Women Reject EU’s Interference In The Africa Renewable Energy Initiative


African women reject the European Union’s unnecessary meddling in Africa’s Renewable Energy Initiative (AREI).  African women are very concerned at the manner in which some European countries, France in particular, influenced some African leaders to hastily approve projects without having a transparent process with social, environmental and gender criteria in place.


At a board meeting in March in Conakry, the European Commission and France in collusion with a few African countries repackaged existing European Union projects for Africa, but which did not originate from Africa, as first batch of projects to be approved by AREI.


The way and manner these projects were introduced and approved- by bypassing AREI’s process being developed for social and Environmental criteria- is a very negative sign, setting the entire process off on a negative footing, refusing African people’s transparent decision making, and entirely against the principles by which AREI was created.


African women insist that European Union cannot dictate for Africans over any issue especially the one concerning universal access to clean, appropriate and affordable energy for all.


Women are particularly concerned about the unnecessary interference by European Union and France particularly as it can jeopardize the noble objective of AREI in providing people-centered and gender responsive clean energy solutions capable of addressing the chronic energy poverty which affects women in Africa disproportionately.


African women join their voices with other Civil Society Organizations in Africa to condemn the undue interference of European Union in AREI. African women stand for a strong and independent AREI, with full and meaningful participation of women’s organizations in all levels of the decision-making processes.


For and on behalf of African women


Ms Priscilla Achakpa, Executive Director, Women Environment Program (WEP), Collette Benoudji Coordinator  Association Lead Tchad and Ms Titilope Akosa, Executive Director, Centre for 21st Century Issues (C21st)

 For further information:

Centre For 21st Century Issues (C21st)

6, Balogun Street, Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria

Email: titiakosa@gmail.com


African Women Congratulate Their Super Shero –Ms. Amina Mohammed, United Nations Deputy Secretary General

19 th December, 2016

On behalf of Nigerian women and indeed, African women, we heartily congratulate Amina J. Mohammed, the Honourable Minister of Environment, Nigeria, for a well earned and deserved appointment as the new Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations. This is another testimony to her great and avowed commitment to the people and the planet.

The exemplary life of service of Ms. Amina Mohammed since her days as the National moderator of Civil Society Action Coalition On Education for All (CSACEFA) to her meritorious service in coordinating the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), her recent role in catalyzing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and her current transformative leadership as Nigeria’s Minister of the Environment; have demonstrated unwavering commitment, dedication and passion to the cause of humanity.

In all these positions Ms. Amina Mohammed has inspired us women to strive to be the best and aim for the stars. We have drawn inspiration from her leadership, encouragement and wealth of experience. We are therefore not surprised that her dedication, passion and doggedness has propelled her to achieve the feat of been the first woman in Nigeria to attain this new position.

Her latest accomplishments are indeed no mean feat; it is a signal to all women everywhere that women can shatter the glass ceiling and at the same time a clarion call for the enthronement of women’s leadership in the world.

Assuredly, we women are solidly behind her, we stand by and support her to succeed in this new position.

We commend President Mohammed Buhari and Nigeria people for reposing confidence in Ms. Amina Mohammed to take on the Position of the Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations.

While we appreciate the President for appointing Amina Mohammed, we are very much aware that she deserves it, we take this opportunity to call for more openings and opportunities for smart and hardworking Nigerian and African women into appointive leadership positions at all levels.

Congratulations again! We are proud of you and your achievements.

Continue to climb new heights of success! You are unstoppable!

Priscilla M. Achakpa-Women Environmental Programme, Nigeria/Organizing Partner-Women’s Major Group

For and on behalf of Nigerian and African Women’s Major Group

Endorsed by

1. Ms. Titilope Akosa – Centre for 21st Century Issues (C21st) – Nigeria

2. Sascha A Gabizon- Women Engage for a Common Future- International and Organizing Partner, Women Major Groups (WMG)

3. Anne Addeh- Women and Youths Environmental Safety and Empowerment Organisation a.k.a EWAY for Development

4. Ms. Ugbaa Sewuese Mary –Angel support Foundation – Nigeria

5. Thelma Munhequete – Africa foundation for Sustainable Development- Mozambique

6. Mrs. Semia Gharbi: Association de l’Education Environnementale pour les Futures Générations: AEEFG, -Tunisia

7. Amb Caroline Usikpedo – Niger Delta Women’s movement for Peace and DevelopmentNigeria

8. Louisa Ono Eikhomun- Echoes of Women in Africa (ECOWA) Nigeria

9. Judith Kateule- Africa Foundation for Sustainable Development (AFSD)-Zambia

10. Attah Benson- Community Emergency Response Initiative, Nigeria

11. Juliana Agema-Charles and Doosurgh Abaagu Foundation, Nigeria

12. Felicia Onibon- Change Managers International Network, Country Coordinator Nigeria, Ghana and Kenya GEC

13. Omoyemen Lucia Odigie-Emmanuel- Centre for Human Rights and Climate Change Research, Nigeria

14. Zenabou Segda- Women Environmental Programme, Burkina Faso

15. TSONYA – ACAKPO ADDRA Brigitte- Women Environmental Programme, Togo

16. Elizabeth Jeyol- Gender and Environmental Risk Reduction Initiative (GERI), Nigeria 17. Cécile NDJEBET Presidente REFACOF/Coordonnatrice Nat. Cameroon

18. Gertrude Kabusimbi Kenyangi- Support for Women in Agriculture and Environment (SWAGEN), Uganda

19. Mrs. Hawa Nibi Amenga-Etego- GrassRootsAfrica, Ghana

20. Juliet Wombo-Kwande Sisters Foundation, Nigeria

21. Nnenna Nwakanma- Africa Regional Coordinator, World Wide Web Foundation

22. Colette BENOUDJI, Lead Tchad

23. Akurut Violet Adome (Hon) Member of Parliament Uganda and Founder Member and Chair Katakwi Grassroots Women Development Initiative (KAWODI) Uganda.

24. Ndivile Mokoena- GenderCCSA, South Africa

25. Jennifer Amejja- National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE), Uganda

26. Diel Mochire Mwenge- Provincial PIDP Nord-Kivu, REPALEF/RDC au Nord-Kivu, RDC 27. Hon. Winifred Masiko- Rural Gender and Development Association, Uganda

28. Kemi Oluyide- Centre for Grassroots and Environmental Concerns, Nigeria

29. Nkiruka Nnaemego-Fresh and Young Brains Development Initiative, Nigeria

30. Hanna Gunnarsson, Women Engage for a Common Future Deutschland 31.

Mary Nyasimi- Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Kenya

32. Winnie Lichuma- Chairperson, National Gender and Equality Commission,Kenya

33. Rose Pélagie MASSO, Coordonnatrice Adjointe Cameroun Ecologie (Cam-Eco)

34. Veronica Jakarasi- Ministry of Environment, Water and Climate, Zimbabwe

35. Mirabel Edozie – South – South Professional Women Association, Nigeria.

36. Daisy Alero Emoekabu- Climate  Change  Policy  PhD  Researcher,  University  of  Kent,  and  Green  Patriots  for  Environmental  Protection  &  Sustainability,  Nigeria

37. Bose Ironsi-  Women’s Rights and Health Project (WRAHP), Nigeria

38. Ruth During- Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council(WSSCC), Nigeria

39. Lucy Mulenkei- Indigenous Information Network, Kenya

40. Dr, Keziah Awosika -Women Law and Development Centre (WLDCN)- Nigeria

41. Alexandrial Allen- foundation Starters – Nigeria

42. Nancy Olatunji-International Living Africa Urban and Environment Project – Nigeria

43. Vivian Ifeoma Emesowum, Grassroot People and Gender Development Center – Nigeria For further information:

1. Women Environmental Programme (WEP) Block E Flat 2 Anambra Court, Gaduwa Housing Estate, after Apo Legislative Quarters Abuja, Nigeria info@wepnigeria.net; wep2002@hotmail.com

2. Centre For 21st Century Issues (C21st) 6, Balogun Street, Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria titiakosa@gmail.com

COP22 SBSTA Closing statement By Women and Gender Constituency

SBSTA Closing – Delivered by Daisy Emoekabu  of Centre for 21st century Issue (c21st) on Nov 14, 2016
Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Women and Gender Constituency.
For women, agriculture, forests, and land use in general, are themes that are of crucial importance. We are the majority of the world’s food producers and play a key role in the transformative change that is needed to change current highly polluting industrial models in the agriculture, livestock and forestry sectors into genuinely sustainable and resilient land use initiatives. Such initiatives are often driven by communities on the ground, and it is important climate policies provide appropriate and adequate legal, technical and financial support for such community initiatives.
In this light, we want to express our deep concern about proposals to include agriculture, forest conservation, and land use in general, as offset opportunities in market-based mechanisms and approaches. Due to contextual inequities these market-based approaches will always lead to the marginalization of women, Indigenous Peoples, smallholders and other politically and economically marginalized actors. Moreover, land use related offsets are very unreliable and there are no accurate accounting methodologies for land use change. That is why we vehemently reject the inclusion of land use in carbon markets. We also support the concerns of certain Parties about market-based mechanisms in general.
We are particularly upset about the proposals for an international offsetting mechanism for the emissions produced by the aviation industry, probably the most rapidly growing source of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet. These proposals were deliberately developed outside the framework of the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement, by a body that was originally established as a technical body, but which has shown clear signs of conflict of interest with the commercial interests of the aviation sector the past years. We cannot allow this body to determine the decision-making processes under the UNFCCC related to such an importance source of emissions, and the best way to deal with it.
We urge the SBSTA, and the other bodies under the Convention, to maintain its integrity and make sound recommendations and decisions based on sound science. Decisions that include a promotion of the so-called bioeconomy, or international commodity trade in agricultural products, are clearly based on commercial interests of certain business actors rather than the rights, needs and interests of common women and men, including the millions of women that produce your food. So we urge Parties to reclaim the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement as a public instrument that should be steered by public interests based on sound science that is free from conflicts of interests of other industry influence.
Thank You

Message To World Leaders On Earth Day And The Signing of The Paris Climate Agreement

Today, as we celebrate the Earth Day, 2016, World Leaders will gather at the United Nations headquarters in New York to sign the Paris Agreement that was adopted on 12th of December, 2015 at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 21st  Conference of Parties ( COP21).

It is an epoch making event which not only prepares the ground for other formal processes as required by international law for the agreement to enter into force but it significantly, reminds us that It is our collective responsibility to pursue efforts to limit  temperature increase to 1.5°C for the people and planet to have a chance at survival.

It is a wake up call to #keepFossilFuelsInTheGround, #BreakFreeFromFalseSolutions, #MoveAwayFromDirtyEnergy, embrace clean and 100% renewable energy and set the world on the pathway to climate resilience and sustainability. It is time to strive harder to deliver Climate justice to those who are on the frontlines of climate change, majority of whom are women and children.

World leaders should remember that signing, ratifying is one of the first steps to set the tone for implementation of the agreement. Implementation is key to averting the dangerous consequences of climate change. Bearing in mind that the submitted Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) which is now part of the Paris agreement is not sufficient to limit temperature increase to 1.5°C. We need ambitious policies and actions beyond what is in the NDCs to keep the world safe.

Celebrating the” feat” of reaching the Paris  agreement is good but genuine and  effective actions are better. Genuine leaders act and stand on the side of  the people and the planet.

 Happy Earth Day, 2016

Gbemisola Titilope Akosa
Executive Director
Centre for 21st Century Issues (C21st)

A ‘Non-Paper’ for a ‘Non-Effective’ ‘Non-Just’ ‘Non-Equal’ Climate Agreement

Ahead of ADP2.11 the Women Gender Constituency of the UNFCCC have responded  to  the draft Paris agreement and draft COP decision released by Co-Chairs of the ADP  
below is the text of the press release
 A ‘Non-Paper’ for a ‘Non-Effective’ ‘Non-Just’ ‘Non-Equal’ Climate Agreement

On October 5th 2015, the co-Chairs of the ADP process released a new “Non-Paper” document including a draft of the Paris agreement and a draft of the COP decision, to be both adopted at COP21 in December 2015 in Paris.

The WGC, one of the nine official constituencies accredited to the UNFCCC, comprised of women’s rights, feminist organizations and networks representing thousands of groups and individuals, wants to express its profound concern about this new ‘non-paper’ which aims to act as a basis for negotiations on the new climate agreement.

Having followed the ADP negotiations very closely, this document does not reflect the discussions in a balanced way. Many crucial issues voiced by Parties under the ADP have been glaringly left out. This undermines the promises of the co-Chairs for a Party-driven process, and threatens the collective will to actively engage towards an ambitious and fair agreement. The WGC has highlighted several key issues which must be brought back into the agreement in this upcoming week of negotiations.

1. Deletion of gender equality and human rights in the draft agreement

Since the first session of the ADP, and throughout this year, Parties have made strong calls for human rights and gender equality to act as guiding principles to all actions under the new agreement. In particular, in the last session where the co-Chairs had identified these issues in ‘Part 3’ of their negotiations tool, Parties made clear that they wanted these issues brought back into the agreement. Several Parties raised this in the discussions on the Preamble and in discussions on the General / Objective section. More than 40 Parties expressed their support in having human rights and gender equality expressly mentioned in the Paris agreement. Specifically on gender, three groups of Parties (AILAC, the Environmental Integrity Group and the African Group) alongside 12 individual countries raised their flags to make clear to the co-Facilitators that gender equality must be included under the operative part of the agreement and not just in the preamble or in a decision. Fundamentally, no Party expressed objection to this.

The WGC and many colleagues and allies are therefore concerned and surprised to see that these issues have been completely left out of the co-Chairs non-paper. Gender equality, which had been referenced across all areas of the new agreement, including prominently also in technology and finance sections, is now solely reflected in relation to adaptation. This is neither reflective of Parties views nor the progress/ current mandates which already exist on these issues under the UNFCCC.

2. Does not address the causes of the climate crisis

The unique mention of fossil fuels that was contained in the previous non-paper of the co-Chairs has disappeared in this updated version. With 80% of GHG emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels and public subsidies to this sector accounting for 700 Billion USD — a multitude of the long-term finance promise of 100 Billion USD per year by 2020 from Copenhagen –, this is a glaring gap that obfuscates one of the systemic causes of the global climate crisis.

Additionally, accountability for mitigation commitments is wholly insufficient, instead prioritizing language on voluntary promises and flexible targets. Commitments made by Parties under the currently submitted INDCs are nowhere near the cuts needed to prevent an increase in the temperatures below 2C. The Geneva text contained an option that referred to a carbon budget, to be divided among countries according to their “historical responsibilities, ecological footprint, capabilities and state of development”. But this too has been omitted from the current non-paper.

The mitigation section doesn’t at all challenge the structural causes of global warming. Wide ranging structural and lifestyle changes, reduction in current consumption and production patterns, and maintenance of ecological sustainability should be at the core of solutions to the climate crisis. Instead, the mitigation section includes false solutions, including the possibility of opting for a long term objective of “net zero” that promotes offsetting mechanisms such as forest plantations for carbon storage at the detriment of the rights of local people and indigenous communities and their livelihoods.

3. Inadequate reflection of CBDR

CBDR is one of the core principles of the UNFCCC. The mandate of the ADP is “to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties”. According to the very mandate of the Paris agreement, the Paris agreement should fully respect the Convention principles. Yet, the language proposed in this new text clearly waters down this core legal principle, allowing developed countries to avoid their responsibilities of providing support to developing countries to both mitigate and adapt to climate change as well as to take the lead globally in ambitious emissions reductions .

CBDR is a critical pillar of multilateralism, framing the nature of the responsibilities of developed and developing countries in the pursuit of sustainable development. It underscores the universality of the Paris agreement as well as the need, on principled and practical grounds, for differentiation of responsibilities between historical and ‘new’ emitters. Universality of the Paris agreement ensures that all states —rich and poor alike—commit to taking concrete actions to meet the ultimate objective of the Convention. CBDR ensures that the share of the responsibilities to take these actions be just and equitable, based on varying and diverse degrees of historical responsibility, national capacity, resources, levels of development and effective influence. Based on this differentiation, developed countries have far greater responsibility to deliver actionable means of implementation across the relevant areas of financial resources, technology and capacity development. The principle of CBDR is therefore not an excuse for inaction on the part of developing countries; it merely contextualizes their responsibilities.

According to this legal principle, the WGC has been advocating for developed countries to provide the means of implementation needed by developing countries to achieve their mitigation emissions reduction target. The new co-Chairs non-paper shifts away the legal responsibility of developed countries and does not mention even once CBRD in relation to mitigation action. Additionally, the only mention of support to developing countries in their shift towards low-emission pathways is now in Article 3 (12) that simply states: ”Developing country Parties are eligible for support in the implementation of this Article”, without addressing whom this support will come from nor any accountability or obligation for these provisions.

4. Insufficient attention to rights-based adaptation

To be relevant, adaptation action must take into account differences between people through a right-based approach, especially in terms of differential risk, adaptation ability, exposure and vulnerability. This includes adopting a gender approach, and we deplore the weakening of the language proposed which now only “acknowledge[s]” this crucial adaptation component, instead of requiring adaptation actions to be “country-driven, gender-sensitive, participatory and fully transparent, take into account vulnerable groups and ecosystems, be based on science and traditional and indigenous knowledge, and promote the engagement of subnational and local authorities and other stakeholders”.

5. Imbalanced reflection on key issues

The current proposal is clearly imbalanced towards the views and perspectives of developed countries, including the critical issue of Loss and Damage. Irreversible loss and damage caused by climate change goes beyond adaptation and is already a reality for many Parties resulting in forced displacement, loss of land and territorial integrity and resulting in breaches of social and economic rights. This is a long-standing developing countries’ priority, and especially for small island states and LDCs, and in the face of the gigaton gap left unreduced by the INDC approach it is even more urgently needed, meanwhile, it is currently only reflected in one paragraph. We reiterate the necessity for loss and damage to be anchored as a standalone element that is separate and distinct from adaptation, and for a special provision to fast-track urgent action required to assist the most affected and vulnerable people that are already experiencing existential threats and human rights violations from climate change.

6. Finance must be new and additional

Climate finance should help developing countries to face the impacts of climate change and to curb their GHG emissions. There is no mention of the fact that climate finance should be new and additional to pre-existing commitments, including ODA and that it has to be delivered in a gender-responsive way (as several Geneva text options had suggested).

Developed countries have committed to disburse $100 billion to developing countries by 2020. Yet the draft text contains no elements that would allow clarity and certainty on a time-table for scaling up from current disbursement levels to the full amount of the money pledged. Nor does it contain any reference to mechanisms to re-evaluate and review fulfilled finance commitments in regular intervals with a view to a significant scaling up of funding beyond 2020 whereas the needs of developing countries are evaluated to be far greater. Instead of clarifying the key role of public finance provision as the core of previous climate finance pledges, the new draft elevates private finance contributions to be counted as part of climate finance, stating “the desirability of a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources, noting the need for a diversity of sources and instruments to fit recipients’ changing economic circumstances”. The main goal of private finance is fundamentally to profit private corporations interests – some of them, the “carbon majors”, collectively responsible for worst contributions to the climate crisis -, not to genuinely support affected communities to cope with climate change. However, the issue of innovative finance sources, such as a carbon levy of corporate polluters, is not further developed. The new draft also allows climate finance to be disbursed in the forms of debt-creating mechanisms, adding further burden to the already highly indebted developing country economies.

