‘A Wake-Up Call from the Womb’—Indigenous People Rally for a Binding Plastics Treaty

Active Citizens, Civil Society, Climate Action, Conferences, Conservation, Development & Aid, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Europe, Featured, Global, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Natural Resources, North America, Ocean Health, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Water & Sanitation

Health

Panelists engaged in a discussion with reporters about plastic pollution. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

Panelists engaged in a discussion with reporters about plastic pollution. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

NICE, France, Jun 11 2025 (IPS) – As the sun peeked through the French Riviera clouds and a dozen reporters sipped orange juice aboard the WWF Panda Boat docked at Port Lympia, Frankie Orona, a Native American rights advocate from the Society of Native Nations in San Antonio, Texas, stunned the room into a moment of absolute stillness.


“Imagine a baby in the womb, completely reliant on its mother for air, water, and nutrients—and yet, plastic chemicals are already finding their way into that sacred space,” he said, his voice trembling with emotion. “That baby has no choice. And neither do future generations if we don’t act now.”

Orona’s stark imagery marked a powerful appeal to the high-level delegation at the UN Ocean Conference on June 10 in Nice, where ministers and representatives from 95 countries backed The Nice Wake-Up Call—a collective demand for an ambitious, legally binding U.N. plastics treaty that addresses the full lifecycle of plastic pollution.

For Orona, the issue is deeply personal and spiritual. “In our culture, the womb is the beginning of the circle of life. Polluting it with plastics is like violating a sacred trust,” he said.

A Crisis in the Making

Plastics are now everywhere—in our oceans, our food, and even our bodies. In 2019 alone, an estimated 28 million metric tons of plastic ended up in the environment—equivalent to dumping the weight of the Titanic into nature every day. Without aggressive intervention, that figure could nearly double by 2040.

For  Orona, who doubles as UNEP co-chair of the Indigenous Peoples Major Group, the negotiations unfolding ahead of the August talks in Geneva are a fight for survival.

Speaking to reporters aboard the WWF Panda, Orona, a descendant of the Tonkawa and Apache tribes, did not mince words. “For Indigenous peoples and frontline communities, plastic pollution is not just an environmental issue—it is a human rights crisis that has been going on for generations,” he said.

With the Mediterranean breeze brushing across the harbor, Orona’s voice cut through the chatter of press briefings and policy handouts. “Our communities live near the extraction sites, the refineries, the chemical plants, the incinerators, and the waste dumps. We are the first to feel the impacts—in our lungs, our water, our food, and our children’s health. And too often, we are the last to be consulted.”

The declaration known as The Nice Wake-Up Call, endorsed by 95 countries at the conference, was a welcome shift in tone for many in the Indigenous rights movement. “It sends a strong signal that many governments are now recognizing what we’ve been saying for decades—that ending plastic pollution means addressing the full life cycle of plastics: from extraction to production to disposal,” Orona said.

From Environmental Damage to Systemic Injustice

Orona, who also represents the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Plastics and is part of the Plastics Environment Justice Delegation, emphasized that plastic pollution must be understood in the context of historical and ongoing systems of exploitation.

“This is a continuation of environmental racism and systemic injustices. The human rights violations and violence that have been normalized in our communities for generations must stop,” he said.

Citing the disproportionate exposure of Indigenous populations to toxic chemicals used in plastics—some linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and endocrine disruption—he called for a global ban on these additives. “Many of these chemicals are dumped, burned, and leached into our waters, into our sacred lands,” Orona said. “We cannot talk about justice if these harms continue.”

A Just Transition Rooted in Indigenous Knowledge

While many governments are pushing for ambitious production caps and bans on single-use plastics, Orona warned that these measures must not shift the burden onto those least responsible for the crisis.

“A just transition means phasing out fossil fuel-based plastics while investing in community-led solutions, including Indigenous knowledge and science,” he said. “This isn’t just about cleaning up trash; it’s about restoring balance and protecting future generations.”

In a system long dominated by fossil fuel interests and extractive economies, Indigenous communities have often led the way in conservation and sustainable living. “Our knowledge systems are not just cultural—they are scientific. They are proven. And they are part of the solution,” Orona noted.

Follow the Money—and Ensure It Reaches the Frontlines

Orona’s final message was financial. Any treaty, he insisted, must include a mechanism that guarantees direct access to funds for Indigenous and frontline communities.

“Too often, we are shut out of global financing streams—even when we are the ones on the front lines, creating the very solutions the world needs,” he said. “That must end.”

While images of floating plastic bottles and entangled turtles often dominate headlines, experts at the Nice panel were adamant: the crisis begins long before a straw hits the ocean.

Disproportionate Impacts

Plastic production facilities are often located in marginalized communities—adding a layer of environmental injustice to the crisis.

“Indigenous peoples, rural communities, and minority populations suffer the worst impacts,” said Orona. “We’re talking about asthma, cancers, and cardiovascular diseases—especially in children. These are not abstract consequences; these are lived experiences.”

Reporters on the Panda Boat scribbled notes between bites of Mediterranean pastries, visibly moved by Orona’s personal account.

“This is genocide by pollution,” he added. “Our people are dying, and it’s largely invisible to the rest of the world.”

Wildlife at Risk

The panel also underscored the devastating effects of plastic on marine life. Every species of sea turtle has been documented ingesting or getting entangled in plastic. For blue whales, the planet’s largest animals, the reality is even more daunting—they are believed to ingest up to 10 million pieces of microplastic every day, sometimes weighing as much as 44 kilograms.

The next round of negotiations for the plastics treaty is scheduled for August in Geneva, where pressure is mounting to solidify a legally binding agreement that includes all five critical points outlined in the Nice declaration.

The sense of urgency also echoes in the corridors of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the U.N. agency overseeing the global shipping industry. Tasked with ensuring environmental safety on the high seas, the IMO has stepped up efforts to address plastic waste, among other pressing marine threats.

In response to a question about the devastating 2021 marine spill in Sri Lanka—where a burning cargo vessel released over 1,680 metric tons of plastic pellets into the Indian Ocean—IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez noted that the agency has been developing new regulations specifically targeting the handling, packaging, and cleanup of plastic pellets. These measures, initially adopted by the European Union, mark a significant step in tightening maritime controls on plastic pollution.

Dominguez stressed that tackling marine pollution also demands inclusive governance. The IMO is increasingly encouraging the participation of Indigenous communities and young people—groups historically sidelined from international maritime decision-making. Their voices, he said, are crucial for shaping policies that are both just and effective.

Next Steps

Professor Bethany Carney Almroth—a renowned environmental toxicologist and one of the leading scientific voices in the negotiations—believes the business world is not the obstacle many assume it to be. Instead, she says, it’s a matter of giving business the legal clarity to act.

“Business follows the rule of law,” she said. “The situation we have today is a mix—some laws are written, others are absent. That’s the problem. If we create new regulations, then it’s no longer a question of whether businesses are voluntarily doing enough. It becomes a question of compliance.”

Carney Almroth, who has worked extensively on the science-policy interface for chemicals and plastics, said that a strong, enforceable treaty is essential to shift the status quo.

“The status quo is broken,” she said plainly. “We need to change the framework so regulations guide businesses to do the best thing possible—for the economy, for the environment, and for people.”

As one of the few experts who has consistently called for systemic reform in how plastics are managed, Carney Almroth said that relying on voluntary industry movements is simply not enough.

“We’ve seen global treaties deliver meaningful results before,” she said. “The Montreal Protocol worked. It changed how we handled chlorofluorocarbons, and it protected the ozone layer. People may not even realize how much their lives have improved because of those decisions—but they have.”

The Hidden Cost of Profit

Responding to a question about the profitability of the plastics industry—especially in countries where it contributes significantly to government revenues—Carney Almroth offered a sobering perspective.

“When we say plastics are profitable, that’s only because we’re not accounting for the real costs,” she said. “Those costs aren’t paid by the companies producing plastics. They’re paid by nature, and they’re paid by people.”

She cited staggering health implications, pointing out that plastics contain thousands of chemicals—many of which are toxic, carcinogenic, or endocrine-disrupting. “The human healthcare costs associated with exposure to these chemicals are astronomical—running into billions of dollars each year. But they’re not included in the price tag of plastic production.”

