Housing as Climate Resilience in Asia-Pacific Cities

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Climate Change, Environment, Featured, Headlines, Humanitarian Emergencies, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Housing as Climate Resilience in Asia-Pacific Cities

A woman looking at the flooding and landslides in Panauti Muncipality of central Nepal in October 2024. Housing resilience is essential in preventing urban loss and saving lives. Credit: UNICEF/ Rabik Upadhayay

BANGKOK, Thailand, Mar 16 2026 (IPS) – Access to adequate housing is a foundation of resilient cities. Safe and affordable homes provide stability, allow residents to access essential services, and enhance the capacity for communities to withstand and recover from shocks. Yet housing is often treated as a downstream outcome of urban development or disaster recovery rather than as a strategic investment in resilience.

The Asia and the Pacific SDG Progress Report 2026 delivers a stark warning. The region is not on track to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, and 88 per cent of measurable targets are projected to be missed by 2030 at the current pace. Progress across SDG 11 indicators reflects mixed trends. While some indicators show improvement, disaster losses and infrastructure damage continue to rise.

This widening gap between policy commitments and real-world outcomes exposes a growing resilience deficit in urban systems. Accelerating progress on SDG Target 11.1, which calls for access to adequate, safe and affordable housing and the upgrading of informal settlements, will be critical to reducing urban vulnerability across Asia and the Pacific.

Regional dialogue increasingly reflects this shift toward translating policy commitments into concrete action that reduces urban vulnerability. Discussions at the 13th Asia-Pacific Forum on Sustainable Development in 2026 and statements at the eighty-first session of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, held under the theme resilient and sustainable urban development for regional cooperation, highlighted housing affordability, informal settlements and climate-resilient housing as growing policy priorities requiring stronger action at the city level.

Across Asia and the Pacific, around 700 million people, nearly one-third of the region’s urban population, live in informal settlements – many located in hazard-prone areas exposed to flooding, extreme heat, landslides and sea-level rise.

Urban informality reflects deeper structural weaknesses in urban systems, such as gaps in land governance, planning frameworks and service delivery, concentrating climate risks in the same neighbourhoods where housing conditions are most fragile.

Urban vulnerability is shaped by the way cities are built and governed. Unplanned development, weak land-use systems and inadequate housing expose millions of urban residents to climate hazards and disaster risks. In informal settlements, these risks intensify through substandard construction, overcrowding, and limited access to water and sanitation.

Climate change further amplifies these vulnerabilities as flooding, extreme heat, water insecurity, land subsidence and air pollution interact through fragile urban systems.

Evidence also shows that improving housing conditions generates broad development gains. Habitat for Humanity’s research indicates that large-scale upgrading of informal settlements could raise GDP per capita by up to 10 per cent and increase life expectancy by four percent.

Within just one year, housing improvements could prevent more than 20 million illnesses, avert nearly 43 million incidents of gender-based violence, and avoid around 80,000 deaths. These findings highlight that expanding affordable housing and upgrading informal settlements are critical investments in climate adaptation, public health and inclusive development.

A shared but differentiated responsibility

To realign SDG trajectories and move the region closer to a resilient urban future, housing must be understood as a core component of the urban system. Achieving this requires coordinated action across governments, the private sector and civil society.

Governments: From pilot projects to systemic guarantees

Governments must anchor climate-resilient and adequate housing as a national priority, embedding secure tenure, resilient housing and informal settlement upgrading within urban development, climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction strategies. Regulatory frameworks should enable participatory and in-situ upgrading and community-led tenure solutions that allow residents to invest in climate-resilient housing improvements.

Private sector: From speculative value to resilient value

The private sector can help scale resilient housing solutions by mobilizing blended finance that combines guarantees, concessional capital and private investment. These mechanisms can support incremental home improvements, affordable rental supply and climate-resilient retrofits. Companies can also prioritize locally sourced, low-carbon materials and passive design solutions such as cool roofs, insulation and cross-ventilation suited to tropical cities.

Civil society and academia: From isolated initiatives to knowledge-powered coalitions

Civil society and academic institutions play an essential role in co-producing evidence and solutions with communities. This includes exploring nature-based approaches in informal settlements and ensuring policies reflect lived realities on the ground. They also help hold institutions accountable to SDG 11 and climate justice by tracking progress on Target 11.1 and ensuring policies and investments prioritize the most vulnerable.

Housing will shape the region’s urban resilience

The future of urban resilience in Asia and the Pacific will largely be determined in its informal neighbourhoods. If current trends continue, millions more families will be pushed into precarious and hazard-exposed housing. Aligning housing policy with climate adaptation, disaster risk reduction and inclusive urban governance therefore offers one of the most powerful pathways to accelerate SDG 11 and strengthen resilience across the region.

Sanjeevani Singh is Economic Affairs Officer, ESCAP; Enid Madarcos is Associate Director for Urban, Land and Policy, Habitat for Humanity International (Asia-Pacific)

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Why Does African Leadership Lack Coordination on Reparations?

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Why Does African Leadership Lack Coordination on Reparations?

Unsplash Fort of Goree Island, Senegal, was the site of one of the earliest European settlements in Western Africa. Source UN News

The calls for reparatory justice can no longer be ignored, speakers at the fourth session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on African Descent said last April.

They urged greater collaboration between governments, civil society and regional organizations to create a system that would compensate Africa and the African diaspora for the enduring legacies of colonialism, enslavement, apartheid and genocide between the 16th and 19th centuries. “Africa was under siege,” said Hilary Brown, speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) about the 300 years of enslavement and exploitation on the continent. “Her political, economic and social systems thrown into chaotic instability as Europe plundered the continent for her most valuable asset, her people.”

MOSCOW, Mar 13 2026 (IPS) – Professor Jude Osakwe—a Nigerian scholar at the Namibian University of Science and Technology (NUST) and Continental Chairman of the Nigerians in Diaspora Organisation Africa (NIDOAF)—has reiterated the absolute truth over Reparations for Africa, noting that African governments have consistently expressed only ’emotional solidarity’ over Reparations instead of tackling and addressing, with seriousness, this pertinent issue within the context of diplomacy.

He strongly believes that despite sharp political and cultural diversity influencing developments, African leaders can still adopt a collective strategy in pursuit of advantageous aspirations for sustaining continental sovereignty. The concept of Pan-Africanism is noticeably fragmented while grassroot movements lack strategic coordination.

Here are excerpts from the interview:

How well do African people represent the continent on Reparations and Pan-Africanism?

Professor Jude Osakwe: Honestly, inadequately, but not without effort. Representation is fragmented. The loudest voices on reparations often come from the Caribbean and African-American communities, while continental Africans, remain largely sidelined in that global conversation.

Pan-Africanism as an ideology is more spoken about than practiced. There is emotional solidarity, but very little structural unity. The honest reality is that African governments have not made reparations a serious diplomatic priority, and grassroots movements lack the coordination to pressure them to do so.

Does the diaspora media landscape affect how these topics are viewed in a Western light?

Professor Osakwe: Absolutely.

Western media frames Pan-Africanism as either nostalgic romanticism or a political threat, and frames reparations as a Black American issue, effectively erasing the continental African dimension entirely. As an African in the diaspora, you are constantly navigating between your own lived framework and a media environment that either misrepresents or ignores your perspective.

This creates a psychological burden, you must actively resist the dominant narrative just to maintain an accurate self-understanding. African diaspora media exists, but it remains underfunded and underreached compared to mainstream outlets, which means the Western framing dominates public discourse by default.

What are the measures for upholding African identity in the diaspora, and diaspora contributions amid geopolitical shifts?

Professor Osakwe: Key measures:

    • Intentional cultural transmission, language, history, and values must be actively taught, not assumed
    • Building diaspora institutions that are African-led, not just African-themed
    • Political engagement both in host countries and in countries of origin
    • Economic networking through platforms like NIDO that connect diaspora professionals to continental development

On geopolitical contributions: The current moment, with Africa renegotiating relationships with Western powers, China, Russia, and Gulf states, is actually an opportunity for the diaspora. Diaspora Africans sitting inside Western governments, universities, and financial institutions carry real leverage.