7. Technology must be safe, appropriate and environmentally, economically and socially sound

The current co-Chairs non-paper is missing several critical elements which had been raised in the Geneva discussions under the ADP. For the WGC, this particularly includes mandates in the new agreement on the quality of the technologies which will be implemented to advance climate action, calling for “safe, appropriate and environmentally, economically and socially sound adaptation and mitigation technologies.” This language from the Geneva text needs to be brought back into the language of the agreement as well as language in regard to gender-differentiated technology needs and traditional technologies already used by local communities, including women.

We are also missing progressive language on assessment of appropriate technologies, such as language proposed in Geneva: “Technology assessment to ensure civil society participation with a gender perspective, and integrate a multilateral, independent and participatory evaluation of technologies for their social, economic and environmental impacts.”

The WGC has been actively monitoring the ADP and we have heard a number of countries – most of them developing countries – supporting the points raised here.

We have heard countries that refuse to give up as our civilization is facing one of the biggest challenges ever. We have heard countries that are asking for the ones that created the damage to repair it. We have heard countries that value enough human rights and gender equality to strive for them in every future climate actions designed and implemented.

When will the process hear and reflect these view?

-The Women and Gender Constituency

Women’s working Group Reaction To The 7th OF July Draft Addis Action Agenda and Key Messages

Women’s Working Group on Financing for Development – July 2015



The Women’s Working Group on Financing for Development (WWG on FfD) would like to

highlight key concerns regarding the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA) that is currently

under negotiation and is expected to be finally adopted during the Third Financing for

Development Conference in Addis Ababa taking place from 13 to 16 of July 2015.

We believe that the latest set of negotiations has seriously reduced the integrity of the

Financing for Development agenda, can result in a retrogression from previous FfD

commitments and, thus, limit the possibility to remove the global obstacles to development

as well as setting the right priorities, policies and rules for financing the Sustainable

Development Goals/Post 2015 Development Agenda and the full implementation of

internationally agreed development agendas, including those critical for women’s rights such

as the Beijing Platform for Action and the Cairo Programme of Action on Population and


The global partnership between developed and developing countries established in the

Monterrey Consensus is at risk of being weakened by the way multi-stakeholder

partnerships are getting promoted, and the lack of commitment by developed countries to

address systemic issues in the United Nations (UN), to recognize and respect the principle

of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) and to strengthen the FfD follow up

mechanism. While the draft Action Agenda, importantly, includes in the first paragraph a

commitment to respect all human rights, including the right to development, and that

member states will ensure gender equality and women’s and girls’ empowerment, the draft

lacks an integrated, consistent and explicit human rights based approach. The references to

women’s rights and gender equality in the current text rely on previously agreed language,

some consolidate regressive formulations and others rely heavily on private sector

contribution to achieving gender equality.

The WWG on FfD calls government’s attention on the following key issues at stake and

continues to demand for structural changes in the global economic governance and

development architecture in order to move:

  1. From systemic imbalances towards creating a rights-based pro-development

multilateral economic and financial governance.

  1. From making the business case on women’s empowerment to respecting, protecting

and fulfilling women’s human rights and fixing the structural conditions to realize


  1. From creating an enabling environment to attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)

and to promote Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) towards safeguards and

investment frameworks that have binding norms, including for Transnational

Corporations, that are consistent with human rights.

  1. From global trade imbalances to respect developing countries policy space for

productive diversification, decent work for women, and sustainable industrial policy.

  1. From taxing women in the informal economy to progressive taxation and international

tax cooperation.

  1. From using Official Development Assistance (ODA) and development cooperation to

leveraging private finance and donor priorities towards untied, additional and

predictable ODA and development cooperation that contributes to the respect,

protection and fulfilment of gender equality, human rights and sustainable


  1. From “new social compacts” towards the implementation of comprehensive and

universal social protection systems and public services

  1. From reducing FfD agenda to the Means of Implementation of the Post 2015

Agenda, towards strengthening FfD mandate and follow up mechanism to remove

global obstacles for the implementation of all the internationally agreed development


From systemic imbalances towards creating a rights-based pro-development

multilateral economic and financial governance


The current Addis Ababa Action Agenda draft does not adequately address the failures of

the systemic issues in the international financial and monetary system that underpin poverty,

inequalities, asymmetries and mal-distribution of power and resources in the global political


The systemic issues we face today are symptomatic of the financialization of

economies and nature, where the financial sector has become increasingly important in the

generation of profits and more powerful in economic governance. At the bottom, a majority of

women must bear the burdens of care work amidst market and state failures.

The enormous, negative impacts of crises caused by the international economic and

financial rules, on development, social justice and human rights, particularly women’s human

rights, are not adequately addressed. The necessary countercyclical and social policies to

respect women’s human rights and to avoid transferring the costs deriving from austerity

measures, privatization, cuts in cash transfers and social services, food and job insecurity to

women through further increases in their unpaid work are not even mentioned. Thus,

governments are relying on women’s unpaid care work to continue to acts as a stabilizer and

shock absorber of the economic and financial crisis. We are deeply concerned that the draft

Addis Action Agenda falls short in providing alternatives to the status quo.

Governments are still failing to provide sufficient political leadership to strengthen the role of

the UN to lead the necessary human rights-based, pro-development reforms of the global

economic and financial systems. The recommendations and commitments of the outcome of

the Conference of the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its impacts on Development

should have been the foundation of the Addis Action Agenda not only to prevent future

multiple crises but to revert the financialization process that is leading to greater global

inequality, instability and prevents the reorientation of finance to sustainable and equitable

development sectors.

For instance, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) need not be promoted as the permanent

international safety net. The Addis Action Agenda must welcome instead all independent

and autonomous efforts at providing liquidity arrangements that benefit systemically

insignificant, open economies whose currencies are not necessarily preferred for use in

international payments nor for reserves purposes. While dialogue may be encouraged

between the IMF and other regional or bilateral liquidity arrangements, rule-setting must not

be exclusively set by the IMF. The Special Drawing Rights carry high potential as a reserve

asset and this potential to benefit small open economies must be explored fully.

Only by ensuring full and equal representation of developing countries in in setting the global

rules on finance, macroeconomic, trade, investment, debt and tax policies the trend of

transferring resources from developing countries to developed countries can be reversed.

Addressing systemic issues at the UN is a precondition for the achievement of the SDGs,

the realization of the Post-2015 agenda and the full implementation of internationally agreed

development agendas, including those critical for women’s rights such as the Beijing

Platform for Action and the Cairo Programme of Action on Population and Development.

