Women's Views on News |
| No small arms means less gender-based violence Posted: 02 Aug 2016 01:21 PM PDT
On 6 June, the international NGO and two-time Nobel Peace Prize winner, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), launched a report showing how effective implementation of arms control treaties can prevent gender-based violence (GBV). The detailed report, authored by Rebecca Gerome, was launched inside the UN Headquarters in New York, where hundreds of diplomats and States were gathered to discuss how to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons. This report is the first of its kind, linking risk assessment and implementation to the gendered impact of the legal and illicit trade in arms. Gender-based violence can constitute genocide, a crime against humanity, a war crime, a violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), or a violation of international human rights law. It can undermine peace and security and contribute to terrorism or organised crime. The report highlights some key facts that are critical to understanding the relationship between gender-based violence and the international arms trade and illicit trafficking in weapons: Gender-based violence can occur both in times of conflict and outside of conflict. There can be a pattern of GBV in the absence of other indicators of human rights violations. The absence of generalised violence does not mean that there is no risk of gender-based violence; Gender-based violence is often invisible. Patterns are difficult to establish. Even a few reports of gender-based violence can suggest that there are patterns and can be a cause of concern, especially if combined with government acquiescence; All weapons covered under the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons (UNPoA) can be used to facilitate or commit gender-based violence; All end users, including the army, the police, and state security services, can commit gender-based violence. The risk of this occurring must always be assessed, as must the risk of diversion; Gender-based violence is a cross-cutting issue: it is always a violation of international human rights, and, depending on the circumstances, can be a violation of international humanitarian law or constitute an act of terrorism, transnational organised crime, a war crime, a crime against humanity, or genocide. It is therefore covered under both Article 6 and Article 7 of the ATT; Gender-based violence goes hand in hand with a lack of gender equality. Indicators on gender equality, even if not explicitly linked to arms transfers, are therefore useful in assessing the risk of GBV, especially when information on GBV is not available; and ATT and UNPoA implementation go hand in hand. Both instruments apply to exporting and importing states. Exporting states must ensure that importing states are implementing the UNPoA and mainstreaming gender in arms control and disarmament and must also make the same efforts themselves. Different countries have different requirements for applications and end-use/r documentation, but most require some form of application to the government by a company in order for an arms deal to take place. It is at this stage that export officials must conduct a risk assessment process to determine the risk that the transfer would violate the ATT or UNPoA. Currently, no countries explicitly include gender-based violence in their required end-use/r documentation. Some countries or regional groups do include language on human rights more broadly, particularly when it comes to the export of small arms and light weapons. WILPF has, since its inception in 1915, been challenging militarism by encouraging states to invest in peace rather than arms, and this new report provides State officials with the relevant questions, resources and tools necessary to fulfil their obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty and UN Programme of Action. This report calls for an integrated approach to prevent gender-based violence with implementation of both the Arms Trade Treaty and the UN Programme of Action on small arms and light weapons forming part of the solution. A case study of Sweden, one of the world's 15 largest arms exporters, was also presented during the launch. In 2015, the Swedish Government declared it was developing a feminist foreign policy and in 2016, one focus is to combat gender-based and sexual violence against women and girls in conflict and post-conflict situations and impunity for such crimes. Yet, Mia Gandenberger, programme manager of Reaching Critical Will, WILPF’s disarmament programme, said: "There are many recent cases of arms exports that undermine Sweden's feminist foreign policy objectives and its national and international legal obligations specifically related to gender-based violence." And Ray Acheson, programme director of Reaching Critical Will, speaking after the launch, said: "All conventional weapons can – and have been – used to inflict violence on people based on discriminating norms and practices relating to their specific sex or gender role in society. "This gendered impact of arms transfers is often neglected when States discuss the arms trade." But in the end, it is up to licensing and export officials, as well as relevant government ministries, to make the call as to whether or not weapons will be transferred. These entities must include the prevention of gender based violence in their assessments in order to be in compliance with the ATT. This report aims to provide such officials with the relevant questions, resources, and tools necessary to fulfil their obligations. To download the report, click here.  |
| The cost of the effects of poverty Posted: 02 Aug 2016 01:08 PM PDT