Building Standards that Protect People and the Planet

So what does it take to eliminate hazardous plastics from global markets?

According to Carney Almroth, we’re still missing a critical piece: effective, fit-for-purpose international standards.

“Right now, most of the existing standards—developed by organizations like ISO or OECD—are geared toward material quality or industrial use. They were never designed to protect human health or the environment,” she explained. “We need new standards. Ones that are developed by independent experts and shielded from vested interests.”

For such standards to be truly effective, she said, they must be holistic and interdisciplinary. “We need to move away from just focusing on economic sustainability. That’s what we’ve done in the past—and it’s failed us. Environmental and social sustainability must be given equal weight.”

As the panel wrapped up, Orona gazed over the Port Lympia waters.

“We have a choice right now,” he said. “To continue poisoning the womb of the Earth—or to become caretakers, protectors.”

And as the reporters descended the gangway of the Panda Boat, the symbolism was not lost: we’re all adrift in this ocean of plastic. Whether we sink or swim depends on what happens next.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Pandemic Agreement: Important Step but Big Decisions Deferred

Civil Society, COVID-19, Development & Aid, Featured, Global, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Inequality, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: WHO/Christopher Black

BRUSSELS, Belgium, Jun 11 2025 (IPS) – When the next pandemic strikes, the world should be better prepared. At least, that’s the promise states made at the World Health Organization’s (WHO) World Health Assembly on 19 May when they adopted the first global pandemic treaty. This milestone in international health cooperation emerged from three years of difficult negotiations, informed by the harsh lessons learned from COVID-19’s devastating global impacts.


Yet this step forward in multilateralism comes at a deeply difficult moment. The WHO, as the organisation tasked with implementing the agreement, faces its starkest ever financial crisis following the withdrawal of the USA, its biggest donor. Meanwhile, disagreements between states threaten to undermine the treaty’s aspirations. Some of the big decisions that would make the experience of the next pandemic a more equitable one for the world’s majority are still to be negotiated.

A treaty born from COVID-19’s failures

Processes to negotiate the Pandemic Agreement came as a response to the disjointed international reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic. When the virus spread across borders, global north countries hoarded vaccines for their populations but left much of the world unprotected – an approach that as well as being manifestly unfair enabled the virus to further mutate. The treaty’s text emphasises the need for proper pandemic prevention, preparedness and response in all states, with the potential to enhance multilateral cooperation during health crises.

With 124 countries voting in favour, 11 abstaining and none voting against, many diplomats presented the agreement’s finalisation as a victory for global cooperation. It comes at a time when multilateralism is being severely tested, with powerful governments tearing up international rules, pulling out of international bodies and slashing funding. The window of opportunity to reach some kind of agreement was rapidly closing.

A major absence loomed large over the final negotiations. Upon his inauguration in January, President Trump announced the USA would withdraw from the WHO and halt all funding. The withdrawal of a superpower like the USA harms the WHO’s legitimacy and sends a signal to other populist governments that withdrawal is an option. Argentina is following its lead and Hungary may too.

Funding crisis

US withdrawal will leave an enormous funding gap. In the pre-Trump era, the USA was the WHO’s biggest contributor: it provided US$1.28 billion in 2022-2023, amounting to 12 per cent of the WHO’s approved budget and roughly 15 per cent of its actual budget.

As the treaty was agreed, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus painted a disturbing picture of the organisation’s financial situation. Its 2022-2023 budget showed a US$2 billion shortfall and its current salary gap is over US$500 million. The proposed budget for 2026-2027 has already been slashed by 21 per cent, and this reduced budget is expected to receive only around 60 per cent of the funding needed. The WHO will likely have to cut staff and close offices in many countries.

This reflects a lack of political will: states are making the choice of cutting down on global cooperation while boosting their defence spending. The current WHO funding gap of US$2.1 billion is the equivalent of just eight hours of global military expenditure.