The question is whether that leverage gets used collectively or dissipates individually. Remittances already outpace foreign aid to many African countries. What’s needed now is moving beyond remittances to strategic investment, policy advocacy, and knowledge transfer, turning the diaspora from a financial lifeline into a genuine development partner.

Kester Kenn Klomegah focuses on current geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development-related questions in Africa with external countries. Most of his well-resourced articles are reprinted in several reputable foreign media.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

The Most Appropriate Response to Falling Birthrates? Embrace Them

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Health, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Population, Poverty & SDGs, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime. Source: World Population Prospects 2022 report from the Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

ST. PAUL, Minnesota, USA, Mar 12 2026 (IPS) – As birthrates continue to decline in many industrialized countries, anxious governments are running out of schemes to keep women procreating.

In the US, millionaires and billionaires are lining up to donate to Trump’s “baby bonus” savings accounts. Trump accounts give parents $1,000 for all babies born between now and 2028, plus whatever private donors add.

Late last year tech billionaires Michael and Susan Dell donated $6.25 billion to them. The accounts are part of Trump’s far-Right pronatalist agenda, and also part of the broader trend of governments using heavy-handed pronatalist policies, ranging from bribes to outright coercion, to convince women to have more babies and shore up the supply of future workers, taxpayers, and soldiers.

These interventions are notoriously ineffective. A recent Heritage Foundation report recommended using economic incentives to convince American women to have more babies, “with preferences for larger-than-average [families],” while shaming those who choose to have fewer or no children.

A family in South Korea, which has the lowest Total Fertility Rate in the world (0.8).

But it also admitted, “Other nations have tried to reverse declining birthrates through financially generous family policies, none has succeeded. Government spending alone does not ensure demographic success.”

Nor can such policies achieve what Heritage calls “success.” Trying to raise birthrates by incentivizing women to have babies not only undermines hard-won reproductive rights, it’s a waste of money.

Such spending is not a priority for U.S. taxpayers, as most Americans do not see falling birth rates as a crisis. Instead, they overwhelmingly want the government to address untenably high child care costs. But a one-time Trump account infusion makes no dent in high costs of raising children and other barriers to motherhood.

Just as recent cuts to SNAP and Medicaid disproportionately affect marginalized women and children, Trump accounts benefit least those who need help most. By the Administration’s own calculations, the accounts will benefit wealthy parents disproportionately.

This shouldn’t be surprising. Trump accounts and other pronatalist policies aren’t really about empowerment or saving families or supporting children. They are a bid to make more white Americans, part of a larger nativist program which includes cracking down on immigration from African and Muslim countries, detaining and deporting non-white people in huge numbers, and even abandoning former U.S. efforts to fight child exploitation and trafficking.

These policies overtly stoke panic about falling birthrates, and tacitly uphold the white supremacist “great replacement” conspiracy theory.

That makes support for pronatalism from some progressives especially disturbing. Even if their intent is not nativist, advocating policies that push women to have more children is anti-feminist and fundamentally at odds with reproductive agency.

And even when such policies intend to serve feminist goals–for example Finland’s generous parental leave and child and health care—they fail to raise birthrates. That’s because the biggest factor in childbearing decisions isn’t affordability; it’s empowerment.

Nobel prizewinning economic historian Claudia Goldin has shown high birthrates are no longer tied to economic prosperity, as women increasingly choose education and careers over traditional family roles. In fact, she found an inverse relationship between per capita income and fertility. “Wherever you get increased agency,” she said, “you get reduction in the birth rate.”

Another study across 136 countries confirms this: whenever women achieve reproductive agency, birthrates decline, whether the economy is growing or shrinking.

But hundreds of millions of women and girls are denied this agency. Over 640 million alive today were child brides (including in the US). Over 220 million have an unmet need for contraception. More than half of pregnancies are unintended—121 million annually. Cuts in USAID and other aid programs make the situation more dire.