Dealing with the effects of poverty costs the UK £78 billion a year, £1,200 for every person, new research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) has revealed. A new report, ‘Counting the cost of UK poverty’, produced by Heriot Watt and Loughborough universities, is the first research to illustrate how much poverty across all age groups costs the public purse. This report estimates the more tangible cost that poverty brings to society, specifically in the form of the cost to the public purse, and illustrates the magnitude of the cost of poverty in order to show the kinds of savings that a sustained reduction in poverty could bring. It found that £69 billion – £1 in every £5 of all spending on public services – is needed because of the impact and cost poverty has on people's lives. The total, £78 billion, also includes £9 billion in lost tax revenue and additional benefits spending resulting from dealing with the symptoms of poverty. It is equivalent to 4 per cent of the UK's GDP. The report shows how poverty impacts on different government departments and areas of public spending, including: Health care, which accounts for the largest chunk of the spending, with £29 billion every year spent treating health conditions associated with poverty. This is enough to pay the salaries of 126,000 nurses, and is almost equal to the £30 billion shortfall which the NHS has said will appear by 2020. The £29 billion makes up 25 per cent of all health spending; Schools spend an extra £10 billion every year coping with the impact of poverty through initiatives such as free school meals and the Pupil Premium. This is nearly 20 per cent of the total schools budget; Police and criminal justice account for £9 billion of the annual poverty cost, due to the higher incidence of crime in more deprived areas. This represents 35 per cent of all spending on police and criminal justice; Children's services, including children's social services and early years provision, such as free childcare for deprived two year olds, include £7.5 billion spending associated with poverty. The amount spent on poverty represents 40 per cent of the early years budget and 60 per cent of the children's social care budget; Adult social care is associated with £4.6 billion of the cost of poverty, 26 per cent of spending; Housing adds £4 billion to the annual public service cost of poverty, 37 per cent of spending on housing and communities. The report also considers the knock-on effect that experiencing poverty has on future costs to the public purse. For example, that experiencing poverty in childhood makes it more likely that a person will be out of work as an adult. The report estimates that this results in £13 billion in lost earnings each year, causing £4 billion of lost tax revenues and £2 billion extra benefit spending. The £78 billion also includes the cost of additional spending on some benefits, such as Pension Credits and Employment and Support Allowance, in more deprived constituencies. The total does not include the full cost of benefits aimed at preventing poverty or helping people to find a way out, such as Income Support, Working Tax Credits or Job Seeker's Allowance. It also does not include the amount that experiencing poverty in adulthood costs the public purse through reduced tax revenue. Julia Unwin, chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, said: "It is unacceptable that in the 21st century, so many people in our country are being held back by poverty. "But poverty doesn't just hold individuals back, it holds back our economy too. "Poverty wastes people's potential, depriving our society of the skills and talents of those who have valuable contributions to make. "This drags down the productivity of our economy, hinders economic growth, and reduces tax revenue. "Taking real action to tackle the causes of poverty would bring down the huge £78 billion yearly cost of dealing with its effects, and mean more money to create better public services and support the economy. "UK poverty is a problem that can be solved if government, businesses, employers and individuals work together. "If we fail to do so poverty will create an even bigger risk to our country today, and for future generations." Professor Donald Hirsch, from the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University and one of the report's authors, said: "It is hard even to estimate the full cost of poverty, not least its full scarring effect on those who experience it. "What our figures show is that there are very large, tangible effects on the public purse. "The experience of poverty, for example, makes it more likely that you'll suffer ill health or that you'll grow up with poor employment prospects and rely more on the state for your income. "The very large amounts we spend on the NHS and on benefits means that making a section of the population more likely to need them is extremely costly to the Treasury. In September, JRF will launch a comprehensive plan to Solve UK poverty. It will set out a comprehensive, long-term strategy showing what government, businesses and individuals can do to support families and communities, improve educational attainment and build skills, promote growth and boost incomes and ensure that everyone has the chance of a decent and secure life in a UK free from poverty. Solving poverty will not be quick or easy. But it is possible, starting with a vision, commitment and a clear plan. "The level of poverty in the UK is shameful," Julia Unwin said. "This should be a place where everyone can live a decent, secure life. “Instead, 13 million people – half of whom are in a working family – are living without enough to meet their needs."  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |