programs prepare them for the workplace, with priority being given to teamwork, communication, problem-solving skills and personal development.

Intrare has also set up a system of mentors for the refugees. Otherwise, the organization, which receives support from GIZ, the German Agency for International Cooperation, and the International Organization for Migration, works as a mediator, forwarding the refugees' job applications to companies.

Particpants who trained with Intrare in Mexico

Melina Cruz, who fulfilled a dream when she set up her own company, did not hesitate when she was approached by Intrare. Her cleaning firm Homely has just turned five and she is particularly pleased about this because two out of three Mexican firms go out of business before making it this far.

"With us it doesn't matter how old you are, what gender you are or whether you're a refugee. What's important is that our staff members are able to become financially independent. And it makes sense to work with a start-up like Intrare because they have a social focus just like we do."

More Mexican companies joining

Homely pays its workforce more than the normal rate and provides health insurance. The company now operates in five cities, providing cleaning staff to private individuals and businesses, and employs over 800 people, including two refugees who got the job via Intrare.

Melina Cruz's Homely company is one of a growing number of Mexican firms joining Intrare

Cruz hopes that other company heads will follow her example and give jobs to refugees. "It's very strange that we Mexicans, who are subject to discrimination in other countries, are not accepting refugees, who just like us are looking for a better life for themselves and their families."

Such thoughts reassure Töpler that she's doing the right thing. "When refugees tell me that they've been given a contract and feel part of a team, it's a special moment. They've lived through so much and it's very important for me to know that they have a feeling of having made it at last."

Intrare is currently working on a digital and automated platform, which will connect refugees and companies even faster. It will work with matching algorithms, like a dating platform.

And Töpler is dreaming big: "I don't want to work with dozens of refugees and companies per year but with thousands. And to really help make Mexico a more open society."

'The future sucks': why the work you love won’t love you back

Capitalism is making life worse for workers yet demanding more dedication than ever. Sarah Jaffe argues that there’s another way to live

Natalia Savelyeva
30 April 2021,

OPEN DEMOCRACY HOME PAGE

OURECONOMY: INTERVIEW

Sarah Jaffe’s book encourages us to wake up from our capitalist trance |

Twenty years into the 21st century, most people in the west want to have a job that they love. And, vice versa, we expect that this love – our inspiration, devotion and care – will provide us with deep fulfillment, even satisfaction with who we are as individuals and how we lead our lives.

Yet very often the opposite happens: the “love what you do” principle supports the exploitation and devaluation of labour, as well as cutting back on social protection and welfare guarantees. You can love your work, but as US labour journalist Sarah Jaffe reminds us in her new book, it won’t love you back.

In Work Won’t Love You Back: How Devotion to Our Jobs Keeps Us Exploited, Exhausted and Alone, Jaffe draws on her deep experience reporting on workplace organising in the US to explore why love is not a necessary component of our jobs, how the whole idea of the “labour of love” brought us to the edge of global crises, and how we can change it for the better – by fighting for our rights as workers, and changing how our societies are organised socially, politically and economically.

What led you to problematise the way that some people love their jobs in your book, ‘Work Won’t Love You Back’?

I had crappy job experiences in all sorts of ways. In my first book, ‘Necessary Trouble: Americans in Revolt’, I wrote about workers – teachers, fast food workers – who were taking action at last. These stories often circled around care work and service work. And so I found myself thinking: “What is it about this idea that we should care about our job? Where did that actually come from?” In teaching and caring work, the expectation that you would care about that job is very clear – and it makes sense in a certain way. Whereas the idea that you would care very much about being a computer programmer might seem a little more strange. It became something that everybody takes for granted.

I recently read an article from 1981 about workaholics, and how this was a new problem. It’s about how everybody would just assume it is normal being a workaholic, loving your job, being there at all hours, being unhappy when you’re not at work. In 1981, this was so weird that people were calling it akin to being an alcoholic. And now we just expect everybody to be a workaholic. This is a thing that has a historical trajectory, it’s a story of change, and one that has an affect on millions of people’s experiences of their lives.

You start each chapter of ‘Work Won’t Love You Back’ with a story of a particular person who faces difficulties at the workplace, and then you go into the historical and social context of those occupations and show how we came to be where we are now. But the end of each of your stories is about empowerment. Why did you structure your chapters in this way?

Partly this is what I do as a journalist, it’s my beat: I cover labour struggles. But I also knew that people were going to ask: now that I am suggesting that loving your job is bad, what are we going to do about it? And the answer is embedded in the narrative of the book. Here’s what Anne-Marie [a worker at Toys R Us] did after she gave a place 30 years and then suddenly it was closing down and no one was getting any severance pay, and she was getting absolutely nothing. She went online, and got involved in this organic organising. It is really hard to be an organised worker in a workplace that’s closing. You can strike to get the place closed, but not to keep it open. So these workers at Toys R Us had to figure out: where can we have power? And how can we do anything about this?

There are a variety of things you can do, but they are all going to require collaborating, throwing up your hands and deciding to quit and get another job. And that’s what the labour of love discourse encourages us to do: to believe that if you have a problem at your workplace, the problem is you. You either should try harder to love it or you should just get another job that’s maybe a better fit. It’s like dating, right? Oh well, I went on a date with this person, it didn’t work out, so I’m gonna go find somebody that fits better. But it’s a workplace, it’s a little different.