Despite birthrates declining in many countries, global population is going up, projected to swell by 2 billion to 10.4 billion by the 2080s, with vast ecological and social consequences. Extreme climate events are expected to kill more than a billion people and displace up to 3 billion this century, most in countries where women and girls are disempowered and fertility rates remain high. Pronatalism will only make ecological and social crises worse.

We need new policy thinking that recognizes this and embraces the many advantages of declining fertility and less growth. As fertility rates fall, female labor participation will increase and gender pay gaps will narrow.

As median age rises, changing demographics could enable policy shifts that improve wages and conditions for workers and extend job opportunity to billions on the sidelines who want work but don’t have it.

There is no lack of good ideas, from economic models that center wellbeing and rethink growth to radical ecological democracy. Exploring them requires getting off the endless growth treadmill that enriches elites at the expense of the rest of us. We must stop treating women like reproductive vessels for making more people to serve the economy, and start reshaping our economies to serve more people and the planet.

Nandita Bajaj is executive director of the NGO Population Balance, senior lecturer at Antioch University, and producer and host of the podcasts OVERSHOOT and Beyond Pronatalism. Her research and advocacy work focuses on addressing the combined impacts of pronatalism and human expansionism on reproductive and ecological justice.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

VENEZUELA: ‘An Economically Stable Authoritarian Model Could Become Entrenched’

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Economy & Trade, Energy, Featured, Headlines, Human Rights, Latin America & the Caribbean, Migration & Refugees, TerraViva United Nations

Mar 11 2026 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the situation in Venezuela following US intervention and the ousting of President Nicolás Maduro with Verónica Zubillaga, a Venezuelan sociologist who specialises in urban violence, state repression and community responses to armed violence.

Verónica Zubillaga

In late January, the interim government led by Delcy Rodríguez announced an amnesty for political prisoners, coinciding with a rapprochement with the USA driven by oil interests. It is unclear whether this represents the beginning of a genuine opening or is an attempt by the government to gain international legitimacy without relinquishing power. In a country with millions of migrants and exiles, a historically fragmented opposition and a civil society that has faced brutal repression for years, it remains to be seen whether recent changes will create space for democracy or lead to the consolidation of economically stable authoritarianism.

Is the recently announced amnesty a real opening or a strategic manoeuvre?

We are at an unprecedented crossroads. Venezuela and its Chavista regime, under US tutelage and despite two decades of anti-imperialist rhetoric, are reconfiguring themselves in such a way that some opening could result. However, there is still a risk that an authoritarian model will be consolidated, with economic and humanitarian concessions, but without real democratisation.

The release of political prisoners — a constant demand in all negotiations with international support, and a low-cost form of early opening for the interim government that has taken over from Maduro — could function as a stepping stone towards democratisation. The restoration of civil, political and social rights will be a difficult and lengthy struggle in this context of such deprivation, in which our rights have been violated for so long.

In the first half of February, there were partial and gradual releases, but hundreds of people remained in detention. The enactment of the Amnesty Law on 19 February has accelerated the releases.

The announcement was presented as a political concession, not as a recognition of the extensive human rights violations committed by Maduro’s government. There has been no mention yet of initiating processes to seek the truth, hold those responsible accountable, provide reparations or dismantle the repressive apparatus, which are urgent.

We therefore need to react with caution. The release of people deprived of their liberty for political reasons is essential, but it cannot replace a broader agenda of justice, reparation and institutional transformation.

How has civil society worked to keep this issue at the centre of the debate?

The cause of political prisoners is cross-cutting. There are detained people of different ages, social classes and political backgrounds. In a society as polarised as ours, this is one of the few causes around which there is broad consensus.

After the results of the presidential election of 28 July 2024, which the opposition clearly won, were disregarded, it was mainly people from the working classes who took to the streets to protest. Many young people, including teenagers, were arrested and imprisoned. This situation significantly deepened the social dimension of the problem, highlighted the break between the ruling party and its traditional base and consolidated the brutally authoritarian nature and illegitimacy of Maduro’s government.

