‘Enabling Machines to Make Life and Death Decisions Is Morally Unjustifiable’

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Featured, Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Jun 27 2025 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses autonomous weapons systems and the campaign for regulation with Nicole van Rooijen, Executive Director of Stop Killer Robots, a global civil society coalition of over 270 organisations that campaigns for a new international treaty on autonomous weapons systems.

Nicole van Rooijen

In May, United Nations (UN) member states convened in New York for the first time to confront the challenge of regulating autonomous weapons systems, which can select and engage targets without human intervention. These ‘killer robots’ pose unprecedented ethical, humanitarian and legal risks, and civil society warns they could trigger a global arms race while undermining international law. With weapons that have some autonomy already deployed in conflicts from Gaza to Ukraine, UN Secretary-General António Guterres has set a 2026 deadline for a legally binding treaty.

What are autonomous weapons systems and why do they pose unprecedented challenges?

Autonomous weapons systems, or ‘killer robots’, are weapons that, once activated by a human, can select and engage targets without further human intervention. These systems make independent decisions – without the intervention of a human operator – about when, how, where and against whom to use force, processing sensor data or following pre-programmed ‘target profiles’. Rather than using the term ‘lethal autonomous weapons systems’, our campaign refers to ‘autonomous weapons systems’ to emphasise that any such system, lethal or not, can inflict serious harm.

The implications are staggering. These weapons could operate across all domains – air, land, sea and space – during armed conflicts and law enforcement or border control operations. They raise numerous ethical, humanitarian, legal and security concerns.

The most troubling variant involves anti-personnel systems triggered by human presence or individuals or groups who meet pre-programmed target profiles. By reducing people to data points for algorithmic targeting, these weapons are dehumanising. They strip away our inherent rights and dignity, dramatically increasing the risk of unjust harm or death. No machine, computer or algorithm can recognise a human as a human being, nor respect humans as inherent bearers of rights and dignity. Autonomous weapons cannot comprehend what it means to be in a state of war, much less what it means to have – or to end – a human life. Enabling machines to make life and death decisions is morally unjustifiable.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has noted it is ‘difficult to envisage’ scenarios where autonomous weapons wouldn’t pose significant risks of violating international humanitarian law, given the inevitable presence of civilians and non-combatants in conflict zones.

Currently, no international law governs these weapons’ development or use. As the technology advances rapidly, this legal vacuum creates a dangerous environment where autonomous weapons could be deployed in ways that violate existing international law while escalating conflicts, enabling unaccountable violence and harming civilians. This is what prompted the UN Secretary-General and the ICRC president to jointly call for urgent negotiations on a legally binding international instrument on autonomous weapons systems by 2026.

How have recent consultations advanced the regulatory agenda?

The informal consultations held in New York in May, mandated by UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 79/62, focused on issues raised in the UN Secretary-General’s 2024 report on autonomous weapons systems. They sought to broaden awareness among the diplomatic community and complement the work around the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), emphasising risks that extend far beyond international humanitarian law.

The UNGA offers a crucial advantage: universal participation. Unlike the CCW process in Geneva, it includes all states. This is particularly important for global south states, many of which are not a party to the CCW.

Over two days, states and civil society explored human rights implications, humanitarian consequences, ethical dilemmas, technological risks and security threats. Rich discussions emerged around regional dynamics and practical scenarios, examining how these weapons might be used in policing, border control and by non-state actors or criminal groups. While time constraints prevented exhaustive exploration of all issues, the breadth of engagement was unprecedented.

The Stop Killer Robots campaign found these consultations energising and strategically valuable. They demonstrated how UN processes in Geneva and New York can reinforce each other: while one forum provides detailed technical groundwork, particularly in developing treaty language, the other fosters inclusive political leadership and momentum. Both forums should work in tandem to maximise global efforts to achieve an international legally binding instrument on autonomous weapons systems.

What explains the global divide on regulation?

The vast majority of states support a legally binding treaty on autonomous weapons systems, favouring a two-tier approach that combines prohibitions with positive obligations.