Big issues kicked down the road

Deteriorating political realities made it crucial to reach an agreement as soon as possible, even if this meant kicking some difficult decisions down the road. As a result, the text of the agreement has severe weaknesses.

The treaty lacks dedicated funding and robust enforcement mechanisms, which means the blatant inequalities that defined the global response to COVID-19 are likely to remain unconfronted. It doesn’t tackle the most critical and contested issues, including the international sharing of pathogens and vaccine access.

The treaty will open for ratification following the negotiation of an annex on a pathogen access and benefit-sharing system, a process that could take a further two years. This means implementation is likely still a long way away.

The current impasse reflects an enduring faultline between global south states that need better access to affordable health products and technologies, and global north states siding with powerful pharmaceutical corporations that want their assets protected. Wealthy governments are making their decisions safe in the knowledge they’ll be at the front of the line when the next pandemic starts, while the world’s poorest people will again face the brunt of the devastation.

Political will needed

The Pandemic Agreement is a step forward at a time when international cooperation faces increasing attacks. That 124 countries demonstrated their commitment to multilateral action on global health threats offers hope. But substantial work remains if the treaty is to enable a truly global and fair response to the next health crisis.

For that to happen, the world’s wealthiest states need to put narrow self-interest calculations aside. States also need to address the issue of long-term funding. Right now, global leaders have agreed on the need for coordinated pandemic preparedness, but the institution meant to lead this doesn’t have the resources needed to put goals into action.

The next pandemic will test not just scientific capabilities, but also collective commitment to the shared global values the treaty is supposed to represent. Political will and funding are needed to turn lofty aspirations into meaningful action.

Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation.

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

  Source

‘Our Legal Challenge of the Funding Freeze Is Testing the Judiciary’s Ability to Check Executive Power’

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Development & Aid, Education, Featured, Global, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Migration & Refugees, TerraViva United Nations

May 19 2025 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS speaks with Eric Bjornlund, President and CEO of Democracy International, about the impacts of the US foreign aid freeze and the resulting legal challenges the Trump administration is facing. Democracy International is a global civil society organisation (CSO) that works for a more peaceful and democratic world.


Upon taking office, Trump immediately suspended all foreign aid and dismantled the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), blocking over US$40 billion in congressionally approved funding. This halted crucial global work in democracy, development, health and human rights. In February, several CSOs, including Democracy International, filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s legal authority to freeze these funds. Despite a court ruling ordering the release of the money and the restoration of foreign assistance, legal proceedings continue.

Eric Bjornlund

What are the most severe consequences of the funding freeze?

The impact on vital international work on democracy, healthcare, human rights and international development has been devastating and far-reaching. The government has even refused to honour invoices or reimburse legally authorised expenses, including those incurred under the previous administration. With 83 per cent of programmes cancelled, many organisations have been forced to shut their operations.

Health services were among the first to collapse: thousands of healthcare workers were dismissed, with essential medicine and food aid left stockpiled and expiring, being damaged or stolen. This has increased deaths from HIV/AIDS and malaria and left reproductive health needs unmet.

Beyond healthcare, the damage spans multiple sectors: education for girls cut, demining operations suspended, Ukrainian refugee shelters compromised, protection for minors from gang recruitment in Central America terminated, cybersecurity in Ukraine halted and support for civil society opposing authoritarian violence in Myanmar ended. Even efforts tracking zoonotic diseases in Bangladesh have ceased.

How has Democracy International been affected?

With 98 per cent of our 2024 revenue from USAID, we’ve been crippled. Despite a federal court declaring the terminations unlawful, all our programmes have been cancelled, forcing staff furloughs, office closures and delayed payments.

The human cost has been immense. In Bangladesh, we’ve discontinued medical assistance to students injured during protest crackdowns. In Burkina Faso, the lives of human rights defenders documenting violence against Christian communities are at risk because we can no longer relocate them. The same lack of crucial support is affecting Nicaraguan political prisoners, state violence victims in Mozambique, government critics in the Philippines and democracy advocates in Tanzania. In Jamaica, over 500 vulnerable young people risk being recruited by gangs without our counselling services, apprenticeship opportunities and vocational skills-building training.