I wanted to make sure that each chapter brings it back to what people are doing collectively, to point out that this isn’t an individual problem, and therefore doesn’t have an individual solution.

How did it happen that some people who initially couldn’t imagine themselves taking part in political action changed their mind later and got involved?

It depends. Some of these people had grown up in families of activists and they knew they would be activists too, whereas others had never thought of themselves in this way. Everybody gets there in a different way.

‘Necessary Trouble’ is about social movements in the US after the financial crisis – people who showed civil disobedience and got arrested, people who took part in confrontations that they never maybe thought they would have. It gets to a point when people take a risk, and once they’ve done it and realise that they can do it, it’s this huge confidence boost that changes you for life.

I don’t want to say that it’s always magical and good, but it is fascinating to see people who say: “Wow, this really changed the way I see the world”, after taking a risk.

Is “love what you do” more of an innovation, or has “love” always been present in work? Or maybe there’s something in between?

There are certain spheres of work – like women’s unpaid work and art – which for a long time we have assumed would be done out of love, passion and care. Teaching, and other jobs, were also considered outside of “real work”. And the fact that those jobs were not considered work means that the work ethic is not constructed around these kinds of work. In the US, this is one of the reasons why entire fields of work are just left out of labour protections, because they’re not really considered work. And that what happens as deindustrialisation kicks in.

‘Why Work Won’t Love You Back’ is mostly written and reported in the US, Canada and western Europe. As the factories are going away, shrinking, outsourced, the care and service sector rises in response. This is a shift from an economy focused on men’s manufacturing labour, which we had conceived of as work with all the good and the bad it entails, to care work, which should be made of love and not for money, because it’s not really work.

The same thing is happening with creative work. Instead of journalism, for instance, being considered a public service – that is, every town has a newspaper, and local journalists are going to be from that town, and they’re going to report on it, and they’re going to write about national politics through the lens of their local paper – it’s now people like me working in magazines, which are essentially luxury products.

The conditions in the industry have changed appropriately. This is what broadly I think happened. The changes in the work ethic come from changes in the shape of capitalism. Happiness at work starts to be a sort of necessary thing we should believe in. All of this is just pasting a happy mask on neoliberal capitalism, which is just getting shittier for most people actually.

As it’s getting worse, the pressure to like it increases. It is broadly agreed, for example, that Amazon is a terrible place to work, both for white collar and blue collar workers. There’s none of the Google and Facebook stuff that tries to make work fun and exciting. Amazon is just straight up: “It sucks to work here and you should like it anyway.” I hope it is the end, the zenith of the labour of love that Amazon is saying: “We are going to make you piss in bottles and like it.” This is the S&M version of the labour of love.

Is ‘loving what you do’ a privilege then? At least you do something that you like and that interests you.

In comparison with somebody who is working in a garment factory in Bangladesh that might collapse on you at any moment, it is pretty damn good, absolutely. I don’t want to go back to waiting tables, which I did for eight years before I became a journalist. And I don’t want to go work in an Amazon factory or an Amazon warehouse either. Nor would I want to go work in Amazon’s white collar offices, because those sound like hell.

The point is to get people to think about work in a way that doesn’t require us to love it. If we predicate our analysis of improving work on getting people into jobs they love, there is always going to be work that sucks, but which still needs to be done.

What are the things we could do to make work better? No matter what you’re doing, no matter whether you love it or not, there are things that people need and want that broadly make work happier: more autonomy, the ability to chat with the person next to you while you’re on the assembly line or while you’re picking up things in Amazon, and not get yelled at for it. Any of these things we can think of without needing to resort to, like, “Oh well, just get a job you like better”, because Amazon owns half the world, so just telling everybody to quit is not going to solve the problem.

We can set goals for work that aren’t based on making people love it, but are based on giving people fundamental rights and dignity and the ability to say “no”. The ‘love your job’ concept obscures the fact that work is not inherently lovable and people don’t work in order to find excitement and passion. People work because we’ve got to, and we usually try to find the least miserable way to do it, but that’s not always possible. So how do we make it less miserable for everyone?

We are not going to solve that problem by feeling bad because we have privilege. We solve that by taking solidarity seriously and understanding the ways that we are all exploited in their specificity, but also in the broad, general sense of creating value for capital – and maybe we should stop.

But there still will be jobs we love and jobs we don’t love.

There is a tension, a dialectic that we have to struggle with. We could imagine a world where the crappy work is distributed. What if instead of my job being to clean toilets every day my job is to clean toilets once a month and everybody has a toilet cleaning shift once a month? Rather than some subset of people just being sentenced to life doing crappy work we can actually divide it so that everybody gets a chance to do the crappy work – because everybody should. And then other work, some of which no longer needs to be work.


Right now we live in a world that’s designed to create value for capital. What if we didn’t?


Part of the challenge is that everything has been captured by a ‘job’. If you want to write a novel, you have to find a way to make it pay or find some other way to make a living and do it on the side. I’m obsessed with the community art centres from the New Deal period [during the 1930s Great Depression in the US]. They were in every neighbourhood, and that meant everybody could make art. You didn’t have to be Jackson Pollock and get paid for it in order for it to be accessible to everybody.