However, roughly a dozen states oppose any form of regulation. Among them are some of the world’s most heavily militarised states and the primary developers, producers and likely users of autonomous weapons systems. Their resistance likely stems from the desire to preserve military superiority and protect economic interests, and the belief in inflated claims about these weapons’ supposed benefits promoted by big tech and arms industries. Or perhaps they simply favour force over diplomacy.

Whatever their motivations, this opposition underscores the urgent need for the international community to reinforce a rules-based global order that prioritises dialogue, multilateralism and responsible governance over unchecked technological ambition.

How do geopolitical tensions and corporate influence complicate international regulation efforts?

It is undeniable that geopolitical tensions and corporate influence are challenging the development of regulations for emerging technologies.

A handful of powerful states are prioritising narrow military and economic advantages over collective security, undermining the multilateral cooperation that has traditionally governed arms control. Equally troubling is the expanding influence of the private sector, particularly large tech companies that operate largely outside established accountability frameworks while wielding significant sway over political leaders.

This dual pressure is undermining the international rules-based order precisely when we most need stronger multilateral governance. Without robust regulatory frameworks that can withstand these pressures, development of autonomous weapons risks accelerating unchecked, with profound implications for global security and human rights.

How is civil society shaping this debate and advocating for regulation?

Anticipating the challenges autonomous weapons systems would pose, leading human rights organisations and humanitarian disarmament experts founded the Stop Killer Robots campaign in 2012. Today, our coalition spans over 270 organisations across more than 70 countries, working at national, regional and global levels to build political support for legally binding regulation.

We’ve played a leading role in shaping global discourse by highlighting the wide-ranging risks these technologies pose and producing timely research on weapons systems evolution and shifting state positions.

Our multi-level strategy targets all decision-makers who can influence this agenda, at local, regional and global levels. It’s crucial that political leaders understand how autonomous weapons might be used in warfare and other contexts, enabling them to advocate effectively within their spheres of influence for the treaty we urgently need.

Public pressure is key to our approach. Recent years have seen growing weapons systems autonomy and military applications, particularly in ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, alongside rising use of technologies such as facial recognition in civilian contexts. Public concern about the dehumanising nature of these technologies and the lack of regulation has grown online and offline. We frame these concerns along the whole spectrum of automated harm, with autonomous weapons representing the extreme, and highlight the critical need to close the gap between innovation and regulation.

We also collaborate with experts from arms, military and technology sectors to bring real-world knowledge and credibility to our treaty advocacy. It is crucial to involve those who develop and deploy autonomous weapons to demonstrate the gravity of current circumstances and the urgent need for regulation.

We encourage people to take action by signing our petition, asking their local political representatives to sign our Parliamentary Pledge or just spreading the word about our campaign on social media. This ultimately puts pressure on diplomats and other decision-makers to advance the legal safeguards we desperately need.

GET IN TOUCH
Bluesky
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Twitter
Nicole/Bluesky
Nicole/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Facial recognition: the latest weapon against civil society CIVICUS Lens 23.May.2025
Weaponised surveillance: how spyware targets civil society CIVICUS Lens 24. Apr.2025
Technology: Human perils of digital power CIVICUS | 2025 State of Civil Society Report

  Source

Increased Demand for Cobalt Fuels Ongoing Humanitarian Crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Posted on by admin

Africa, Armed Conflicts, Child Labour, Civil Society, Development & Aid, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Inequality, Labour, Migration & Refugees, Natural Resources, Population, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Trade & Investment, Youth

Labour

Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) Living in Camp Roe in the Democratic Republic of Congo Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) Living in Camp Roe in the Democratic Republic of Congo Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

UNITED NATIONS, Jun 26 2025 (IPS) – The demand for cobalt and other minerals is fueling a decades-long humanitarian crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). In pursuit of money to support their families, Congolese laborers face abuse and life-threatening conditions working in unregulated mines.

Used in a variety of products ranging from vitamins to phone and car batteries, minerals are a necessity, making daily tasks run smoothly. The DRC is currently known as the world’s largest producer of cobalt, accounting for nearly 75 percent of global cobalt production. With such high demands for the mineral, unsafe and poorly regulated mining operations are widespread across the DRC.