From making the business case on women’s empowerment to respecting, protecting

and fulfilling women’s human rights and fixing the structural conditions to realize



In paragraph 6 of the preliminary section, the Addis Action Agenda “reiterate[s] the need for

gender mainstreaming, including targeted actions and investments in the formulation and

implementation of all financial, economic, environmental and social policies.” In the year of

Beijing+20, reiterating the need is not enough. Moreover, while the Doha Declaration called

for gender mainstreaming in development policies, including financing for development

policies (Para 4, Doha Declaration), the draft Action Agenda is shifting this understanding.

While it expands the scope from FfD policies towards environmental and social policies it,

negatively, drops the development policies reference and refers to “investments” instead of

“dedicated resources”.

Moreover, the Addis draft reaffirms language agreed in Rio+20 (Para 240, Future we want)

where governments state that “We are committed to women’s and girls’ equal rights and

opportunities in political and economic decision-making and resource allocation”. However,

specific mention of commitment to resource allocation should be linked to the realization of

women’s human rights and advance gender equality otherwise it is not clear to which

purpose the resources will be allocated. Dedicated, “adequate and sufficient” resource

allocation for gender equality and women’s human rights should be guaranteed, including by

international public finance.

It is worth noticing that agreed commitments (Para 31, the Future We Want) and Targets 5.c,

5.5 and 5.1 of the Open Working Group SDG report are reaffirmed: “We recommit to adopt

and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation and transformative actions for the

promotion of gender equality and women’s and girls’ empowerment at all levels, ensure

women’s equal rights, access and opportunities for participation and leadership in the

economy and to eliminate gender-based violence and discrimination in all its form” (Para 6,

AAA draft). 


In the final stages of the negotiations, the reference to promote the

empowerment of all women and girls at all levels was removed from the Domestic Resource

Mobilization section towards the preamble, weakening actual government’s obligations to

adopt and strengthen policies and laws that are essential for women’s human rights and

gender equality. Under domestic resource mobilization governments agree to “promote and

enforce non-discriminatory laws, social infrastructure and policies for sustainable

development, as well as to enable women’s full and equal participation in the economy, and

their equal access to decision-making processes and leadership” (Para 21, AAAA draft),

weakening the scope of policies to the ones who are able to promote at the same time

sustainable development and enable women’s participation in the economy.

Moreover, after strong debate in the negotiations, paragraph 240 of the Future We Want that

states to “resolve to undertake legislation and administrative reforms to give women equal

rights with men to economic resources, including access to ownership and control over land

and other forms of property, credit, inheritance, natural resources and appropriate new

technology” was incorporated into the Draft Action Agenda. “Full” should be included along

with “equal rights”, while an explicit reference needs to be made to guaranteeing women’s

and girls economic rights” in order to recognize inherent entitlements of women as full and

equal citizens that are subjects of human rights. Instead of “access to ownership”,

governments should guarantee women’s and girl’s rights to full and equal access to,

ownership and control over resources including the right to inheritance and land titling.

The references of some women’s rights in the draft get undermine by a framework that

shows a strong tendency towards the instrumentalization and commodification of women,

where women’s empowerment, and women’s full and equal participation and leadership in

the economy are vital to significantly enhance economic growth and productivity or to

promote market access for financial services. Different references in the draft Addis Action

Agenda on addressing gender equality and women’s empowerment seem to speak more the

IMF and World Bank language on “Gender Equality as Smart Economics” rather than to

women and girls’ entitlement to social and economic rights which are at the foundation of the


For instance, financial inclusion is promoted as “key for social inclusion”. However,

microfinance should be qualified given evidence that microfinance has not only be positive. It

has also contributed to exacerbating gender inequalities, and created dangerous levels of

indebtedness among many poor women, particularly when provided by for-profit financial

institutions or intermediaries. Microfinance should not be provided without effective

regulation, recourse mechanisms and consumer protection agencies to prevent predatory

lending and ensure greater financial literacy of consumers. Moreover, while financial

inclusion is overemphasized, little attention is given to structural barriers for women´s

economic rights and access to, ownership and control over economic resources: ie, the

unequal distribution of unpaid care work, the little access to care services, the persistent

gender discrimination in the labour market (through vertical and horizontal segregation2,

over-representation of women in precarious and low-paid jobs, and inadequate and

insufficient social protection).

From creating an enabling environment to attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and

to promote Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) towards safeguards and investment

frameworks that have binding norms, including for Transnational Corporations, that

are consistent with human rights.


The draft Action Agenda strongly relies on private sector contribution to financing for

development and women’s empowerment, diverting attention away from the role of states in

removing the global obstacles to development, mobilizing official development assistance

and adequate domestic public resources.

The need to provide an enabling environment for business is emphasised, while evidence

shows that the private sector often contradicts and undermines the possibility to respect,

protect and fulfil human rights.

Moreover, the Addis Action Agenda fails to challenge the asymmetry between the set of

binding juridical instruments states have been establishing over the past 40 years to protect

and promote the interests of transnational corporations – especially through Free Trade

Agreements, Bilateral Investment Treaties and Investor to State Dispute Settlement

Mechanisms – on one hand, and the lack of binding instruments to hold corporations

accountable for the human rights violations of people.

The draft Action Agenda fails to agree on mandatory rules and accountability mechanisms to

ensure private sector compliance with human rights, including women’s and indigenous

people’s rights. Instead, its promotes voluntary Global Compact principles on gender

equality that have proven to be wholly inadequate and inappropriate to respond to women’s

human right abuses, especially from transnational corporations. Emblematic cases of human

rights violations and the denial of reparation and compensation for victims – such as the

Rana Plaza building collapse in Bangladesh killing over 1,000 factory works (mostly women)

and the 20 year litigation of 30,000 affected by Chevron intentional pollution of the

Ecuadorean Amazon – exposes how insufficient the existing juridical frameworks are to

ensure the protection of people.

Furthermore, based on the current draft, governments also have failed to acknowledge, let

alone endorse, the critically important process unfolding in the UN Human Rights Council to

develop an international legally binding instrument on Transnational Corporations and other

Business Enterprises that is based in the international human rights framework.

FfD3 needs to address the duties and responsibilities of States to protect people from harms

caused by the private sector, and of businesses to respect human rights in their activities.

This includes that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) needs to meet the decent work agenda as

defined by ILO conventions, with particular emphasis also on sub-contractors compliance

with human rights and women’s rights. Also, effective implementation of a ‘country by

country reporting’ obligation for multinational corporations to publicly disclose as part of their

annual reports for each country in which they operate and effective accountability

mechanisms for corporations, states and individuals at all levels. To facilitate this, a UN

global inter-governmental system for automatic exchange of information on tax should be


Moreover, private sector activities including public-private partnerships are promoted with no

sufficient safeguards to ensure accessibility, affordability and quality of the services and

infrastructure that they are expected to deliver, or to ensure that they do not create

unacceptable contingent liabilities for governments.

