A window into what we’re reading at the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program 

Over 40,000 Protest for Maori Rights in New Zealand (Al Jazeera) 

Earlier this month, the libertarian ACT New Zealand party introduced the Treaty Principles Bill in that nation’s legislature. The controversial measure seeks to reinterpret the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi—a foundational document that granted Maori tribes broad land rights in return for ceding governance to the British. The treaty’s historical value remains significant to this day, and it is a contemporary reminder of the colonial injustices faced by the country’s native tribes.

A window into what we are reading at the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program

Climate Security and Canada’s Promises to NATO  (Global News) 

As a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Canada has been influential in the integration of climate change policy with the alliance’s mission. It supported the development of NATO’s Climate Change and Security Action Plan aligning with the alliance’s core tasks of deterrence and defense, crisis prevention and management, and cooperative security. Following the Canadian proposal 2021, Global Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defense jointly lead NATO’s Climate Change and Security Centre of Excellence (CCASCOE) to research and identify best practices to address climate change and security-related challenges.  

“We need more Indigenous midwives,” said Claire Dion Fletcher, an Indigenous Potawatomi-Lenape Registered Midwife and co-chair of the National Aboriginal Council of Midwives (NACM), at a recent Wilson Center event with the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the International Confederation of Midwives about Indigenous midwifery. Globally, Indigenous women experience worse maternal health outcomes than non-Indigenous women. In the United States, risk of maternal death is twice as high for Native women than white women, while in Australia the risk is four and a half times higher.

As a world still dominated by patriarchy struggles with a deadly pandemic, the countries that have successfully navigated the global COVID-19 pandemic are distinguished by the gender of their leadership.  Across the world, countries headed by women and representing diverse cultures—from Germany, Norway, and Finland, to Taiwan, New Zealand, and Namibia—have managed the crisis more effectively, with fewer fatalities and less livelihood loss than others. But what distinguishes these health winners is not just the female shape of their leaders but the feminist shape of their societies. Even more gender-balanced societies headed by men—like Canada—do better in health crises than their less equitable peers like the United States. On the other hand, the most patriarchal countries headed by regressive strongmen do worse at every level of development. Today, we see this in Brazil, which until recently had managed health crises well under less masculinist leadership.

“While COVID-19 has wreaked havoc the world over, history has proven, and recent data agrees that the hardest hit will be the world’s women and girls and populations already impacted by racism and discrimination,” said Sarah Barnes, Project Director of the Maternal Health Initiative and Women and Gender Advisor at the Wilson Center, at a recent event on the impact of COVID-19 on race and gender inequities. Coronavirus has hurt women and girls in many ways. Among them, women have been pushed back into the home.  And healthcare workers and caregivers who are mostly women are jeopardizing their own health, caring for others.

Last year, four rivers were granted legal rights: the Whanganui in New Zealand, Rio Atrato in Colombia, and the Ganga and Yamuna rivers in India. These four cases present powerful examples of the increasing relevance of rights-centered environmental protection. Like corporations, which have legal rights in many jurisdictions, these rivers are rights-bearing entities whose rights can be enforced by local communities and individuals in court. But unlike corporations, these rights are not yet recognized in international treaties. Which raises the question: what are the implications of rights for nature for international environmental law?