The exploitation of workers is largely seen in informal, artisanal, small-scale mines, which account for 15 to 30 percent of the DRC’s cobalt production. Unlike large industrial mines with access to powerful machines, artisanal mine workers typically excavate by hand. They face toxic fumes, dust inhalation, and the risk of landslides and mines collapsing daily.

Aside from unpaid forced labor, artisanal small-scale mines can be a surprisingly good source of income for populations with limited education and qualifications. The International Peace Information Service (IPIS) reports that miners can make around 2.7 to 3.3 USD per day. In comparison, about 73 percent of the population in the DRC makes 1.90 USD or less per day. However, even with slightly higher incomes than most, miners still struggle to make ends meet.

Adult workers are not the only group facing labor abuse. Due to minimal regulations and governing by labor inspectors, artisanal mines commonly use child labor. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs reports that children between the ages of 5 and 17 years old are forced to work in mineral mines across the DRC.

“They are unremunerated and exploited, and the work is often fatal as the children are required to crawl into small holes dug into the earth,” said Hervé Diakiese Kyungu, a Congolese civil rights attorney.

Kyungu testified at a congressional hearing in Washington, D.C., on July 14, 2022. The hearing was on the use of child labor in China-backed cobalt mines in the DRC. Kyungu also said that in many cases, children are forced into this work without any protection.

Children go into the mines “…using only their hands or rudimentary tools without protective equipment to extract cobalt and other minerals,” said Kyungu.

Despite the deadly humanitarian issue at hand, the solution to creating a more sustainable and safe work environment for miners is not simple. The DRC has a deep history of using forced labor for profit. Starting in the 1880s, Belgium’s King Leopold relied on forced labor by hundreds of ethnic communities across the Congo River Basin to cultivate and trade rubber, ivory and minerals.

While forced and unsafe conditions kill thousands each year, simply shutting down artisanal mining operations is not the solution. Mining can be a significant source of income for many Congolese living in poverty.

Armed groups also control many artisanal mining operations. These groups use profits acquired from mineral trading to fund weapons and fighters. It is estimated that for the past 20 years, the DRC has experienced violence from around 120 armed groups and security forces.

“The world’s economies, new technologies and climate change are all increasing demand for the rare minerals in the eastern Congo—and the world is letting criminal organisms steal and sell these minerals by brutalizing my people,” said Pétronille Vaweka during the 2023 U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) award ceremony.

Vaweka is a Congolese grandmother who has mediated peace accords in local wars.

“Africans and Americans can both gain by ending this criminality, which has been ignored too long,” said Vaweka.

One way to mitigate the crisis is through stricter laws and regulations. Many humanitarian organizations, such as the United Nations (UN) and the International Labour Organization (ILO), strongly advocate for such change.

The UN has deployed a consistent stream of peacekeepers in the DRC since the country’s independence in 1960. Notable groups such as the UN Operation in the Congo (ONUC) and the UN Organization Mission in the DRC (MONUC) were established to ensure order and peace. MONUC later expanded in 2010 to the UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the DRC (MONUSCO).

Alongside peace missions, the UN has made multiple initiatives to combat illegal mineral trading. They also created the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), which is dedicated to helping children in humanitarian crises.

The ILO has seen success through its long-standing project called the Global Accelerator Lab (GALAB). Its goal is to increase good practices and find new solutions to end child labor and forced labor worldwide. Their goal markers include innovation, strengthening workers’ voices, social protection and due diligence with transparency in supply chains.

One group they have set up to coordinate child protection is the Child Labour Monitoring and Remediation System (CLMRS). In 2024, the ILO reported that the program had registered over 6,200 children engaged in mining in the Haut-Katanga and Lualaba provinces.

Additionally, GALAB is working on training more labor and mining inspectors to monitor conditions and practices.

While continued support by various aid groups has significantly helped the ongoing situation in the DRC, more action is needed.