We’ve also been forced to abandon critical governance initiatives. We’ve suspended support for Bangladesh’s post-authoritarian transition, legal assistance for civil society navigating foreign agent laws in Kyrgyzstan, funding coordination for displaced Armenians and democracy leadership in Libya.

Beyond immediate harms, this has broken the trust of communities we’ve supported for years, undermined civil society credibility and surrendered significant political influence to authoritarian powers such as China and Russia.

What collective action has civil society taken?

The freeze blindsided us, but we quickly recognised the need for a coordinated response. We’ve partnered with former USAID officials – particularly those whose work focused on democracy and human rights – to advocate for foreign aid restoration and defend democracy and the rule of law in the USA. We’ve also worked with USAID implementing partners, consulted global experts and sought to identify new funding opportunities.

But our strongest strategy has been legal action. We joined a coalition of USAID partners to file a lawsuit that secured a temporary restraining order in February and a preliminary injunction in March, ordering the government to resume payments and restore funding.

Despite our case reaching the Supreme Court, the administration has largely failed to comply, creating a constitutional crisis that’s testing the judiciary’s ability to check executive power. While legal action remains central to our strategy, we recognise the need for congressional involvement to achieve a sustainable solution.

What are your legal arguments?

We challenge the government on multiple grounds. First, we argue the blanket termination of foreign assistance under the Administrative Procedure Act is both arbitrary and unlawful. Second, we contend this action fundamentally breaches the constitutional separation of powers. Neither the President, Secretary of State nor USAID Administrator has legal authority to unilaterally withhold appropriated funds or dismantle a statutory agency.

The administration has violated both Congress’s exclusive power over spending and its shared foreign policy role. The Impoundment Control Act explicitly prohibits defunding programmes based merely on policy preferences without following strict procedural requirements.

The court has agreed with our position that no rational basis exists for such a sweeping freeze if the stated purpose was merely to review programmes’ efficiency and consistency. The government has also disregarded organisations’ significant reliance on these funds, forcing many to close permanently.

How can democratic institutions be strengthened against such overreach?

Constitutional checks and balances function only when all branches respect them. Congress must defend its spending authority, courts must continue asserting their oversight role and ultimately, the executive must respect the rule of law. But whether it will do so remains uncertain.

If this situation persists unresolved, the humanitarian toll will continue mounting globally while the security, prosperity and global standing of the USA deteriorate. Robust accountability mechanisms and institutional safeguards are essential to protect aid systems globally and democracy at home.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
USA: ‘Trump is advancing a 21st-century US variant of fascism, backed by a white nationalist ideology’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Samuel Worthington 03.May.2025
Trump and Musk take the chainsaw to global civil society CIVICUS Lens 07.Mar.2025
Tech leaders cosy up to Trump CIVICUS Lens 20.Feb.2025

  Source

Rights with No Age Limit: Hopes for a Convention on the Rights of Older People

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Change, Featured, Global, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Cover photo by Defensoría del Pueblo de Bolivia

BRUSSELS, Belgium / MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, May 9 2025 (IPS) – The world’s population is ageing. Global life expectancy has leapt to 73.3 years, up from under 65 in 1995. Around the world, there are now 1.1 billion people aged 60-plus, expected to rise to 1.4 billion by 2030 and 2.1 billion by 2050.

This demographic shift is a triumph, reflecting public health successes, medical advances and better nutrition. But it brings human rights challenges.


Ageism casts older people as burdens, despite the enormous social contribution many older people make through family roles, community service and volunteering. Prejudice fuels widespread human rights violations, including age discrimination, economic exclusion, denial of services, inadequate social security, neglect and violence.

The impacts are particularly brutal for those facing discrimination for other reasons. Older women, LGBTQI+ elders, disabled seniors and older people from other excluded groups suffer compounded vulnerabilities. During conflicts and climate disasters, older people face disproportionate hardships but receive disproportionately little attention or protection.

These challenges aren’t limited to wealthy countries such as Japan, where more than one in 10 people are now aged 80 and over. Global south countries are experiencing population ageing too, and often at a much faster pace than occurred historically in the global north. Many people face the daunting prospect of becoming old in societies with limited infrastructure and social protection systems to support them.

