The dictator of Equatorial Guinea, Teodoro Obiang Nguema, is stepping up suppression of opposition, while social conditions in the tiny West African nation are worsening, an opposition leader told IPS on his visit to Spain. Because of the high levels of corruption, there is no spending on social programmes, including health. ”Even in Malabo, not to mention the hinterland, if someone has to be taken to a hospital for an emergency, the medicines must be purchased in a pharmacy,” said the opposition leader.

Businessman Schabir Shaik's payments to Deputy President Jacob Zuma were nothing less than bribery, and he used fabrications in the financial statements of the Nkobi group of companies to hide them, a former Nkobi employee told the Durban High Court this week. Former Nkobi financial manager Celia Bester took the stand, giving the first insider's view of the way the Nkobi group's finances were handled.

"We, members of civil society representing NGOs, Community Based Organisations, Women’s Organisations, Trade Unions, Youth Organisations, organisations of the disabled persons, faith based organisations, women’s organisations, church organisations, small scale farmers from different parts of Mozambique are gathered here in Beira during November 1-3, 2004 to better understand issues of economic justice and basic human rights.
Our understanding of economic justice is that it is based on the religious moral, and philosophical need for respect and promotion of basic economic, social, cultural and civic rights..."

Are you based in a social science research institute in Sub-Saharan Africa? Are you in charge of research communication at your institute? Do you have a success story to tell - or are you not sure where to start? GDNet is inviting applications from librarians, administrators, information officers, knowledge managers and researchers involved in disseminating research on behalf of institutes in sub-Saharan Africa to take part in a practical workshop building skills and sharing experiences of research communication in an African context.

Education, jobs and other social issues dominated campaigning for Tuesday’s presidential election in Niger, with little attention paid to the insecurity that had dogged parts of the country in the past and resurfaced this year. One of the few contenders to broach the issue of insecurity was the incumbent, President Mamadou Tandja, who promised as he launched his campaign on 23 October to tighten up surveillance along the western border, where cattle herders sometimes clashed with rustlers.

Following reports of sexual exploitation of host populations in several peacekeeping missions in Africa, the UN Mission in Burundi, known as ONUB, has established a Code of Conduct Unit and appointed a gender adviser to make sure this problem does not arise in Burundi. The code of conduct unit and the gender adviser are to help train and sensitise the mission's staff on the expected code of behaviour.

Sub-Saharan Africa will account for half of the world's poor by 2015 - up from 27% in 1999 despite bold economic recovery plans, a recently released study has estimated. The study, conducted by the independent South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR) concluded that sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) “will get significantly poorer during a time period that will see global poverty reduced by a third."

Eight months after the overthrow of Jean Bertrand Aristide and the occupation of Haiti by UN troops, the puppet regime of Gerard Latortue has shown its true colours. The mass media claim that gangs of Aristide supporters from the slums are attacking the Haitian police and UN forces in what the Latortue government claims is an operation on the part of these gangs called “Operation Baghdad”. In reality these “terrorists” are the poor and working class supporters of former president Aristide who are fighting back against mounting repression and reprisals from the coup-installed government.

New estimates of poverty show that the proportion of people living in poverty in South Africa has not changed significantly between 1996 and 2001. However, those households living in poverty have sunk deeper into poverty and the gap between rich and poor has widened. The Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) in collaboration with Mr Andrew Whiteford, a South African economist, has generated these estimates.

Isn't it time we stopped agonising over the American presidential election. Americans have spoken! Why is it so difficult to accept their choice of who they want to rule them?

To call one hundred and ten million people ignorant doesn't sound very clever to me. I cannot say much about President Bush being ignorant. I can say, and categorically too, that the guy has nothing more to prove of his acumen and shrewdness. This is the quality it takes to study Economics and Finance (hopefully I am right) at Harvard; enter into business and do well for himself financially; redeem himself from being an alcoholic, enter politics, become governor, presidential candidate and president for two terms. Going back into history I am reminded of a newspaperman who called Emerson ignorant, yet Emerson's footprints will never be wiped off the sand of time. To draw parallel lines between the American and African electoral systems is shocking. I honestly wish there was but sadly there isn’t.

Shall we turn our energies and intellectual discourse to organising ourselves for the myriad of problems confronting our beloved continent. That way our people and our world will be better served.

The average EU farmer receives 100 times more in agricultural support than the average annual earnings of an African peasant farmer and yet under European Commission trade proposals the two would be direct competitors.

This is according to a Cafod policy paper which says that the leadership and personal commitment of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to make Africa a focus of international attention in 2005 risks being "seriously undermined" by the inequitable bilateral free trade agreements currently being negotiated between the Europe Union and African countries. The European Union is asking African countries to liberalise 90% of their markets over 10 years. At the same time the EU is refusing to discuss its own highly protectionist Common Agricultural Policy.

"These agreements are pushing for levels and speeds of market opening that will seriously hurt the already pitifully fragile economies of sub-Saharan Africa. They also add to the burdens placed on sub-Saharan Africa’s economy by pitching heavily subsidised European agricultural products against those of the African farmer, already struggling for survival."

Cafod is calling on the UK government to lobby the EU to drop all offensive interests in trade negotiations and provide alternative non-reciprocal trade relationships that are not free trade areas.

There is a large contingent of US citizens, including myself, who think that John Kerry received a plurality of the popular votes in certain key states that determined the election, namely Ohio and Florida. We think that George Bush stole the election by manipulating the vote count in various ways. We also believe that this was done in the 2000 election in Florida (the state that had the decisive vote count), by his brother, Jeb, who was, and still is, governor of Florida. If it could happen in 2000, before George Bush and his team were in power, it would be an even easier task now, since the Bush team manipulates the strings of government at all levels. There is also evidence they may be manipulating state and local elections and that is why their majority is growing in elected offices throughout the nation.

If anyone internationally noticed, the early exit polls in key states were so favourable to Kerry that he started writing his acceptance speech the evening of the election. Then, when the vote counts came out, they were far from favourable. Experts who have successfully predicted every previous election from exit polls, say the whole business is highly suspicious.
Unfortunately, most Americans, as well as the US press, fall right in line, questioning nothing.

I used to be a political activist because I thought there was some hope in fighting for what you believe in. Now I do not know. If one’s vote no longer counts, then it seems a hopeless task to put time, money and energy into backing a candidate who will be defeated by illegal means.

I write this because I do not want people all over the world to think a majority of US citizens favour George Bush and his imperious, internationally destabilizing policies. I voted for Kerry and so did millions more. The stories of voter disenfranchisement are becoming legion since this administration arrived on the scene. I suppose that is what the next war here will be about - the war for truth and accountability.

The current face-offs between the Congress of South African Trade Unions and the African National Congress over Zimbabwe and the recent Telkom share deal are symptomatic of unresolved tensions over key policy issues in the tripartite alliance. Although the open war of words is nothing new in their 13-year formal relationship, it comes at a crucial time with the three partners ironically more agreed on economic policy than previously.

Nigerian Finance Minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala has launched an anti-corruption drive at the ministry three weeks after a global watchdog named her country the world's third most corrupt nation. "We are not trying to say corruption does not exist or defending it. We know it exists and we reject it," said Okonjo-Iweala, a former World Bank vice president, who launched the initiative in Abuja.

A referendum on the Central African Republic's (CAR’s) constitution will now be held on 5 December and not 28 November, as initially planned, an official told IRIN on Thursday. The postponement would give the Mixed Electoral Commission, known as CEMI, time to prepare for the vote, its chairman, Jean Wilibiro-Sacko, said.

* Editorial: Recognising another person as a human being ought to be enough to guarantee refugees their human rights
* Comment and Analysis: The lessons of imperial power are being learned again at “horrendous human and material cost”
* Letters: Readers beat around the Bush
* Conflicts and Emergencies: Arundhati Roy: The daily battle for survival means that peace for the majority of the world is actually a state of war
* Human Rights: Amnesty report asks if human rights are in the pipeline for Nigeria?
* Elections and Governance: Electoral Institute of Southern Africa briefing on Namibian elections
* Health: The case for a broad social movement for peoples health
* Environment: Critiquing green developmentalism – Is nature a world currency and are our ecosystems a resource for the biotech industry?
* Advocacy and Campaigns: Tackling the impact of 9/11 and Bush's wars on the Study of Africa. Add your name to a resolution.
* Books and Arts: The World Bank and Civil Society: Forward to the Past? Peter Bosshard from International Rivers Network reviews “The World’s Banker, A Story of Failed States, Financial Crises, and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations” by Sebastian Mallaby