“This will require a partnership of Africans and Americans and those from other developed countries. But we have seen this kind of exploitation and war halted in Sierra Leone and Liberia—and the Africans played the leading role, with support from the international community,” Vaweka said. “We need an awakening of the world now to do the same in Congo. It will require the United Nations, the African Union, our neighboring countries. But the call to world action that can make it possible still depends on America as a leader.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Poland’s Democratic Deadlock

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Economy & Trade, Europe, Featured, Gender, Headlines, Human Rights, Migration & Refugees, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Kacper Pempel/Reuters via Gallo Images

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Jun 25 2025 (IPS) – Poland’s embattled Prime Minister Donald Tusk emerged bruised but still standing after his government survived a parliamentary vote of confidence on 11 June. He’d called the vote, which he won by 243 to 210, just days after the presidential candidate of his Civic Platform (PO) party suffered an unexpected defeat.

Karol Nawrocki, an independent nationalist conservative backed by the former ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS) defeated liberal pro-European Union (EU) Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski in a nail-biting presidential runoff. The result offers a broader test of Poland’s democratic resilience that could have implications across the EU.

The electoral blow

Nawrocki’s path to victory was anything but predictable. The 42-year-old former president of Poland’s Institute of National Remembrance had never held elected office before emerging as PiS’s chosen candidate. Yet his populist message resonated with frustrated voters.

Economic grievances provided fertile ground for nationalist appeals. Despite Poland’s relatively low unemployment, youth unemployment of over 10 per cent is an understandable source of anxiety for younger voters. Increasingly, they’re reacting by rejecting mainstream political offerings.

This helped cause the fragmented results of the 18 May first round. Trzaskowski won only 31.36 per cent of the vote and Nawrocki took 29.54 per cent. The combined vote share of right-wing candidates – Nawrocki and far-right politicians Grzegorz Braun and Sławomir Mentzen – exceeded polling expectations. Braun and Mentzen took over 21 per cent between them, thanks to the support of many young voters.

The 1 June runoff saw Nawrocki win 50.89 per cent to Trzaskowski’s 49.11 per cent, a margin of under two percentage points. Nawrocki took 64 per cent of the rural vote while Trzaskowski commanded 67 per cent in urban centres – an established geographic divide that reflects an enduring ideological division between a conservative, nationalist Poland and its liberal, cosmopolitan counterpart.

Election interference

Disinformation is helping fuel polarisation. The election campaign unfolded against a backdrop of foreign interference concerns that echoed troubling developments across the region – particularly in Romania, where the Supreme Court cancelled the 2024 presidential election due to evidence of Russian interference.

Just days before the first round, Poland’s Research and Academic Computer Network discovered evidence of potentially foreign-funded Facebook ads targeting all major candidates. According to an investigation by fact-checking organisation Demagog, TikTok was flooded with disinformation, particularly but not exclusively against Trzaskowski. The platform’s algorithm displayed far-right content twice as often as centrist or left-wing content to new users, with pro-Nawrocki videos appearing four times more frequently than pro-Trzaskowski content. Over 1,200 fake accounts systematically attacked Trzaskowski, while another 1,200 promoted Nawrocki.

The influence operation extended beyond individual character assassination to sowing distrust in the democratic process and sharing broader far-right narratives. Fake accounts systematically promoted anti-Ukrainian sentiment and anti-immigration conspiracy theories.

Donald Trump also gave Nawrocki an unprecedented level of support: he received him at the White House just before the election and sent his Homeland Security Secretary to campaign for him in Poland as she attended the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). This year, CPAC, a US conservative platform, held two international events, in Hungary and Poland. The Polish one, timed to coincide with the runoff, offered a clear indication of how the nationalist far right has become internationalised.

Institutional paralysis

The viability of Tusk’s ideologically diverse coalition and his own political future have been called into question by the result. With critics in the Civic Coalition blaming the election defeat on the government’s communication failures and Tusk’s personal unpopularity, the confidence vote became a key test.

But even though Tusk has survived the confidence vote, it will be a tall order to implement the reforms needed to restore the democratic institutions that came under strain during the PiS administration. In eight years in power, PiS dismantled judicial independence, made public media its propaganda mouthpiece and undermined women’s rights by introducing one of Europe’s harshest anti-abortion laws. The new government’s attempts to reckon with this legacy had already been hampered by outgoing President Andrzej Duda, who used his veto power to block key reforms. Nawrocki will continue that, leaving Tusk unable to realise his promises to Polish voters and the EU.