Instead of the art world being a thing where a handful of very lucky people get to make a living at it, and a handful of other people get to do really crappy, exploited jobs, but are still creative in some way, and then millions of other people are just locked out of it entirely, what if we distribute that differently too so you can have access to it and it doesn’t need to be your job?

Right now we live in a world that’s designed to create value for capital. What if we didn’t? What if we lived in a world that was designed to actually make people happy?

Here we are coming back to this is a global question: how can we change it?

That’s the challenge. It can definitely get worse, but the fact that it will change is not really up for debate. So the question that we have to contest is, in what direction should it change and for who? And that’s where talking about international solidarity matters. That’s where talking about all of these different types of work, and the way that people are in contact with each other around them, matters.

The main characters in your book are all women, except one man, a programmer. Why is your book predominantly about women?

I didn’t really do it on purpose – although at some point, I just decided to commit to it. The gender character of all of this labour is bullshit. There are plenty of men who are perfectly capable of doing caring labour. And there are plenty of women in programming, although not as many as we would like. What I’m talking about is a change in the workplace that has largely happened as women went into paid work, so in that sense it is a story about women.

All the people in your book were told at some point: ‘What you do is not a real job, so why do you want it to be paid? Why do you want your rights to be protected?’ I’m wondering how this devaluation connects to ‘loving what you do’ and the gendered nature of the jobs you describe.

This devaluation is the characteristic of women’s work, right? It’s this tautology: we are women because we care and we care because we are women. Women’s jobs are paid less because they are women’s jobs. When large numbers of women move into a sector, its wages go down; when large numbers of men move into a field, wages go up. Even in fields like nursing where it’s still 90% women, male nurses get paid more. The devaluation goes way back to the designation of women as the people who would be doing jobs in the home that we aren’t going to call “work”. But it is work, and should be valued as such – and not treated as though it’s just some natural thing that comes very easily to women, because it doesn’t.

How do you see the future of labour of love?

Hopefully we can destroy it. I feel like this book came out at the right time. Over the last year, workers in the non-profit, journalism, art and museum sectors, have been organising like crazy. So in a lot of these different places where we see this narrative about loving work deployed really intensely, there’s more and more pushback from workers. I think that it is reaching a point where it’s become clear to people that work sucks, that it continues to suck, even if you get your supposed dream job. And that it’s not going to get better by quitting one job and going to the next – it has to get better on the broader, political level.

Even before COVID-19, work was getting worse. In the last year we have seen massive long-term unemployment rise in the US – and when there are more people out of work, your boss can always tell you, “Well, if you don’t like it, you can stick it and we’ll hire somebody else”. Work is going to keep getting worse until we stop letting it get worse.

The future is coming closer and closer.

My friend has a series of tweets where he just posts “the future sucks” with some article about technology. I feel that a lot these days. All of these things that we were promised, they’re not here – or if they’re here, they suck. We’re probably still doomed, but maybe things will get better?

Miners out, COVID out: Brazil’s Yanomami fight back


The Yanomami people in the Brazilian Amazon have been fighting the plague of extractivism for decades. Then the coronavirus pandemic hit

Maurício Ye’kwana
30 April 2021

Yanomami paint themselves to face illegal miners |
Maurício Ye'kuana


It is 1975. A devastating epidemic has hit the state of Roraima, in northern Brazil. It is the plague of extractivism. The first garimpeiros, small scale miners in search of gold or precious stones in the Amazon, have arrived. About 500 of them begin to climb the Serra dos Surucucus uplands. In 1980, another 2,000 enter the territory of the Yanomami indigenous people via the Uraricuera River. The epidemic rages and the garimpeiros bring other ills, not least unheard diseases like measles and malaria, which wiped out many Yanomami.

They found lots and lots of gold on our land during those years. By the time we realized what was happening, 150 airplanes were flying daily into Yanomami territory from Boa Vista to transport miners back and forth. It is a measure of the number of gold miners headed for our home that Boa Vista airport became one of the busiest in Brazil.

In 1987, Romero Jucá, president of the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI), a government agency, arrived in Yanomami territory. Jucá signed an agreement with an Indigenous member of another group, not a Yanomani, that allowed miners in and the moment – in which he affirms that it is necessary to bring progress to the Indigenous peoples to “maintain the family” – was recorded on video. But the wishes expressed by Jucá and the Indigenous person from another ethnic group, who came from far away to tell us he was our representative, were not the same as ours. They were not the same and never will be.

A gold rush ensued between 1987 and 1990. Miners flooded in; the air traffic increased even more. The famous garimpeiro statue in the center of Boa Vista, capital of Roraima state, is a symbol of the importance of mining in the Amazonian economy. For us, a miner should never symbolize the state when we have real natural wealth here, such as Mount Roraima.

More than a fifth of the Yanomami people died from the diseases brought to their villages by the miners in the late 1980s. According to some estimates, for every 10,000 to 15,000 Yanomami, there were roughly 40,000 miners on our land.
Garimpos out, COVID out

Davi Kopenawa, our most forceful leader so far, has led the opposition to the mining. He left his village to talk to the authorities, denouncing the influx of miners and the perilous situation of the Yanomami, who were dying. The government's response was that it lacked the resources to help.