There is also an important gender dimension. While many young men are in prison, it is women – mothers, sisters and other relatives – who have organised committees, vigils and public actions demanding their release. Symbolically, the figure of the grieving mother demanding the release of her children is particularly powerful. It is a symbol that appeals to the Latin American imagination about women and their cries for democratisation, justice and reparation in the context of crumbling authoritarian regimes.

Recently, the demand for the release of political prisoners has also been raised by the student movement in its call for a rally at the Central University of Venezuela. After a year and a half of brutal repression following the 2024 election, which emptied the streets and created a climate of widespread fear, any public demonstration is a significant sign that could trigger a chain of progressive demands and the vindication of civil, political and social rights.

What has been the impact of the USA’s renewed interest in Venezuelan oil?

It is clear that the Trump administration is fixated on oil and investment opportunities and completely disregards democracy and human rights. The part of the opposition represented by María Corina Machado has been stunned by its exclusion from key decision-making despite its efforts to gain Donald Trump’s attention. This exclusion has altered the internal political balance.

Historically, there has been tension within the Venezuelan opposition between those who favour resorting to external pressure and those who prioritise internal negotiation strategies. Since 2014, two main strategies have coexisted: one that is more confrontational, demanding the immediate end of the government, and another favouring negotiation or elections. Civil society mirrors these same divisions. One of the difficulties of the Venezuelan process is this constant fragmentation and internal disagreements within the opposition. As the government has become more authoritarian, these divisions have prevented more powerful coordinated political action. It is important for the opposition to coordinate strategies and, instead of wearing itself down in these disagreements, coordinate efforts to move strategically between confrontation and negotiation.

Whenever the opposition has managed to coordinate, as in the 2015 legislative and 2024 presidential elections, it made significant gains. During the 2024 campaign led by Machado, the opposition achieved an unprecedented level of coordination, generating enormous collective hope, particularly with regard to the prospect of family reunification in a country with over eight million migrants. This situation affects people of all social classes and political ideologies. But in response, the government redoubled its repression and consolidated the dictatorship. This led to frustration, demobilisation and further fragmentation. The opposition lacked a long-term strategy to sustain its gains and withstand setbacks. This is still one of the biggest challenges today.

What should the international community do to contribute to real democratisation?

The international community, and Latin American states in particular, could have taken a firmer stance after the 2024 electoral fraud. Silence and a lukewarm approach weakened the defence of democracy. Now it should not repeat that mistake. Beyond Maduro’s profound delegitimisation, the US military operation in Venezuela is a sign of what could happen to any Latin American country under the US government’s new national security strategy.

With the USA as an imperial power primarily concerned with its geostrategic interests and oil resources, demands for democratisation may take a back seat. An authoritarian model that is economically stable but without real democratisation could become entrenched.

In this context, the USA’s prioritisation of energy interests is worrying. It is an unprecedented scenario in which external intervention and the permanence of the ruling party in power coexist. The situation is highly volatile, and this has only just begun. A period of instability and political violence could follow if the civil-military coalition in power breaks down, which may happen given the tradition of anti-imperialist discourse rooted in the armed forces during the two and a half decades of Chavista rule.

Ironically, the USA’s focus on energy interests could result in the defence of sovereignty becoming a new unifying cause for the Venezuelan opposition, potentially leading to basic agreements between the ruling party post-Maduro and the opposition to defend Venezuelan oil interests. What’s at stake is recovering politics as an exercise involving conflict and struggle, as well as recognition and exchange for democratic coexistence — something we have lost, particularly over the past decade.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent

GET IN TOUCH
LinkedIn
Twitter

SEE ALSO
‘Although the repressive architecture remains intact, a small window of hope has opened’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Luz Mely Reyes 05.Feb.2026
Venezuela: democracy no closer CIVICUS Lens 29.Jan.2026
‘We are seeing an economic transition, but no democratic transition’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Guillermo Miguelena 26.Jan.2026

  Source

The Cost of Being Seen: Exposure versus Exploitation

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations, Youth

Opinion

The Cost of Being Seen: Exposure versus Exploitation

Credit: United Nations

NEW YORK, Mar 11 2026 (IPS) – I have often been asked a simple but important question: How can we make it sustainable if we are not being compensated for it?