The European Commission had counted on Tusk completing promised judicial reforms as it unlocked billions in pandemic recovery funds frozen over rule-of-law concerns during PiS rule. With progress now unlikely, the Commission faces the difficult decision of whether to maintain its funding even if the government’s unable to deliver promised changes.

Beyond the EU, Nawrocki’s foreign policy positions threaten to complicate Poland’s previously staunch backing of Ukraine. Although supportive of continued aid, Nawrocki has pledged to block any prospects of Ukraine joining NATO and prioritise Polish interests over refugee support.

High stakes

The razor-thin margin of victory in the presidential election, combined with record turnout of 72.8 per cent, tells a complex story of a divided society. While high participation suggests robust civic engagement, the deep polarisation reflected in the results reveals faultlines that extend far beyond conventional political disagreements.

The outcome offers further evidence that, when economic grievances aren’t addressed, institutional trust is allowed to erode and information environments are left vulnerable to manipulation, opportunistic politicians will exploit social divisions and anti-establishment anger.

For Poland, the coming years will test whether democratic institutions can withstand the pressures of sustained political deadlock. Poland faces potential institutional paralysis that could further erode public trust in democratic governance. Poland’s institutions will need to try to demonstrate their continuing effectiveness, and civil society and independent media will need to maintain their credibility, to help protect and nurture democratic values.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

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

  Source

Women in Afghanistan Face a Total Lack of Autonomy

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Education, Gender, Gender Identity, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Inequality, TerraViva United Nations, Women’s Health

A young Afghan girl studies at home following the Taliban’s banning of women and girls from pursuing secondary education. Credit: UNICEF/Amin Meerzad

UNITED NATIONS, Jun 23 2025 (IPS) – Nearly four years ago, the Taliban took control of Afghanistan and issued a series of edicts that significantly restricted women’s rights nationwide. This has resulted in a multifaceted humanitarian crisis, one marked by a notable decline in civic freedoms, stunted national development, and a widespread lack of basic services.

On June 17, UN-Women published its 2024 Afghanistan Gender Index, a comprehensive report that details the gender disparities and worsening humanitarian conditions for women and girls across the country. According to the report, the edicts issued by the Taliban have restricted women’s rights to the point that women and girls in the country have fallen far below the global benchmarks for human development.

“Since [2021], we have witnessed a deliberate and unprecedented assault on the rights, dignity and very existence of Afghan women and girls. And yet, despite near-total restrictions on their lives, Afghan women persevere,” said Sofia Calltorp, UN Women’s Chief of Humanitarian Action. “The issue of gender inequality in Afghanistan didn’t start with the Taliban. Their institutionalised discrimination is layered on top of deep-rooted barriers that also hold women back.”

It is estimated that women in Afghanistan have 76 percent fewer rights than men in areas such as health, education, financial independence, and decision-making. In addition, Afghan women are afforded, on average, 17 percent of their rights while women worldwide have 60.7 percent.

This disparity is projected to further widen following the Taliban’s ban on women holding positions in the health sector, removing one of the final strongholds for female autonomy in Afghanistan. Today, roughly 78 percent of Afghan women lack access to any form of formal education, employment, or training, nearly four times the rate for Afghan men. UN Women projects that the rate of secondary school completion for girls will soon fall to zero percent for girls and women.

Furthermore, Afghanistan has one of the widest workforce gaps in the world, with 89 percent of men having roles in the labour force, compared to 24 percent of women. Women are more likely to work in domestic roles and have lower-paying, more insecure jobs. Additionally, there are zero women that hold roles in national or local decision-making bodies, effectively excluding them entirely from having their voices heard on a governmental level.

“Afghanistan’s greatest resource is its women and girls,” said UN Women’s Executive Director Sima Bahous. “Their potential continues to be untapped, yet they persevere. Afghan women are supporting each other, running businesses, delivering humanitarian aid and speaking out against injustice. Their courage and leadership are reshaping their communities, even in the face of immense restrictions.”