>>>>> Are you PETITIONING? Nearly 2000 people have signed a petition urging African governments to ratify the Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa. Lesotho is the latest ratification, bringing the number to 5. Have you signed the petition? Visit http://www.pambazuka.org/petition

“You talk of refugees as though human rights did not exist which are broader and more important. Once an individual, a human being, becomes a refugee, it is as though he has become a member of another race, some other sub-human group (Rizvi 1984).”

Introduction

The lack of attention to the ways in which refugees’ rights are violated in host countries is astonishing if one considers that the protection of the rights of all people has been on the United Nations (UN) agenda since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and that refugees have formed an important part of the UN’s work since the Second World War. Refugees should enjoy the same human rights as any other people. However, refugees have traditionally been relegated to the category of ‘humanitarian’ problems, the human rights dimension of their plight being generally ignored.

In practice, to enjoy the most basic human security, it is not enough today for an asylum-seeker to be a human being. S/he must obtain the formal label “refugee” to enjoy even legal recognition as a person in most countries. Without this label, a person will find themselves in fear of the state rather than protected by a government. Living without documents, without UNHCR or government protection, places refugees at imminent risk of detention and refoulement. It leaves them vulnerable to exploitations large and small by their neighbors, landlords, and employers.

After ‘getting in’ to a country, the determination of refugee status is the most critical challenge that people in danger face when they seek protection. There is a growing tendency in Africa to put individual refugees through the process of individual status determination, rather than group-based recognition.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has said that ‘the importance of these procedures cannot be overemphasized… A wrong decision might cost the person’s life or liberty’. For UNHCR, fair refugee status determination (RSD) procedures are ‘essential’ for full application of the 1951 Convention’ The General Assembly has repeatedly referred to the need to establish ‘fair and efficient procedures’ in the asylum process (e.g. GA res. 51/75, 12 February 1997 and GA res. 50/152, 9 February 1996).

Being granted status is also the first step towards refugees taking an active part in governing their own lives and future. Determining their status is the responsibility of the state where they seek asylum. However, in over 60 countries – mainly in Africa, the Middle East and Asia - the local office of the UNHCR handles RSD, making it nearly the largest RSD decision-maker in the world. The fact that so many states have handed this responsibility over to UNHCR (more than half have ratified the 1951 Convention) is indicative of how little some governments have done to implement the Convention, shifting responsibility instead to the UN.

When UNHCR fills the gap, refugees and governments should be able to rely on UNHCR to perform such an essential role in keeping with the highest standards. When human rights groups raise alarm about a government’s refugee policies, they usually call for UNHCR to have more access. UNHCR has given progressive, legally sound advice to governments about RSD. UNHCR is responsible for supervising refugee law, and refugees ought to be able to trust that in UNHCR’s hands their rights will be respected. Yet, on RSD, UNHCR is saying one thing to governments, and doing something much worse.

UNHCR’s RSD procedures have been assessed independently by lawyers, scholars, and human rights organizations in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and East Africa. Their conclusions are the same: UNHCR’s RSD procedures lack the most basic safeguards of fairness, resulting in a high chance of mistakes in a field where there simply is no margin for error. There is an unacceptable risk that people in grave danger will be refused protection when they apply to UNHCR offices. Furthermore, by not following its own advice about RSD procedures, UNHCR sets a bad example for states. The system is broken and needs to be fixed.

What exactly is wrong with UNHCR’s Refugee Status Determination?

The essential problem with UNHCR conducting refugee status determination is that by assuming the role of decision-maker, it compromises its role as protector of refugees with that of being ‘judge and jury’ of their claims. These are contradictory roles and wherever UNHCR places itself in this situation, it loses the trust of refugees. Secondly, its RSD practices lack procedural safeguards and fairness. They are hence high risk for error, and can put people in danger of refoulement in fact if not refoulement in form.