That question sits at the heart of a conversation we do not address enough. Somewhere between exposure and exploitation lies a line we still have not learned to draw clearly. And perhaps that is exactly where the real conversation on “inclusion” begins.

The cost of being seen, is probably the heaviest cost youth have to bear in pursuit of carrying the passion and aspirations they strive for when trying to make an impact.

As conversations around the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs continue to grow, one question remains: how far have we really come in shaping perspectives, and not just numbers?

Too often, inclusion is measured by attendance, representation, and diversity metrics. But inclusion is not just about presence. It is about value. It is about whether people are acknowledged, respected, and taken seriously for their contribution. Inclusion does not live in the excel sheets we fill or the rooms we temporarily occupy during events.

It begins where age, gender, ethnicity, and job titles are not weighed before credibility is given. This matters even more for young people.

A single voice, a single appearance, or a single statement is often framed as an opportunity. And sometimes, it is. But when visibility becomes a substitute for fair compensation, authorship, decision-making power, or real support, exposure stops being empowered and starts becoming exploitative.

Exposure on its own is not empowerment. Visibility can open doors, but it cannot replace fair structures. Being seen is meaningful only when it is followed by trust, ownership, opportunity, and value.

Too often, young people are handed advice when what they really need is access. They are mentored, encouraged, and told to keep going, yet rarely sponsored in the spaces that shape outcomes. If we want inclusion to move beyond symbolism, we must build cultures where support does not end at guidance.

It must extend into advocacy. Because for many underrepresented voices, the issue is not a lack of talent or preparation. It is the absence of someone willing to open the right door and say, this person belongs here.

The goal is not to reject exposure. Exposure can be powerful. But it cannot be the only thing being offered. Real inclusion begins when participation is respected, contribution is valued, and visibility leads to something more lasting. Being seen may open the door, but being valued is what makes inclusion real.

Bisma Qamar is Pakistan’s Youth Representative to the UN & USA chapter under the Prime Minister’s Youth Programme (PMYP). Her work is centered towards learning and development and capability building initiatives, with a strong emphasis on creating inclusive and sustainable opportunities through “Bridging talent with opportunities” by upskilling individuals focusing on SDG 4 ( Education ) and SDG 5 ( Gender Equality )

https://www.un.org/youthaffairs/en/youth2030/about

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

International Women’s Day 2026: A Resistance Stronger than the Backlash

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Featured, Gender, Gender Identity, Gender Violence, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, LGBTQ, TerraViva United Nations, Women’s Health

Opinion

International Women’s Day 2026: A Resistance Stronger than the Backlash

Credit: Marco Longari/AFP

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Mar 9 2026 (IPS) – Consider what International Women’s Day looked like a few years ago, and what it looks like now: the same date, the same global moment of reflection, but a vastly changed global landscape. Gender rights are facing the most coordinated and wide-ranging attack in decades. Anti-rights forces are dismantling protections secured after generations of struggle, destroying infrastructure built to address gender-based violence and realise reproductive rights and rewriting legal frameworks to roll back rights, with a specific focus on excluding transgender people. This is the result of a deliberate, carefully crafted, handsomely funded and globally coordinated strategy.

Fortunately, resistance is proving harder to extinguish than those driving the backlash had expected. Another International Women’s Day of mobilisation is here to prove it.

A regressive template

While attacks have been building for years, the global landscape shifted quickly in January 2025, when a newly inaugurated Donald Trump signed executive orders imposing a rigid binary classification of sex across federal law, stripping non-discrimination protections for LGBTQI+ people in healthcare and housing, and banning diversity, equity and inclusion policies across the federal government. Because the USA had been the world’s largest bilateral donor, the simultaneous dismantling of USAID and expansion of the global gag rule — blocking US funding to organisations that provide abortions or advocate for abortion rights — had immediate effects on women and girls all over the world, with particularly deadly consequences in conflict zones, rural areas and the world’s poorest countries.