The exclusion of all Afghan women from the workforce has had significant impacts on the local economy. According to the United Nations Sustainable Development Group (UNSDG), since 2021 Afghanistan’s economy has seen losses of up to 1 billion USD per year, representing roughly 5 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. This has led to an overall increase in poverty levels and food insecurity.

“Overlapping economic, political, and humanitarian crises — all with women’s rights at their core — have pushed many households to the brink. In response – often out of sheer necessity — more women are entering the workforce,” Calltorp said.

Furthermore, women in Afghanistan lack any form of economic independence. UN Women estimates that only 6.8 percent of women have access to basic financial resources such as bank accounts and mobile money services. Edicts that prevent women from accessing financial independence will leave the vast majority of Afghan women unequipped for a self-sustainable future.

Afghanistan has also seen a significant surge in rates of gender-based violence since the Taliban’s rise to power. According to the report, Afghan women are exposed to nearly three times the global average rates of intimate-partner violence. Other practices, such as forced and child marriages and honor killings, exacerbate the national levels of gender inequality. Amnesty International states that non-compliance often results in retaliation from the Taliban, with women and girls facing arrests, rape, and torture.

In November 2023, Afghanistan’s de-facto Ministry of Public Health banned women’s access to psychosocial support services, leaving the vast majority of victims of gender-based violence without the adequate resources to recover while perpetrators receive impunity. Additionally, the elimination of women’s healthcare, including women’s access to reproductive health and education services, has made it difficult for many women to find basic care.

Due to these challenges, UN Women believes that Afghan women are less likely than men to live the majority of their lives in good health. It is estimated that the life expectancy of Afghan women is far lower than the global average and is projected to worsen in the coming years.

According to CIVICUS Global Alliance, current civic space conditions in Afghanistan are listed as “closed”, representing one of the worst environments for civic freedoms in the world. Josef Benedict, the Monitor Asia Researcher of CIVICUS, states that the women’s rights issues in Afghanistan have deteriorated to the point that it resembles a “gender apartheid”.

“There has been severe repression and systemic gender-based discrimination faced by Afghan women and girls under the Taliban. Women and girls are being systematically erased from public life and are being denied fundamental human rights, including access to employment, education, and opportunities for political and social engagement,” said Benedict.

“The international community must do more to provide support for women and girls in and from Afghanistan by calling for dismantling of the institutionalized system of gender oppression, ensure the representative, equal, meaningful and safe participation of Afghan women in all discussions concerning the country’s future and support community-led initiatives promoting gender equality and women’s rights.”

Additionally, activists and dissenters are routinely punished by the Taliban, facing harassment, intimidation, and violence. Journalists are often targeted, underscoring the risks of speaking out against a repressive government in an increasingly volatile environment.

“The rating is also due to the crackdown on press freedom,” said Benedict. “Nearly four years on, governments have failed to ensure a strong, united international response to counter the Taliban’s extreme repression, take steps to hold the Taliban accountable or to effectively support Afghan activists in the country and those in exile.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

The Cost of Conservation—How Tanzania Is Erasing the Maasai Identity

Posted on by admin

Africa, Biodiversity, Civil Society, Climate Change, Climate Change Justice, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Headlines, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Natural Resources, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

The removal of tens of thousands of Maasai from Ngorongoro to Msomera is part of a disturbing global trend known as “fortress conservation,” where Indigenous people are cast as threats to biodiversity rather than its protectors.

Ngorongoro residents register to "voluntarily" relocate to Msomera village in Tanzania's northern Tanga region. Credit: Kizito Makoye

Ngorongoro residents register to “voluntarily” relocate to Msomera village in Tanzania’s northern Tanga region. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

DAR ES SALAAM , Jun 19 2025 (IPS) – On the vast plains of Tanzania’s Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA), the sight of young Maasai men in bright shawls, wielding sticks as they herd cattle, has long symbolized peaceful coexistence with nature. These herders, moving in harmony with zebras and wildebeests, are inseparable from the landscape. But today, that very identity—nurtured for generations—is under siege.