Despite being absent from the text of the refugee conventions, UNHCR has issued fairly comprehensive specific procedural requirements for fair RSD. The earliest attempt conclusions of the Executive Committee of the UNHCR (EXCOM) – in particular conclusion 8 (XXVIII), 1977 – and the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (UNHCR 1992a), set out basic procedural requirements. State practice has also over the years fleshed out standards of procedural fairness that apply to refugee status determination, both through case-law and through statutes or administrative regulations (Verdirame and Harrell-Bond 2004). UNHCR has now issued more comprehensive advice to states about standards necessary for a fair and effective RSD procedure. In May 2001, as part of its Global Consultations on International Protection, UNHCR issued its most comprehensive guidance on RSD procedures to date, a background paper called FAIR AND EFFICIENT ASYLUM PROCEDURES. UNHCR added to this guidance in February 2003 with comments submitted to the Council of Europe.

The standards UNHCR has set out are admirable. But, for whatever reason, UNHCR itself has not seen fit to follow them.

We detail a number of specific problems:

Secret evidence. Withholding evidence considered in an applicant’s case – which the applicant involved cannot see or dispute – is a familiar (and very worrisome) part of military and state security trials, but with rare exception it should not be part of RSD. UNHCR told the Council of Europe:

“UNHCR […] recommends that information and its sources may be withheld only under clearly defined conditions where disclosure of sources would seriously jeopardize national security or the security of the organizations or persons providing information.” - [UNHCR annotated comments on the amended proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, COM(2002) 326 final of 18 June 2002, presented by the Commission (commenting on Article 14).]

But in its own RSD procedures, UNHCR offices withhold nearly all evidence from asylum-seekers, in accordance with a confidential August 2001 memorandum from the Department of International Protection. Evidence routinely withheld from asylum-seekers includes reports from mental health assessments and medical examinations, transcripts of their own interviews, statements by other witnesses, and country of origin information.

Reasons for rejection. UNHCR has advised governments that refused asylum-seekers “should receive a written decision …[and] the decision should be a reasoned one.” [UNHCR, Asylum-Processes: Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures (May 2001)] But when UNHCR refuses a refugee claim, its offices generally refuse to provide detailed written reasons that could be used in preparing an appeal. In some offices, the person receives a letter with just one or two sentences explaining the rejection. In other offices, rejected applicants get only a three-letter code, such as “LOC” (lack of credibility). Some UNHCR offices give no explanation at all. At the same time, UNHCR offices write, and keep on file, detailed assessments of each case.

Independent appeals. Since 1980, UNHCR has called on governments to provide rejected asylum-seekers with access to an independent appeal. [OAU-UNHCR Guidelines for National Refugee Legislation and Commentary (1980).] In 2001, UNHCR said that this appeal must be to “an authority different from and independent of that making the initial decision.” [UNHCR, Asylum-Processes: Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures (May 2001).] But in most UNHCR offices, the only appeal is to a different staff member in the same office, usually a colleague of the person who made the original rejection, working under the same supervisors.

Right to counsel. UNHCR has advised governments that “at all stages of the procedure, including at the admissibility stage, asylum-seekers should receive guidance and advice on the procedure and have access to legal counsel.”

In a few UNHCR offices, the principle of legal representation is accepted. But other offices resist the right to counsel. Some UNHCR offices refuse to accept submissions by lawyers. Others refuse to speak with lawyers about their clients’ cases. Still others have questioned asylum-seekers about why they chose to seek legal assistance. In one UNHCR office in the Middle East, a protection officer recently insisted that an indigent refugee pay a significant fee to a notary in order to be represented by a lawyer in a hearing over whether UNHCR would withdraw his refugee status.

Behind these failures are fundamental questions of transparency and accountability. By withholding evidence and the reasons for rejection, UNHCR shields its actions from scrutiny. But this tendency toward secrecy goes beyond individual cases. UNHCR’s RSD operating procedures are generally not released to the public. The Department of International Protection (DIP) memorandum instructing UNHCR offices to withhold evidence from asylum-seekers was never circulated to the public for comment, and to this day it is officially internal.

UNHCR has indicated that it is drafting a new handbook governing its RSD activities, but it has not yet asked for public comment. It is worrisome to think that procedural standards are being re-debated within UNHCR simply because this time UNHCR offices are meant to apply them. There is no plausible reason why the legal standards of UNHCR’s RSD procedures should differ from the high standard that it recommends to governments. When UNHCR tells the public that certain standards are essential for refugee protection, these standards should automatically be implemented in UNHCR's own offices.