Elsewhere, regressive forces were already mobilising – and Trump’s example only emboldened them. Hungary banned Pride marches and authorised surveillance to enforce compliance. Slovakia and the UK redefined sex as exclusively biological, stripping legal recognition from non-binary and transgender people. Burkina Faso criminalised same-sex relations and their ‘promotion’. Trinidad and Tobago’s Court of Appeal reinstated colonial-era penalties for homosexuality of up to 25 years in prison. Kazakhstan introduced a Russian-style ban on positive LGBTQI+ representation in education, media and online platforms.

It’s striking how consistent the underlying logic is across different political and regional contexts: gender equality is framed as a dangerous ‘ideology’, feminism is demonised as a foreign imposition, LGBTQI+ visibility is portrayed as a threat to children. The similarities reflect a coordinated effort to manufacture cultural conflict to consolidate hierarchies, strengthen elite authority and deflect attention from economic and political failures.

The backlash has reached the international institutions that have long served feminist movements as key arenas for developing a common language, setting a shared agenda and coordinating action across borders. A milestone in anti-rights advances was observed at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women’s 69th session last year, where a well-organised anti-rights bloc succeeded in stripping longstanding references to sexual and reproductive health and rights from the meeting’s Political Declaration.

What resistance looks like

Yet regression is not going uncontested: not in the streets, not in the courts and not even in the world’s most repressive settings.

In Hungary, tens of thousands defied the Pride ban in Budapest, risking prosecution to assert their right to be visible in public space. In South Africa, sustained civil society pressure, including over a million signatures demanding action, compelled the government to declare gender-based violence and femicide a national disaster. In St Lucia, the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court struck down colonial-era laws criminalising same-sex relations. Courts in Malawi and Nigeria recognised the right to safe abortion for sexual violence survivors. The UK finally repealed a Victorian-era law that had continued to criminalise abortion in England and Wales. Denmark and Norway improved access to abortion services. Marriage equality came into force in both Liechtenstein and Thailand. At least three European Union member states — the Czech Republic, France and Poland — adopted consent-based definitions of rape.

Even in the most difficult of circumstances, under Afghanistan’s system of gender apartheid, women are maintaining underground schools, keeping solidarity networks alive and documenting abuses, setting their sights on future justice processes.

While the list of advances is impressive, some of the most important contemporary victories are invisible: stalled bills, softened provisions, laws not passed because civil society refused to stand aside. An attempt to repeal The Gambia’s ban on female genital mutilation was blocked. Kenya’s anti-LGBTQI+ Family Protection Bill remains stalled. In Latvia, when conservative forces moved in October 2025 to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention on violence against women, large-scale protests and a civil society petition won what could be a crucial delay. These defensive successes rarely make headlines, but they result from sustained, unglamorous advocacy and coalition work. Without them, the most extreme proposals would advance much further and faster.

Rising to the challenge

Recognition of rights is never permanent. It’s won through sustained struggle and can be reversed through organised opposition from those who perceive other people’s rights as a threat to their privilege. Backlash isn’t a historical anomaly but a predictable counter-mobilisation, and civil society has met it as such, by organising, mobilising, litigating and refusing to concede ground.

This is precisely what CIVICUS’s 2026 State of Civil Society Report, set for release on 12 March, sets out to document. The report examines the state of the world and civil society action throughout 2025 and early 2026 – including a dedicated chapter on women’s and LGBTQI+ people’s rights – and reveals strong patterns of resistance. Across regions and political contexts, it shows how civil society understands the scale of the attack and is responding in every possible way.

As this International Women’s Day will once again make clear, the backlash is organised and strong. But so is the resistance.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Head of Research and Analysis, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report. She is also a Professor of Comparative Politics at Universidad ORT Uruguay.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

  Source