With help from a non-governmental organization, Kopenawa held protests at the United Nations (UN) and Brazilian embassies around the world. A letter from the Yanomami people, with more than 150,000 signatures, was delivered to the UN. It asked for our Indigenous territory to be demarcated as a protected area.

A UN campaign followed. Today, there are more than 400,000 signatures on the ‘Fora Garimpo, Fora Covid’ (Illegal miners out, COVID out) petition. We want non-Indigenous people to recognize the importance of our struggle for survival.

Monday 25 May 1992 marks an important chapter in the history of our struggle for our land. On that day, the Yanomami Indigenous Territory was demarcated by Brazil’s then president, Fernando Collor. Until then, our land had been reduced to 19 ‘islands’, while the rest was government-run parks and forests, where miners could free rein.

But the following year was marked by the Haximu massacre, which we consider the beginning of the genocide of the Yanomami people. The miners hired 17 Yanomami to do the heavy lifting for a few days. All but one were shot dead. The survivor was shot in the leg but managed to escape. It is thanks to him that we know the story today.

1993 was marked by the Haximu massacre, which we consider the beginning of the genocide of the Yanomami people

The Yanomami found the miners' camp abandoned and the bodies of their people. The international support we received at the time and the reaction to the massacre put pressure on the federal police to investigate mining in the Yanomami Indigenous territory. Fast forward to 2020. The first case of COVID-19 in the Yanomami territory occurred because of the miners. The miners have not stopped exploiting the deposits of gold, tin and diamonds, even during the pandemic, thanks to easy access by the river to the state’s Waikas region.

A young member of the Ye'kwana Indigenous community, which lives near the Yanomami, contracted coronavirus in the mining region and transmitted it to his people. That is how COVID-19 began to spread in our territory.
Sanöma Babies

We also face a new tragic problem: newborn babies are dying among the Sanöma, a subgroup of the Yanomami people in the Auaris region. When the women were taken to Boa Vista, the capital, with pneumonia, their babies reportedly became infected with coronavirus in hospital, died and their bodies literally disappeared.

What happened with the Sanöma babies shows the indignity to which Indigenous peoples are subjected. The lack of respect for the death of our people, on the part of the authorities, reflects how we are treated while alive.

The victims say it is a form of genocide. One of the newborns reportedly died from complications unrelated to COVID-19, but the medical report points to acute pneumonia, one of the main symptoms of the disease.

Another victim of the coronavirus epidemic was Davi Kopenawa himself. As a child, Kopenawa had already seen his people die from two infectious diseases brought by non-Indigenous people and illegal miners: influenza in 1959 and measles in 1967.

We are counting on international mobilization of support from both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people

Kopenawa was one of those who brought about the 1992 demarcation of the Yanomami Indigenous territory and in 1988 he received the United Nations Global 500 environmental award. In 2010, his book, ‘The Falling Sky’ (“A Queda do Céu”) which he wrote with the French anthropologist Bruce Albert, was published in France. The shamanic manifesto, which denounces the destruction of the forest and its people, has autobiographical elements. It was published in Brazil in 2015.
The fight against mining liberalization

Today, almost 60% of the Yanomami territory is affected by legal requirements from miners, in both Roraima and Amazonas states. In February 2020, Brazil’s president Jair Bolsonaro asked the Brazilian legislature to liberalize mining on Indigenous lands. The governor of Roraima state supports this. The Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil, which represents all Indigenous peoples in the country, has spoken out against it.

Some Indigenous leaders, mostly of different ethnic groups, declare themselves in favor of mining. They include some Yanomami, who claim to be leaders but barely speak Portuguese. One of them, who went to Brasilia to meet with President Bolsonaro’s administration, told me that he did not even know what he was going to say and that the other Indigenous people had forced him to express support for mining. He apologized to the Yanomami when he came back to our territory.

The Yanomami face threats now and in the future from local businessmen, politicians, and because the FUNAI has been weakened. Some of the Yanomami themselves are being co-opted.

We are counting on international mobilization of support from both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. Three decades ago, we achieved an enormous win by securing the demarcation of our indigenous land. It gives me hope for the Fora Garimpo, Fora Covid campaign.

We want our struggle for life to be recognized by the world. We want non-Indigenous people to know and recognize Indigenous peoples for who we are. Our aim is to defend our home, our territory; our mother, the earth. And no one sells his own mother.

Boris Johnson's government has been accused of 'Trump-like' tactics in withdrawing aid funding for vulnerable womengirls

 | 

PAImages / Alamy S

UK accused of ‘Trump tactics’ after ‘devastating’ £131m cut to family planning aid

Millions of the world’s poorest women and girls will ‘pay the price’ of the UK government reneging on its commitments, say aid workers

Kerry Cullinan

30 April 2021,

The UK government has been accused of “using tactics reminiscent of the Trump era” after cutting millions in aid for family planning.

Boris Johnson’s government is set to slash its commitment to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) by 85% – from an expected contribution of £154m to just £23m – in an enormous blow for women and girls in the poorest countries where health services have already been decimated by COVID-19.

News of the cuts, which were announced earlier this week, has left aid leaders seething. “By breaking its manifesto commitments with tactics reminiscent of the Trump era, the UK government will undo years of progress and investment,” Alvaro Bermejo, the director general of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

The IPPF said the loss of funding represents “one of the most significant funding losses for IPPF since 2017 when former US President Donald Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule”, a policy that blocked US federal funding for non-governmental organisations providing abortion advice, counselling or referrals.