Prima Facie recognition of refugees and their right to identity papers

Although reforming RSD procedures themselves in urgent, it is also important to reduce their importance. Individual RSD is, as a rule, intensive, burdensome on all involved, high stakes, and high risk for error. The more UNHCR and governments can find other ways to recognize refugee status, the better.

In cases of mass movements where it is impracticable to conduct individual status determination of refugees seeking asylum, governments may grant prima facie recognition to the group on the basis of nationality. Prima facie recognition may be granted either under the 1951 Convention or the Organization of Africa Unity (now African Union) Convention (OAU).

This makes sense; it reflects the practice in post-World War II Europe when all refugees were recognized on the grounds of nationality. When Nansen, appointed by the League of Nations, was first named Commissioner for Russian Refugees, all Russian refugees in Europe after the revolution were entitled to recognition. Similarly, everyone knows there is war in southern and western Sudan; people fleeing that war should simply have to ‘prove’ their nationality.

Decisions to grant prima facie recognition to particular nationalities should be ‘gazetted’, i.e. as legal decisions they must be published officially. This is only the first step; every adult refugee must be issued with an identity card (1951 UN Convention (Article 27). The Conclusion of the Executive Committee of UNHCR (EXCOM), in 1993, also reiterated the necessity of the issuing of personal documentation as a device to promote the protection of the personal security of refugees (No.72 (XLIV).

Nansen went much further. Realizing that movement was necessary to find solutions to their plight, the Nansen Passport was introduced, allowing refugees to move to another country where they could find, for example, employment or education or re-join relatives. The Nansen passport thus served refugees as a passport, allowing them to travel between states. It was the forerunner of today’s Convention Travel Document (CTD). Article 28 of the 1951 UN Convention provides that ‘Contracting States’ shall issue travel documents, that is, CTDs to refugees lawfully in their territories for the purpose of travel outside their territories. (There are only two reasons for which Contracting State can deny refugees this right: compelling reasons of national security or public order.)

In Africa, where most refugees are sent to camps or settlements, the only identification the vast majority receive is a family ration card, which usually includes only an indication of the size of the family with marks to punch when rations are received or non-food items are distributed, not their name.

What is being done?

At the International Consortium of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA) Pre-Executive Committee October 2004 meetings, four lawyers from Africa and the Middle East successfully lobbied for ICVA to call for an independent evaluation of UNHCR RSD. The following are excerpts from final NGO Statement to UNHCR’s Executive Committee on Evaluation and Inspection Activities:

“We would suggest that such an independent global evaluation be carried out by a team that includes international human rights lawyers, international and national NGOs working on refugee issues, academics, and legal aid practitioners. The issues that should be examined in the evaluation include an inventory of the RSD procedures that are applied in each UNHCR field office, with an examination of the possible solutions to the political, financial, and human resource constraints that contribute to RSD procedures that do not fulfill practices advocated by UNHCR. The evaluation should recommend rights-based RSD procedures to be followed consistently by all field protection officers with a mechanism to ensure their implementation.”

And from the Statement on Protection:

“Further, while recognising the important role played by UNHCR in asylum determination procedures in many countries worldwide, NGOs have concerns that some of UNHCR's refugee status determination (RSD) practices in some countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia do not always meet the standards of fairness to which UNHCR urges states to adhere. … UNHCR should not see its role in RSD as a substitute for government-run procedures. UNHCR should make it a priority that governments take over these activities and build their capacity to do so. We call on UNHCR to initiate public consultations on the new draft refugee status determination procedures (from – follow ‘What’s Hot’).”

It will be important to follow this initiative carefully over the next year and at the 2005 ICVA Pre-Excom meetings to ensure the issue is actively followed up.
What can you do?