FfD3 also needs to ensure that any private sector or PPP project has in place accountability

mechanisms in compliance with human rights standards and norms, including environmental

and social safeguards. Agreed timelines for reporting and evaluation must be agreed ex-ante

and with full participation of the affected communities, including women and girls, indigenous

communities and people facing structural discrimination.

From global trade imbalances to respect developing countries policy space for

productive diversification, decent work for women, and sustainable industrial policy.


The Addis Ababa Action Agenda wrongly characterises international trade as an unqualified

good, claiming at the outset that international trade is an engine for poverty reduction and

sustainable development. This is despite the evidence that the benefits of trade liberalisation

have been distributed extremely unevenly between and within countries, the exploitation of

women’s cheap labour and precarious employment as a source of competitive advantage to

attract foreign investment, the displacement and appropriation of indigenous people’s

knowledge, the confinement of developing countries to low value-added niches within global

value chains that restrict skills transfers and technology spill-overs that are necessary for the

development of domestic industry.

The reference to trade and “appropriate supporting policies” to assist and promote decent

work and women’s empowerment is misleading, especially when governments have failed to

agree to include mandatory ex-ante and periodic human rights impact assessments of all

trade and investment policies and to protect policy space specially for developing countries

to implement policies such as protection of infant-industries, female-job intensive sectors,

small women’s producers, indigenous and traditional knowledge or access to medicines. It

fails to adequately recognize the gendered impacts of the model of trade liberalization

promoted by the WTO and multilateral preferential trade and investment agreements,

including the increase of women’s burden of unpaid care work through privatization that

makes social services such as water and health less accessible.

Moreover, the Draft Action Agenda does little to challenge the expansion of trade and

investment agreements that aggressively pursue regulatory harmonisation and empower

foreign investors to sue governments for implementing domestic regulation relating to wage

policy, environmental protection, public health, affirmative action and macro-prudential


It also fails to challenge the closed and secretive nature of the negotiation of these

agreements, which undermine the right of all citizens to participate in public affairs. The

deletion of a provision calling for the proper review of investor-state dispute settlement

clauses is an enormous missed opportunity to ensure that these clauses do not undermine

the right of states to regulate, especially in areas such as health, environment, water and

sanitation, employment, micro, small and medium enterprise development and infrastructure,

which are all critical for gender justice and women’s human rights. Moreover, the

development impact of Aid for trade programs including those who claim to improve women’

access to global market has been difficult to assess, while criticism about policy

conditionalities to trade liberalization increase. Aid for trade promises can’t be used to

shifting ODA funds priorities that can be dedicated to fulfil women’s human rights and

poverty eradication to leverage the private sector and promote trade liberalisation.

From taxing women in the informal economy to progressive taxation and international

tax cooperation.


It is extremely concerning that the reference to “promote equity, including gender equality as

an objective in all tax and revenue policies” was removed from the document. Governments

draft agree to “work to improve the fairness of our tax systems”, but the Draft Action Agenda

might be promoting the contrary when it proposes simultaneously “broadening the tax base

and continuing efforts to integrate the informal sector into the formal economy in line with

country circumstances”. Tax policy is not gender neutral and domestic resource mobilization

policies need to be reviewed for their impact on women’s income, work, including unpaid

labour and unpaid care, and property and assets ownership. Regressive tax policies that for

example rely disproportionately on indirect taxation are likely to affect women living in

poverty more heavily because of women’s socially constructed roles as primary caregivers

and their responsibility for providing goods and services for their families. Expanding the tax

base through “formalization of the informal economy” can translate into negatively affecting

self-employed women including small-scale market vendors, farmers and fisherpeople and

those in micro and small-scale enterprises, who would likely bear a disproportionate high tax

burden, while further enabling big corporations and rich individuals to continue to benefit

from tax avoidance. The disproportionate burden of taxation on women and all people living

in poverty must instead be reversed, as part of a broader shift in fiscal policy at the national

level to address inequalities. Taxation reform should garner additional and sufficient

resources to comply states’ obligations to commit the maximum available resources to

fulfilling women’s human rights. The resistance from developed countries to ensure greater

international tax cooperation through the creation of a UN tax body that is urgently required

by all countries to truly combat illicit financial flows and tax evasion, and to address

inequalities within and between countries, is unacceptable.

For governments to be able to mobilize domestic resources, it is central to consider domestic

policy space and how the international institutional environment supports or undermines the

capacity of national governments to implement macroeconomic, productive, labor and social

policies towards equitable and sustainable development patterns. Specific commitments

should be taken in key policy areas of domestic public resources mobilization to contribute to

sustainable development. Priority must be given to productive diversification policies in

sustainable and job-intensive sectors (particularly for women), along with complementary

macroeconomic, trade, investment, labor and social policies that remove obstacles for

equitable development strategies.

Finally, while we acknowledge that the Action Agenda draft includes a commitment to

“increase transparency and equal participation in the budgeting process, and promote

gender responsive budgeting and tracking” (Para 30, Draft AAA), “promote” is not strong

enough to guarantee that women’s rights are getting fullfiled, nor that specific actions are

taken to remove structural obstacles for gender equality.

From using Official Development Assistance (ODA) and development cooperation to

leveraging private finance and donor priorities towards untied, additional and

predictable ODA and development cooperation that contributes to the respect,

protection and fulfilment of gender equality, human rights and sustainable



The draft Addis Action Agenda “urges” countries to meet the 0.7% of GNI as ODA, rather

than requiring a commitment to 0.7% which is substantiated by a clear and binding

timetable. The inclusion of “We strongly encourage all donor countries to establish, by the

end of 2015, indicative timetables to illustrate how they will increase their assistance and

reach their goals” from the Zero draft is now gone. In order to tackle volatility of ODA flows

and ensure additionality, the commitment should be accompanied by binding timetables by

region to illustrate how and where ODA will be increased and ensure that systems and

accountability mechanisms regarding goals achieved are in place. The increase in ODA

should not lead to a cycle of debt for the recipient country. Rather the major increase in ODA

should be felt in the grants component of assistance rather than in the loan component. ODA

must not be used to exercise power over recipient countries, for example through the

imposition of policy conditionalities. Neither should ODA be linked to trade negotiations.