The IPPF, the UNPFA’s lead partner in providing family planning services, is set to lose out on £72m ($100m) as a result of the UK’s actions. Bermejo added this was “just another example of the UK government stepping back when it is needed most”.

Without additional funding, IPPF says it will be forced to close services in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Zambia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Côte D'Ivoire, Cameroon, Uganda, Mozambique, Nepal and Lebanon, while services in an additional nine countries are under threat.

Will force many girls out of school and contribute to rises in unintended pregnancies, maternal deaths and unsafe abortions

An internal memorandum sent to UNFPA staff, which openDemocracy has seen, says that no staff cuts are expected yet – but insiders say this will be hard to avoid.

However, agency partners contracted to deliver services will be less fortunate. IPPF will have to cut at least 480 staff over the next 90 days.

Manuelle Hurwitz, IPPF’s director of programme delivery and capacity, warned that “millions of the world's most vulnerable women and girls in some of the poorest and most marginalized communities will pay the price” for the UK government’s decision.

“The fallout will force many girls out of school before they are even 16 and further contribute to an increase in unintended pregnancies, a rise in maternal deaths and an increase in unsafe abortions,” said Hurwitz.

The UK’s contribution would have prevented “around 250,000 maternal and child deaths, 14.6 million unintended pregnancies and 4.3 million unsafe abortions,” according to UNFPA director Natalia Kanem.

Kanem described the UK’s “retreat from agreed commitments” as “devastating for women and girls and their families across the world”.

Related story

UK government accused of ‘grotesque betrayal’ as full foreign aid cuts revealed

06-03-2021 | Peter Geoghegan

Exclusive: Leaks reveal plans to slash aid to world’s poorest countries. Bob Geldof brands move ‘shameful’ while Tory MPs call for Commons vote

Unnecessary deaths

Rose Caldwell, CEO of Plan International UK, the global children’s charity described the decision as “shameful”, and would “result in the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands more women and girls during pregnancy and childbirth”.

“For decades, the UK has fought for the fundamental rights of women and girls to have control over their own bodies, and now is not the time to renege on our commitments,” said Caldwell.

“COVID-19 is fuelling a hidden pandemic of gender-based violence and we are likely to see a steep rise in early and unwanted pregnancies. This is already a leading cause of death for adolescent girls around the world, as well as one of the main reasons why girls drop out of school early.”

Urging the UK government to “come to its senses and reinstate funding for these vital services”, Caldwell added that “this is not the ‘Global Britain’ we want the world to see”.

Just because there is a global pandemic, women's needs don't suddenly stop

Another programme set to lose out is WISH (Women's Integrated Sexual Health), which delivers life-saving contraception and sexual and reproductive health services for women and girls in some of the world's poorest and most marginalized communities.

Since its launch in October 2018, WISH has prevented an estimated 11.7 million unintended pregnancies, 4.3 million unsafe abortions and 34,000 maternal deaths, according to IPPF.

Luka Nkhoma, WISH programme project director in Zambia, said she is “scared for the futures” of the girls and women in the country who will no longer have access to contraception. By the age of 19, almost 60% of Zambian girls have fallen pregnant – mostly because of lack of health services in rural communities.

"When WISH came along, we helped expand much-needed contraception and sexual health services in [rural] areas, including services for youth with integrated HIV support, treatment for sexually transmitted infections and cervical cancer screening,” said Nkhoma.

"For many women, it was their first time using contraception and the first time they've ever had complete control over their bodies and fertility. WISH also helps girls stay in school to finish their education, giving them control over their futures.”

When WISH closes, the community outreach in rural areas will end and the only way women will get contraception is by making long, costly trips to clinics.

“I don't know what these women and girls will do. Just because there is a global pandemic, women's needs don't suddenly stop, and if they can't access safe services, an unsafe abortion might be the only option," said Nkhoma.

The UK is reportedly also cutting its contribution to UNAIDS, the UN’s HIV/AIDS programme by 80%, from £15m to £2.5m this year.

“These cuts couldn’t have come at a worse time for the HIV pandemic. AIDS remains the number one killer of women of reproductive age and 1.7 million people acquired HIV in 2019,” said STOPAIDS, a UK network of agencies working to end HIV globally.

A Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office spokesperson told openDemocracy: “The seismic impact of the pandemic on the UK economy has forced us to take tough but necessary decisions, including temporarily reducing the overall amount we spend on aid.

“We will still spend more than £10bn this year to fight poverty, tackle climate change and improve global health. We are working with suppliers and partners on what this means for individual programmes.”

UK
Don’t let Johnson muddy the water – the lobbying scandal is about contracts, not unions

It is bizarre that we are talking about further regulation of unions and charities in response to a scandal about Conservative Party sleaze

Antonia Bance
30 April 2021

Boris Johnson is looking to deflect attention away from Tory Party sleaze |
PA Images / Alamy Stock Photo

The past few weeks have seen a cascade of revelations about cash for influence and corporate lobbying within the UK government. It’s clear that the rules aren’t fit for purpose.

The union movement supports transparency and safeguards to ensure corporates can’t buy influence and government contracts are awarded fairly.

That’s why we at the Trades Union Congress (TUC) think that big corporates should have to declare their in-house lobbying and influencing operations in an expanded lobbying register – not just their use of third-party lobbyists, as at present. And alongside that, the targets of lobbying – ministers, special advisers, senior civil servants, and the leaders of regulators and other public bodies – must be required to disclose their contacts and meetings, in some detail and in a timely fashion. We also support calls for stiffer punishments for breaking the rules on the Freedom of Information Act.

Most importantly, though, we need much more transparency in the awarding of government contracts.

Just look at procurement of medical and protective equipment in the pandemic. Week after week, the evidence piles up of a ‘VIP fast lane for firms with links to the Conservative Party. Health secretary Matt Hancock oversaw contract awards to companies linked to his friends and family (and, indeed, himself). His department’s failure to publish details of contracts awarded was also ruled unlawful by the high court. The Public Accounts Committee found that leads given highest priority for PPE supply “were those from government officials, ministers’ offices, MPs and members of the House of Lords”.

There is no reason to include charities or unions in an expanded register of lobbyists. Both are already highly regulated

What this meant was that the government “wasted hundreds of millions of pounds on PPE which is of poor quality and cannot be used for the intended purpose”. The National Audit Office (NAO) found that “insufficient documentation on key decisions, or how risks such as perceived or actual conflicts of interest have been identified or managed”.

To ensure there is far greater transparency in government procurement, ministers should publish all contacts and links they have with firms awarded government contracts.
Contract secrecy could be about to get worse, not better

The NAO points out that there is too little information in the public domain to conduct an effective analysis of the performance of, and rewards for, major contractors delivering publicly funded services. Neither the Cabinet Office nor the Treasury have reliable or complete data on contracts let in Whitehall. Nor is there consolidated data for the NHS, local government or the devolved administrations.

In 2019, in the wake of the collapse of construction and outsourcing giant Carillion, the TUC called on the government to produce a Domesday Book of government contracting – a public sector-wide record of contracts awarded, performance and company data.

Related story

How Cameron’s vow to clean up lobbying turned into a loophole-ridden sham
15-04-2021 | Tamasin Cave

Previous parliamentary inquiries into lobbying have gone ignored. It’s hard to imagine Johnson’s will be any different

But far from increasing transparency, the government is now proposing to expand the scope for the use of informal tendering. Plans set out in its Transforming Public Procurement green paper would give new powers to the cabinet secretary to declare crisis conditions that would allow greater use of ‘direct awards’ – contracts let without competition. They would also exempt contracts from automatic suspension even if they were being legally challenged. Such plans would formalise the short-cuts we saw in the pandemic, and make it even easier for minsters to award contracts to their friends.

This scandal started with David Cameron, a former Conservative prime minister, attempting to influence senior Conservative ministers on behalf of now defunct finance firm Greensill Capital. We must keep the focus on corporate lobbying and the award of contracts.
Unions and charities are a predictable distraction

Some MPs will want, for their own reasons, to divert attention from Tory sleaze. They will seek to draw on the conduct of charities and unions in influencing policymaking. It’s a predictable distraction, and one we should be prepared for. Johnson himself pulled this trick, responding to a recent question from Labour MP Matt Western about Tory sleaze and “big donor bungs” by claiming it is Labour which is soft on lobbyists “because of its relationship with the trade unions”.

There is no reason to include charities or unions in an expanded register of lobbyists. Both charities and unions are already highly regulated.

Charities must not have political purposes, must be party-politically neutral, and may only campaign in tightly circumscribed circumstances in the pursuit of their charitable objectives.

Unions are some of the most regulated organisations in the UK – and have been subjected to even more onerous transparency requirements recently, in the 2014 and 2016 Trade Union Acts. Unions have to make detailed disclosures of our membership, financial affairs, industrial action and political activity. If we want to spend money on political activities, unions must create a separate opt-in political fund. Every ten years this fund must be re-authorised in a ballot of all members. And every year unions have to report and publish detailed information about how they spent their political fund to the Certification Officer.

We support transparency in lobbying. But it is bizarre that we are talking about further regulation of unions and charities in response to a former Conservative prime minister lobbying his Conservative successors on behalf of his current employer.

We should instead seize this moment to find out who ministers and special advisors are meeting, make departments comply with freedom of information laws, and clean up the awarding of government contracts

German climate law is partly
unconstitutional, top court rules

Germany will have to improve its emissions targets from 2031 following a complaint by a coalition of climate activists, including Fridays for Future.


The Friday for Future movement supported the plaintiffs

Germany's Constitutional Court ruled Thursday that the country's 2019 climate protection act is in part unconstitutional.

"The regulations irreversibly postpone high emission reduction burdens until periods after 2030," the court said.

It added that the law does not explain in enough detail how greenhouse gas emissions are to be reduced after 2031.

The judges gave the legislature until the end of next year to draw up clearer reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions for the period after 2030.
What is the case about?

The complaint was filed by a group of nine mostly young people. They are supported by several environmental associations, including Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND) and Fridays for Future.

Watch video 02:31 The social dimension of climate change

They have criticized the law, saying it does not go far enough to sufficiently reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit climate change.

They argue that because the law will not limit climate change, it violates their fundamental right to a humane future.

The court has now obligated the legislature to find a balance between freedom for all and burdens faced by some.