Despite these escalating challenges, no global human rights treaty specifically protects older people. The current international framework is a patchwork that looks increasingly out of step as global demographics shift.

The first significant international breakthrough came in 2015, when the Organization of American States adopted the Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons. This landmark treaty explicitly recognises older people as rights-bearers and establishes protections against discrimination, neglect and exploitation. It demonstrates how legal frameworks can evolve to address challenges faced by ageing populations, although implementation remains uneven across signatory countries.

Globally, the World Health Organization’s Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021-2030) represents progress in promoting age-friendly environments and responsive healthcare systems. But it’s a voluntary framework without legally enforceable protections. Only a binding treaty can deliver human rights guarantees.

That’s why the UN Human Rights Council’s decision on 3 April to establish an intergovernmental working group to draft a convention on older persons’ rights offers real hope. In the current fractured geopolitical landscape, the resolution’s adoption by consensus is encouraging.

This positive step came as a result of over a decade of dogged advocacy through the Open-ended Working Group on Ageing, established by the UN General Assembly in 2010. Through 14 sessions, states, civil society and national human rights institutions built an overwhelming case for action, culminating in an August 2024 recommendation to develop a treaty. Strategic cross-border campaigning and coalition-building by civil society organisations such as AGE Platform Europe, Amnesty International and HelpAge International were instrumental in advancing the cause.

Now the crucial phase of transforming principles into binding legal protection begins. The Human Rights Council resolution sets out the path forward. The first meeting of the drafting working group is due before the year’s end. Once drafted, the text will advance through the UN system for consideration and adoption. If adopted, this convention will follow in the footsteps of those on the rights of children in 1989 and people with disabilities in 2006, which have significantly advanced protections for their target groups.

This convention offers a rare opportunity to redefine how societies value their older members. The journey from declaration to implementation will demand persistent civil society advocacy, first to ensure the text of the convention delivers meaningful, enforceable protections rather than mere aspirational statements, and then to prevent the dilution of protections through limited implementation. But the potential reward is profound: a world where advancing age enhances rather than diminishes human dignity and rights.

Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition and Inés M. Pousadela is Senior Research Specialist at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, writer at CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

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

  Source

Speaking Out for SRHR: Why Lived Experiences Must Shape Policy and Practice 

Civil Society, Development & Aid, Gender, Headlines, Health, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Advocacy for policies that protect and expand comprehensive sexuality education, safe abortion (where permitted), and youth-friendly SRHR services must not stop at international commitments. We must hold our governments accountable and ensure those commitments translate into action

The Commission on Population and Development (2024)

NAIROBI, May 7 2025 (IPS) – Just a month ago, I found myself in a hospital, anxiously waiting for my son to be attended to. As we sat quietly in one of the waiting rooms, an emergency case was wheeled in — a young woman, barely out of her teens. Her face contorted in visible pain. Her dress was soaked with blood, which had begun to pool beneath the wheelchair and trickle onto the floor.


I couldn’t help but overhear the nurse asking the girl who had accompanied her, “What happened?” “She just started her periods,” the friend whispered, her voice laced with fear and confusion.

But from my own experience, I knew periods don’t arrive like this. The heavy bleeding, the extreme pain, the sheer urgency: something was terribly wrong. In a country where abortion is criminalized and conversations on reproductive health are often shrouded in silence, there are things you don’t say out loud, not even in a hospital.

Presentations were dominated by government departments and bureaucrats. I couldn’t help but wonder — where were the voices of the people these policies are meant to serve? Where was the civil society that brought these stories from their grassroots partners?

Later, I learned the young woman had been referred to a higher-level facility because the hospital couldn’t handle her case. I left that day with a prayer on my lips, hoping she lived to tell her story.

So why am I sharing this? Because last week, I sat in another room, far away from that hospital, attending the 58th Session of the Commission on Population and Development (CPD58) at the United Nations.

This was my first time attending the annual conference. The conversations were a sobering reminder of how precarious sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) remain, especially for young women like the one I saw that day.