We welcome the specific mentions of ODA to Middle income countries (MICs) in Paras 71

and 72, however, the Action Agenda focuses on MDBs not in all donors to develop

graduation policies that are sequenced, phased and gradual (…) and to explore ways to

ensure that their assistance best addresses the opportunities and challenges presented by

the diverse circumstances of MICs. It is crucial that the text includes all donors, including

bilateral and multilateral donors from the OECD DAC which still account for the majority of

funds for gender equality and women’s rights.

Moreover, they are imperative to protect the human rights of affected communities. The

World Bank’s safeguards revision process has already raised grave concerns about the

consistency of the new framework with existing human rights obligations and international

law, including in relation to resettlement policy, the rights of indigenous peoples and

women’s human rights.

In relation to Multilateral Development Banks, (Para 75, AAA draft), we note that the Action

Agenda mentions that the Member states will “encourage all development banks to establish

or maintain social and environmental safeguards systems, including on human rights,

gender equality and women’s empowerment, that are transparent, effective, efficient, and

time-sensitive”. While this is positive, it only encourages, but it does not include concrete

plans and mechanisms to hold them accountable and monitor to such safeguard systems.

without an explicit commitment to set up an intergovernmental accountability and follow up

mechanism, this remains rhetoric. MDBs must ensure that their safeguards are consistent

with the extraterritorial human rights obligations of governments, and existing obligations

under international law.

Furthermore, all the efforts to include a specific Plan of Action as proposed by Mexico and

supported by CELAC and G77 were removed from the final Action Agenda. Without a

concrete plan on financing and meeting the needs of MICs, there will be weak actions and

diluted responsibilities. We would like to see first the political will to agree on such an action

plan and the appropriate technical environment to map out its specificities, with the inclusion

of Civil Society. Developed countries still have responsibilities towards middle income

countries and thus, middle income countries must be considered ODA recipients. Given the

fact that MICs have the largest number of the people living in poverty, the majority of whom

are women.

We note positively the specific mention to “urge countries to track and report resource

allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment”, however, tracking and reporting

alone is not enough. The Action Agenda should call upon donors to adequately fund gender

equality, and women’s human rights and empowerment. It is unacceptable that developed

countries are not committing to scaling up the share of ODA for achieving gender equality,

women’s empowerment and women’s human rights. ODA must be used to promote

development while reducing structural inequalities including gender inequality. It must this

uphold the obligations of all governments to fulfil existing internationally agreed development

agendas and goals related with women’s human rights included in the Beijing Platform for

Action, the Program of Action of the International Conference on Population and

Development, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against

Women, among others, without resorting to impositions and policy conditionalities within the

narrow framework of aid giving. Furthermore, ODA should be provided in a way that

effectively supports longer term structural change for example through sustained support to

civil society organizations and especially women’s rights organizations.

ODA continues to play a key role in support of gender equality and women’s human rights

and empowerment. However, the OECD DAC GENDERNET analysis of donor’s financial

commitments in this field showed that there is a big gap between the official rhetoric and

actual practice. While there has been an overall upward trend in the amounts of aid focused

on gender equality in education and population services, gender focused aid in other sectors

has remained stalled and insufficient. The share of ODA for achieving gender equality and

women’s human rights should be scaled up ensuring that there are year to year increases by

some agreed upon level and new and additional official funding should be secured to

implement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDG Gender equality standalone

goal on women’s rights and gender equality must have stand-alone funding to fulfil its


We call for caution on the multi-stakeholder partnerships in specific areas such as health,

education and food that are included in the draft Action Agenda. These partnerships with the

private sector are not discussed and approved by governments in an intergovernmental

space at the UN. The multi-stakeholder partnership approach can have severe

consequences for the implementation of the development agenda for the next decades since

it relies on siloed approaches without a clear link to human rights obligations and

comprehensive development agendas, and national strategies. For example, the “Every

Women Every Child” initiative has a mother-child approach in relation to sexual and

reproductive health, and it does not clearly outline its contribution and articulation with the

comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights policies of the Program on action

of the ICPD. Furthermore, their funding is unpredictable and volatile as they depend heavily

on voluntary commitments from the private and corporate sector. Before promoting these

voluntary initiatives, governments should establish an open, transparent, and participatory

UN led intergovernmental space for oversight, monitoring and review of any partnerships

developed or promoted within the framework of the United Nations.

For instance, in the case of Adult Education, the tendency to promote the privatization and

marketization of education coupled with the scarce financing of public education

jeopardize the right to education and the possibilities for young and adult women and men to

have free access to education. Women are key to the realization of the right to food for all,

they have unequal access to food and unequal access to resources for food.

Moreover, any multi-stakeholder process needs to start with the role of States as guarantors

of the rights of communities and individuals and all governments need to ensure democratic

ownership so that all people’s voices and their concerns be the primary basis for national

development plans, policies and processes. Democratic ownership of development

strategies by the people through representative, transparent and accountable institutions is

the main mechanism for achieving the governance needed for achieving sustainable,

inclusive and just development that reaches all people. A true implementation of the principle

of democratic ownership requires the necessary democratic policy space, and insists that

national parliaments and civil society, including women’s rights organizations, must have a

say in defining development strategies. The role of civil society in development processes

should be ensured in line with the right to participate in public decision-making, which should

be reflected in substantive inclusion of civil society, including feminists and women’s rights

organizations, in development processes.

From “new social compacts” towards the implementation of comprehensive and

universal social protection systems and public services


While the Monterrey Consensus recognized the vital importance of investment in economic

and social infrastructure, social services and social protection, including education, health,

nutrition, shelter and social security programmes, which take special care of children and

older persons and are gender sensitive (Para 16, Monterrey Consensus), and the Doha

Declaration advanced “universal access to basic economic and social infrastructure and

inclusive social services” (Para 13, Doha Declaration), the Addiss Action Agenda draft

emphasizes the commitment to new social compacts (Para 12, AAA draft), which obscures

the fact that States are already under the obligation to fulfill the human right to social security

established in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant

on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Therefore, the commitment should be

stronger in ensuring progressive financing to build comprehensive systems of social

protection that provide universal access to quality social services.

Specific commitments should be made to include care as a core axis of social protection,

and a high priority. There is a strong need for policies, regulations and services to transform

current patterns of sexual division of labour, including the unequal distribution of unpaid care

work, through improving social infrastructure, expanding universal care services and

promoting the transformation of gender roles that reinforce an unfair social organization of

care. The aim of “generating full and productive employment and decent work for all” (Para

16, AAA draft) is unachievable unless States assume concrete and effective commitments to

transform these structural barriers. Unfortunately, the mention to reduce and redistribute

unpaid care work proposed by different block of countries is not finally included in the latest

draft version of the Addis Action Agenda.