"Older people, at least those who are concerned about the well-being of their children and children's children, should rejoice over this ruling," Protestant theologian and former chair of the German Ethics Council, Peter Dabrock, told DW.

"The verdict sends a very strong signal," he added, and quoted the philosopher Immanuel Kant: "The freedom of the individual ends where the freedom of others begins." That principle is now getting a cross-generational perspective, he said.

"As a constitutional court ruling, this is as surprising as it is overdue," the ethics expert emphasized.

What else did the court say?

"The challenged provisions do violate the freedoms of the complainants, some of whom are still very young," the court said in a statement.

"Virtually every freedom is potentially affected by these future emission reduction obligations because almost all areas of human life are still associated with the emission of greenhouse gases and are thus threatened by drastic restrictions after 2030," the statement said.

GERMANY'S GROWING CLIMATE MOVEMENT DEMANDING ACTION
Striking for the future
"Why study, if our future is being destroyed?" This sign features a sentiment shared by increasing numbers of German students, who have joined young people worldwide in using Friday school strikes to call for action on climate change. The movement was inspired by 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, who began her protests alone in front of the Swedish parliament in August 2018.PHOTOS 12345678

An 'epochal' ruling

German Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy Peter Altmaier responded to the ruling, saying it was both "big and meaningful." He added it was "epochal" for climate protection and the rights of young people as well as ensuring planning security for the economy.

He added that he was "pleased" that the court had implemented what he called the "most important" requirement of his 2020 climate initiative that ensures the reduction targets up to 2050 are "broken down into concrete reduction targets for each individual year between 2022 and 2050."

German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said he and Environment Minister Svenja Schulze, who are both from the Social Democrats, the junior coalition partner in the federal government, had "resolved to very quickly prepare a draft bill to advise the federal government."

He said the aim is to amend the Climate Protection Act so that it complies with the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court. He added that he expects the bill to receive the approval of the entire federal government.

"Action really needs to be taken now, and I'm ready to do that," Scholz said.

He accused Altmaier, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union, of "talking about big climate goals but then putting on the breaks instead of taking any real action."

Climate activists celebrate the ruling

"It's an incomprehensibly big day for many people," said Luisa Neubauer from Germany's Fridays for Futures, who was part of the group that filed the complaint.

In a tweet, she added: "This is huge. Climate protection isn't nice-to-have, climate protection is a fundamental right."

Legal representative Felix Ekardt, said the court ruling had delivered the German government a "slap in the face," while lawyer Remo Klinger called it a milestone.

Plaintiff Sophie Backsen said, "We are super happy and relieved." Effective climate protection must be implemented now and not in 10 years when it is too late, she said.

Annalena Baerbock, confirmed by the Green Party as their candidate in the race to succeed Merkel as chancellor this year, called the decision "historic."
What is the climate protection law?

Germany's climate protection act was approved by the government in 2019.

Under the act, Germany is obliged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels.

It also sets out yearly upper limits for greenhouse gases across various sectors such as energy, transport, buildings and agriculture.

If these individual targets are missed, an obligation to make improvements takes effect.

Lithium mining project faces opposition in Portugal

Portugal is the largest producer of lithium in Europe. And it may one day be home to the largest mine on the Continent. But that’s only if the project known as Mina de Barroso goes ahead.

VIDEO 1:35  https://p.dw.com/p/3sZJf

#DEFUNDTHEMILITARY

Defense Department cancels all border wall contracts using funds intended for military missions

By Priscilla Alvarez, CNN 4/30/2021

The Defense Department is canceling all contracts for wall construction on the US-Mexico border that used funds originally intended for military missions and functions, the department announced Friday, a significant action after the Trump administration dipped into Pentagon funds to build additional border barriers.

© CNN

In one of his first actions in office, President Joe Biden ordered a pause on wall construction and called for a review of projects and funds. While that review is ongoing, the administration is taking steps to send back billions' worth of funds to the Pentagon, so that they can be used for their initial purpose.

"Consistent with the President's proclamation, the Department of Defense is proceeding with canceling all border barrier construction projects paid for with funds originally intended for other military missions and functions such as schools for military children, overseas military construction projects in partner nations, and the National Guard and Reserve equipment account," said Jamal Brown, deputy pentagon spokesman, in a statement.

"DoD has begun taking all necessary actions to cancel border barrier projects and to coordinate with interagency partners. Today's action reflects this Administration's continued commitment to defending our nation and supporting our service members and their families," Brown added.

Since 2019, more than 340 miles have been built in multiple locations along the border using Pentagon funds, according to US Customs and Border Protection.

The Department of Homeland Security also announced it will pick up some projects that had been ongoing and need to be addressed due to risks of flooding and soil erosion in Texas and California, saying in a statement: "As DHS continues to review the extensive problems created by the prior administration's border wall construction and develop its plans, the department will take the following initial steps consistent with the President's Proclamation to protect border communities."

An administration official said the projects will not involve expanding the border barrier.

Career officials at CBP were pushing the administration to finish some projects, particularly ones that involved the levee and others that were at risk of erosion, according to a Homeland Security official.

In 2019, then-President Donald Trump declared a national emergency that allowed his administration to dip into Pentagon funds for his signature border wall. The move received swift criticism from states, lawmakers and advocacy groups and became the subject of several lawsuits.