Despite the gravity of the global challenges, CPD58 felt like a more formal than interactive space. At many of the side events I attended, audiences sat silent, rarely given the chance to ask questions.

Presentations were dominated by government departments and bureaucrats. I couldn’t help but wonder — where were the voices of the people these policies are meant to serve? Where was the civil society that brought these stories from their grassroots partners?

Breaking the silence

One of the few spaces that broke this silence was a gathering organized by the International Sexual and Reproductive Rights Coalition (ISRRC), a coalition of organizations from all regions of the world dedicated to advancing SRHR. It offered a rare moment of authentic exchange, where the few CSO voices present could reflect on the battles we face both at home and on the global stage.

But overall, the opposition to SRHR remained stubborn and vocal. I listened as some delegations pushed back against terms that should be non-negotiable: Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE), safe abortion, gender equality.

These are not just words; they are lifelines for young women, especially those navigating complex realities in countries like mine, Kenya.

Ironically, many CPD58 conversations just wanted to focus on maternal health, not on teenage pregnancies or young mothers. Basically, addressing maternal health without discussing the process that leads to pregnancy (sex and sexuality) and therefore CSE.

I couldn’t help but think: How do we talk about preventing HIV without talking about sex? How do we address teenage pregnancy without speaking openly about reproductive health? How can we ignore child marriages when they remain a heartbreaking reality across many countries? And what do we say to survivors of rape — young or old — who become pregnant? Should they be forced to carry these pregnancies, regardless of the trauma or the risks?

As an advocate and a believer in the power of quality data to inform decisions, these questions weigh heavily on me. Are the policies we design grounded in real, lived experiences? Do we collect and use data to reflect the brutal realities so many young women face daily?

Combating anti-rights narratives

One clear takeaway from CPD58 was this: facts and stories must go hand in hand. Data alone can inform, but stories can transform. Both are essential to combating anti-rights narratives and creating spaces for conversations.

Another key take away is the critical need for civil society to maintain both its presence and momentum in these spaces. The CPD remains one of the least attended UN meetings, and its negotiation process is opaque.

The anti-rights movement’s growing clout risks reversing many SRHR gains by easily passing resolutions without push back. If civil society isn’t present and organized, no one will be the wiser. It is essential to occupy and safeguard this space.

We must train youth activists to counter opposition and challenge anti-gender, anti-abortion, and anti-CSE rhetoric not just with facts, but with human stories.

Tell the stories that humanize the data; stories like the one I witnessed in that hospital room. Digital spaces hold tremendous potential to advance SRHR, especially for marginalized communities.

Yet, with opportunity comes risk. The same platforms that can empower young women are breeding grounds for misinformation. Our efforts must include both creating digital solutions and equipping young women to navigate these spaces safely and wisely.

I was encouraged to see progressive voices from the European Union, Latin America, and parts of Africa and Asia stand firm in defending SRHR within the final negotiated text. But the fight doesn’t end there.

From Nigeria to Mozambique, from Jordan to Guatemala — and every corner in between — we must ensure young women in all their diversities are not left behind. Their voices, rights, and choices must be respected.

Finally, we must keep the pressure on at home. Advocacy for policies that protect and expand comprehensive sexuality education, safe abortion (where permitted), and youth-friendly SRH services must not stop at international commitments. We must hold our governments accountable and ensure those commitments translate into action.

The young woman in that hospital room deserved better. So do countless others like her.

And the only way forward is by standing up, speaking out, and refusing to let silence win.

Mary Kuira is Global DMEL Coordinator at Hivos East Africa

  Source

Uncertainty Looms for Kenya Following Tense IMF/World Bank Spring Meetings

Civil Society, Climate Change, Environment, Gender, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Janet Ngombalu is Kenya Country Director, Christian Aid

Aerial view of Diff in Wajir South submerged in floodwaters, highlighting the devastating impact of heavy rains on homes and livelihoods – 2024. Credit: Pasca Chesach/Christian Aid Kenya

NAIROBI, Kenya, May 5 2025 (IPS) – Reflecting on this year’s IMF/World Bank Spring Meetings, one word lingers in my mind: uncertainty. The shifting global geopolitical landscape loomed large—none more so than the US administration’s initial threat to withdraw from the Bretton Woods institutions.