From reducing FfD agenda to the Means of Implementation of the Post 2015 Agenda,

towards strengthening FfD mandate and follow up mechanism to remove global

obstacles for the implementation of all the internationally agreed development



Paragraph 19 of the Addis Action Agenda states “The post-2015 development agenda,

including the SDGs, can be met within the framework of a revitalized global partnership for

sustainable development, supported by the concrete policies and actions as outlined in the

present Action Agenda.” However it is important to recall that FfD agenda is more than the

means of implementation of the post-2015 development agenda, and not all means of

implementation of the

[Message clipped]  View entire message

Click here to Reply, Reply to all, or Forward

International Day of the Girl Child 2014

Day of thegirl child
Girls learning

As we celebrate  the International Day of the Girl Child today 11th October 2014,  we remember the continued abduction of the Chibok girls for over 6months now and calls on Nigerian government to expedite action in rescuing the girls alive and ensure that the perpetrators of the heinous crime are brought to book.
We call on Nigerians and the international world  to continue to hold campaigns, vigils and demonstrations that will imprint the issue in the consciousness of all stakeholders to galvanize actions necessary to get the girls released.
Abduction of the chibok girls is a criminal act of violence and crime against humanity which must continued to be resisted.
Bring back our girls now! Secure and protect the future of the Nigerian girl child.
Lets join hands to end the circle of violence against the girl child
Ms Titilope Akosa
Executive Director


People's climate march
Civil society organization’s march for climate Justice




The civil society march for climate justice in Lagos, Nigeria.
The civil society march for climate justice in Lagos, Nigeria.



On Sunday 21st September, 2014, we witnessed the swell of global support for climate justice as people from different corners of the globe gathered in New York City to march for climate justice.

Today, Monday 22nd of September, 2014, the good people of Nigeria stand in solidarity with the peoples of the world to demand climate justice from world leaders that will gather at the United Nations climate summit on 23rd September, 2014.

We are concerned that climate related disasters have claimed thousands of lives, wiped out resources and sunk many into deeper poverty. Africa remains on the frontlines of climate change and continues to be vulnerable to its impacts.

We are disturbed that climate challenges are rooted in the global patterns of injustice, discrimination and inequalities which can only be reversed through profound transformative systems change at all levels of governance.


• We reiterate the calls and demands made by various civil society organizations, women’s groups, indigenous groups and social movements from all over the world by calling on world leaders to take urgent action to secure the lives and livelihoods of the poor, vulnerable and the disadvantaged who are also deprived of the means to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
• We call on world leaders, to make bold commitments to deep emission cuts that are targeted towards limiting temperatures to well below1.5 degrees Celsius at United Nations climate summit on 23rd September 2014. These commitments should not be watered down under the “pledge and review system”- a system which is subject to whims and caprices of developed nations- but should be activated to translate into legally binding commitments under the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) policy space.
• We demand for a climate change deal that is rooted in science, equity, justice and based on historical responsibility.
• We call for legally binding solutions that reduce national greenhouse gas emissions to levels consistent with scientific recommendations that prevent the worst impacts of human induced climate change
• We reiterate call on world leaders to mobilize effective political will for a meaningful legally binding agreement in post 2015 development agenda
• We call for an economic system that works for people and the planet; a world with good jobs, clean air and water, and healthy communities
• In the context of Nigeria, we demand an immediate end to gas flaring and call for the implementation of the UNEP Ogoni report.
• We call on federal government and all relevant stakeholders in the power sector to speed up power sector reforms and ensure access to regular and affordable power supply to all Nigerians
• We demand access to affordable, renewable and efficient energy services for all.
• We reiterate the calls for the immediate passage of climate change bill by the National Assembly
• We request that efforts should be intensified in the implementation of the necessary framework for combating climate change in Nigeria
• We demand that states and local government should give adequate attention to the issues of adaptation and mitigation of climate change including tree planting and the creation of green jobs
• We call for the creation of a future with clean air, a healthy environment, good jobs, and resilience in the face of a changing climate for our children and people of Nigeria
• We demand for the promotion intergenerational equity and meaning youth participation in all the design and implementation of climate change adaptation and migration programmes
• Legally binding solutions that reduce national greenhouse gas emissions to levels consistent with scientific recommendations that prevent the worst impacts of human induced climate change

To change everything we need everyone.


• Climate Aid International
• Nigerian Conservation Foundation
• Centre for 21st Century Issues
• Climate Wednesday
• Centre for Grassroots and Environmental Concern
• Foresthwyse
• Enough is Enough
• HEDA Resources
• Climate Change Network
• My Nigeria Online
• Nigerian Youth Climate Coalition
• Earthlight
• Sustainable Research and Action for Environmental Development
• Initiative for Nature and Human Development
• Centre for Climate Leadership
• Ansar-u-deen Youth Movement
• Nasrul-Lahi-L-Fatih Society (NASFAT) Youth
• Young Volunteers for the Environment
• Saving Lives Nigeria
• Nature Cares
• Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG) Youth Fellowship
• Freedom Network
• National Association of Nigerian Students


The momentum to galvanize positive actions to address the menace of the impacts of climate change will get to a crescendo today as peoples from all corners of the globe hit the streets in New York City today. Even the secretary General of the United Nations will not be left out as he marches in solidarity with the people.
We at Centre for 21st Century Issues, (C21st) Nigeria also stand in solidarity with the people to demonstrate that the voice of the majority of the peoples on the street far supersedes the voice of the people in governments and corporations.
The damage done already by the impacts of climate change to the poorest and the most marginalized peoples of the world cannot continue to go unmitigated. World Leaders must stand up to their true calling and stop playing games with the future of the people.
The people have a stake in climate change decision making , after all they are the ones on the frontlines of climate change, bearing the heaviest burdens. There is no more room for empty promises at the United Nations climate summit. We demand deep emissions cuts to limit atmospheric temperature to  1.5 degrees celsius and finance to address loss and damages occasioned by the impacts of climate change at the United Nations Summit come 23rd September 2014. This must translate to binding legal agreements at the United Nations Convention on Climate change policy levels.
We would not fold our arms as science has severally demonstrated that temperatures may well be heading towards 5 degrees Celsius, a condition which will destabilize our world.
We are marching today , to ensure the future and health of our planet, to secure our future and the future of generations yet unborn, to say no to corporate take over of climate policy space.
The interest, concerns and voice of the people must prevail! Arise! March On! Let the collective will of the people rule the day!
In solidarity
Ms Titilope Akosa
Executive Director C21st