Those lawsuits have been put on hold since Biden came into office. Earlier this month, the Justice Department told the US District Court for the Northern District of California that the administration was still deciding on next steps for the US-Mexico border wall after the President called for a pause on construction.

AT&T shareholders vote against approving executive compensation

Reuters/Brendan McDermid FILE PHOTO: The company logo for Oracle Corp. is displayed on a screen on the floor at the NYSE in New York

(Reuters) -AT&T Inc shareholders on Friday voted against a measure to approve executive compensation, according to preliminary voting results from the company's annual meeting.

AT&T did not give a number for the opposing votes, but said preliminary results showed 49% were cast in favor of approving executive compensation.

The total compensation package for Jason Kilar, chief executive of AT&T's media unit WarnerMedia, was more than $52 million, more than double the $21 million for AT&T CEO John Stankey, according to the company's proxy statement.

"Given the dynamic markets in which we operate, the Board is laser-focused on attracting and retaining the talent necessary to deliver on our strategic objectives and create shareholder value,” William Kennard, chairman of AT&T’s board of directors, said in a statement following the annual meeting.

Kilar is a pioneer in the streaming video industry as the founding CEO of Hulu, now owned by Walt Disney Co.

He was recruited to take over AT&T's media properties last year to help turn it into a viable competitor to Netflix Inc, Amazon.com Inc, Disney and Comcast Corp's NBCUniversal in the global streaming video war.

In a statement following the annual meeting, AT&T said, "As we further engage with our owners on this important topic, the Board will carefully consider today’s advisory vote to ensure that our approach to compensation continues to reflect these principles.”

Historically shareholders have rarely voted against executive compensation but have done so more often recently as executive pay packages have ballooned.

In March, shareholders of Starbucks Corp voted against the executive pay plan in a non-binding resolution.

(Reporting by Sheila Dang; Editing by Richard Chang, Kenneth Li and Cynthia Osterman)

Exclusive: Credit Suisse investors call for tougher coal finance policy - letter

By Simon Jessop and Brenna Hughes Neghaiwi

© Reuters/Shannon Stapleton FILE PHOTO:

 A leaf sits on top of a pile of coal in Youngstown, Ohio

LONDON/ZURICH (Reuters) - Credit Suisse investors managing $2.5 trillion have called for the bank to take a tougher stance on coal financing, amid concern its current policies are too lax, a letter seen by Reuters showed.

The role of lenders in financing the activities of companies responsible for the major share of greenhouse gas emissions has increasingly been the focus of investors and policymakers, keen to accelerate climate action.

Thermal coal, used to generate electricity, has been a focal point as it is one of the heaviest-emitting fossil fuels and investors are eager to see it phased out. A similar investor group has already won a pledge to do so from HSBC and is urging Barclays to follow suit.

While backing Credit Suisse's pledge to align its financing with the Paris Agreement on climate and set science-based emissions-reduction targets within two years, the investors said they also wanted "firm" operational steps to curb coal lending.

Since shareholders cannot ask questions of the board at the company's virtual annual general meeting on Friday - which will be overshadowed by the bank's losses from investment fund Archegos - the investors, including one of Europe's biggest, Amundi, wrote to the board on Thursday laying out their demands.

Coordinated by responsible investment NGO ShareAction, the group also includes the Ethos Foundation, which advises 225 Swiss pension funds and public utility foundations and whose members hold between 3%-5% of the company's stock, as well as BMO Global Asset Management, Actiam and Folksam.

In the letter, the group said the expansion of the coal industry had "long been recognised as being incompatible with the goals of the Paris Agreement", which requires countries to get to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Citing research from the Rainforest Action Network showing Credit Suisse to be Europe's third-biggest funder of coal power and Europe's largest backer of coal mining between 2016 and 2020, the letter said the bank was lagging peers on the issue.

Last July, the bank said it would stop funding or underwriting companies with a coal share of revenue greater than 25%, unless they had a "credible" strategy to diversify away from thermal coal.

"However, the bank does not disclose what it considers to be a 'credible transition strategy away from thermal coal extraction or coal power', as opposed to some of its European peers," the letter said.

In its 2020 sustainability report, the bank said its new restrictions had already seen it turn down some business, adding it had further decided against deals above and beyond those policies, including a bond issuance for a large thermal coal mining and power generation company, on the basis of sustainability.

It said it had also developed sector-specific energy transition frameworks for clients active in a number of fields, including coal mining.

Despite that, the investors said they wanted the bank to set a firm date by which it will have phased out lending to coal companies, in line with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommendations to do so in OECD countries by 2030 and the rest of the world by 2040.

A spokeswoman for Credit Suisse said in response to a request for comment, “We are in continued close contact with ShareAction about our energy policy and climate strategy, appreciate their constructive engagement and their recognition of the significant progress we have made”.

For Credit Suisse clients currently involved in the sector or using coal in some way, the investors called on the bank to help them develop, publish and implement coal phase-out plans in line with the IPCC recommendations no later than December 2023.

Lastly, the group said Credit Suisse should curb its general corporate financing, underwriting and advisory services to companies developing new coal mines and coal-fired power plants.

(Reporting by Simon Jessop; additional reporting by Brenna Hughes Neghaiwi; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)