The first step to change the situation for refugees is to inform yourself. While presuming that readers of Pambazuka News, are committed to human rights, too few human rights organisations consider refugee rights as part of their mandate. In your country, as in so many, refugees are probably segregated in camps and those who manage to live elsewhere are usually trying to remain invisible to authorities for the reasons of lack of proper papers and the right to live outside of camps. Join the US Committee for Refugees’ Anti-warehousing campaign and begin to study and expose the way refugee rights are being violated in your country. Lobby for their minimal right to freedom of movement (http://www.refugees.org/warehousing)

For those who think of refugees as ‘just another problem among so many’, remember that getting it right for refugees may be the best way to get rights for all! Is not the extent to which refugee rights are upheld, a barometer for the extent that human rights are generally respected in any society? Human rights are indivisible, interrelated and inter-related; focusing on the violations of the rights of refugees (who represent the most marginalized and unprotected population) is perhaps the most effective ‘entry’ point for improving the observance of human rights for all members of any society. Any investment in promoting the rights of refugees is an investment in a more just society.

Find out if there are any legal aid clinics in your country who would be in a position to represent refugee clients whatever their problems might be and encourage them to consider getting the necessary training to expand their clients to include refugees. The Forced Migration and Refugee Studies Programme ([email protected]) at the American University in Cairo (www.aucegypt.edu/fmrs) and AMERA Egypt, a refugee legal aid clinic ([email protected] ) both provide training opportunities. Oxfam, through Reach Out also offers a Refugee Protection Training Project for all NGOs (http://www.reachout.ch/). Where legal aid clinics for refugees exist, support their work and see how you might get involved.

Clinics providing legal aid for refugees have been established in a few countries in the ‘south’, in Africa, in 1999, the Refugee Law Project in Kampala (www.refugeelawproject.org); the Kenyan Refugee Consortium, Nairobi ([email protected]); AMERA-Egypt in Cairo (www.amera-uk.org). Others are the Frontiers Centre in Lebanon ([email protected]) and the Istanbul Refugee Legal Aid Project in Turkey ([email protected]).

If you are a lawyer, learn how to take refugee cases that have been unfairly dealt with by the legal system in your country to the Africa Commission. At its 35th Session the Africa Commission nominated a Special Rapporteur on Refugees and Displaced Persons in Africa. He is Mr. Bahame Tom Mukirya Nyanduga. His address is: P. O. Box 7239, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; his E-mail: [email][email protected]; [email][email protected]

In the end, two points are absolutely essential. First, don’t rely blindly on the UN. A strong UN is essential for a just and peaceful world, but that does not mean that UN agencies can be trusted anymore than governments. They must be transparent, they must be accountable, and we must watch to make sure they practice what they preach.

Second, this entire discussion has been devoted to how we determine whether a person is a “refugee” under the law. But we ought to remember: We don’t need UNHCR or a complicated procedure to recognize another person as a human being. And that ought to be enough to give refugees the most essential human rights.

* Barbara Harrell-Bond is Distinguished Visiting Professor, Forced Migration and Refugee Studies Programme, American University in Cairo. Mike Kagan is a refugee law specialist. Please click on the link below for references.

* Please send comments to [email protected]

The World Bank says it has postponed a consultation with civil society groups in Berlin on its proposed social and environmental guidelines for lending after the NGOs boycotted the event and threatened to launch protests instead. The NGOs (non-governmental organisations) are angry because they say the meetings are merely a ”public relations exercise” and that the Washington-based bank is not serious about giving a greater say to indigenous and local people affected by bank-financed projects carried out by international companies. The bank has scheduled other consultations with NGOs in Bangkok, Johannesburg, Moscow, Washington and Tunis before the end of 2004.

Swaziland's High Court judges resumed work on Wednesday, ending a two-year hiatus created by their en masse resignation in protest over the government's refusal to abide by their judgements. Registrar of the high court Shiyumhlaba Dlamini told IRIN the judges' return to work followed an assurance that the government would adhere to court decisions.

Climate change is widely considered to be one of the gravest threats to the sustainability of the planet's environment, the well-being of its people and the strength of its economies. Mainstream scientists agree that the Earth's climate is changing from the build-up of greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as carbon dioxide, that result from such essential human activities as electricity generation, transportation and agriculture. Despite the fact that the effects of climate change affect the world as a whole, the south is increasingly turning into the “carbon sink” of the north, which causes serious alterations in its biodiversity and hinders the possibility of sustainable development, states this climate change feature on the web site of Choike.org, the portal for Southern civil society.