Although that threat was later withdrawn, it’s clear the US wants sweeping reforms. What exactly those changes will look like remains unknown, but it’s clear that the US wants the IMF and World Bank to focus more on its biggest shareholders rather than people and the planet. For countries in the Global South, like my own—Kenya—that could be disastrous.

As the world knows, the people of Kenya made their frustrations against the IMF known last year, with protests against IMF fiscal and austerity policies. And this unrest led to President William Ruto withdrawing a finance bill aiming to raise more than $2 billion in taxes.

Then, just last month, a four-year $3.6 billion IMF deal was terminated by mutual agreement. A new deal is now being negotiated—but finding balance will be difficult. The IMF is demanding fiscal consolidation, while the government is under immense pressure to ease the burden on a struggling population.

Without raising taxes, Kenya faces drastic cuts to public spending. But the people have had enough—and they shouldn’t be forced to endure more.

Dead livestock in Bubisa, Marsabit County due to prolonged drought: Credit: Pasca Chesach/Christian Aid Kenya

This is happening at a critical moment. The IMF is undergoing two major reviews this year that will shape its lending and surveillance approach for the next five years. If the Trump administration gains more sway over IMF leadership, civil society fears a regression to the 1990s era of even harsher austerity.

The reality on the ground in Kenya makes this unacceptable. We already face high taxes, and cuts to essential services are tearing the social fabric apart. Our health system is stretched beyond its limits.

Last year, doctors were driven to suicide under the weight of low pay, impossible hours, and the heartbreak of losing patients due to inadequate care.

School feeding programmes – lifelines for many children – have been cut. For some, that was the only meal of the day. Businesses are closing, jobs are vanishing, and those of us still employed are helping family members who are struggling.

A resident of Makueni fetches water from a community booth made possible through Christian Aid Kenya’s sand dam project, offering a reliable water source amid prolonged drought. Credit: Fauzia Hussein/Christian Aid Kenya

Meanwhile, the US is calling on the IMF and World Bank to scale back focus on gender equality and climate change. This is deeply alarming. As Kenya’s country director for Christian Aid, I am currently seeking emergency funds to respond to severe flooding in Marsabit and Wajir in the northeast of the country, which have also been heavily affected by drought.

Kenya loses up to KSh870 billion every year, around 3–5% of GDP, due to climate impacts. Yet we’ve done almost nothing to cause this crisis.

Women in particular continue to bear the brunt of IMF-imposed austerity. They face rising food prices head-on, as the ones more responsible for food shopping. They dominate the informal and public sectors – precisely the sectors most affected by spending cuts.

We had started to make scant progress in getting the IMF to consider these gendered impacts. Now, that progress is under threat.

There’s also growing unease about the politicisation of global financial governance. If the US gains even more influence over the IMF, will there be favouritism in lending decisions? The recent cancellation of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s trip to Kenya, following President Ruto’s visit to China, raises eyebrows.

The rise of this selfish, unilateral approach is troubling—and it’s already hurting us. Massive aid cuts are hitting hard. In addition to the proposed $60 billion USAID budget reduction, the UK, Germany, France, and the Netherlands have announced cuts totalling over $11 billion combined.

It feels as though the Global South is being abandoned in a power struggle we didn’t start. The IMF and World Bank, created in the colonial era, have always tilted toward northern interests. The US holds 16% of IMF voting power and therefore a veto over most important decisions which require 85% agreement. Meanwhile, the entire African continent holds just 4.7%. That imbalance is not only unjust; it’s unsustainable.

And now, it could get worse. But there is hope.

The upcoming Financing for Development Conference in Seville this June offers a rare and crucial opportunity. It is the only global forum where all countries negotiate economic governance on equal terms.

We must seize this moment to push for meaningful reform—debt relief, fairer international tax rules, and real climate finance. These are the changes we need to unlock a future where all countries have the tools and autonomy to shape their own development.

We cannot afford more uncertainty. We need control over our economic destiny, not to be tossed around by the shifting whims of the Global North.

Bring on Seville. It’s time for change.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source