What is happening in Ngorongoro, a UNESCO World Heritage Site renowned for its ecological and cultural value, is nothing short of a systematic purge of a people who have lived in harmony with nature for centuries.

Since 2022, the Tanzanian government has pushed to relocate tens of thousands of Maasai from Ngorongoro to Msomera, a remote, arid village some 600 kilometers away. Though officials label this as a “voluntary relocation” to protect fragile ecosystems, the reality is far more troubling. This is not conservation—it is dispossession.

As someone who has spent years reporting on Indigenous communities across East Africa, I know that the Maasai are not intruders—they are stewards. Their bomas (thorn-fenced homesteads), rituals, and grazing practices form a sustainable way of life attuned to the rhythms of nature. What’s happening now is an assault not just on their homes, but on their identity.

I’ve watched with growing anguish as this distinctive ethnic group is being driven to the margins—not by war or famine, but by state policies cloaked in the language of “development” and “protection.”

Ask anyone who has visited Ngorongoro: humans and wildlife coexist here in a delicate, thriving balance. The region supports more than 25,000 large animals—including lions, elephants, and the critically endangered black rhinoceros.

Ngorongoro also houses archaeological treasures like Olduvai Gorge, dubbed the “Cradle of Humankind.” It is a place where conservation, archaeology, tourism, and Indigenous rights once coexisted through a multiple land-use model. That balance is now collapsing.

The government’s plan to relocate over 100,000 Maasai is riddled with failures. A recent fact-finding mission revealed the dark side of this relocation effort. Families were lured with promises of fertile, uninhabited land and better services. What awaited them instead was dry land with no pastures, contested plots already claimed by locals, and salty, insufficient water.

Cattle—the backbone of Maasai livelihood—have died in large numbers. Health clinics barely function. Schools are overcrowded. Families are squeezed into identical three-room concrete houses, stripped of the communal structure that defines Maasai society.

Community consultation was shallow or entirely absent. Traditional leaders were sidelined. Compensation procedures lacked transparency. Ultimately, people were presented with a false choice: remain in Ngorongoro and face a withdrawal of services, or leave and risk cultural extinction.

This is part of a disturbing global trend known as “fortress conservation,” where Indigenous people are cast as threats to biodiversity rather than its protectors. But for whose benefit? Tourism revenue? International praise?

In my years of reporting, I’ve met Maasai elders who speak with reverence about their sacred lands. These pastures are not mere grazing grounds—they are the lifeblood of ceremonies, rites of passage, and spiritual rituals. To strip the Maasai of their land is to erase their very essence.

I fear the disappearance—even death—of the Maasai culture. Msomera cannot sustain their way of life. There is no room for their bomas, no pastures for cattle, and no sacred spaces for rituals. The village is too arid, its soils unable to support pastoralism. Many cows have already perished.

I’ve learned from credible sources that social services in Ngorongoro were deliberately withdrawn to coerce the Maasai into relocating. Schools, clinics, and even water services were dismantled. Development funds meant for Ngorongoro were diverted elsewhere. Flying Medical Services, once a lifeline in this remote region, was abruptly halted. Building permits for toilets and classrooms were revoked. This is not conservation. It is institutionalized punishment.

The government’s claim that overpopulation threatens the conservation area collapses under scrutiny. While Maasai homes are being dismantled, tourist lodges are multiplying. Roads to investor compounds are paved and maintained. Roads to villages? Neglected. If ecological preservation is truly the goal, why accommodate investors while evicting Indigenous residents?

The people of Ngorongoro were denied participation in decisions that affect their lives. Their leaders were ignored. Their legal rights to consultation—enshrined in both Tanzanian and international law—were trampled.

The situation in Msomera paints a bleak picture. More than 48 families remain without housing. Those who have homes are packed into identical structures, regardless of family size. Health facilities are almost nonexistent. Schools are overwhelmed. Tensions are rising as original residents challenge the allocation of land.

Let’s be honest: this is not a voluntary relocation. It is a politically calculated operation—one that wears the mask of sustainable development while bulldozing human dignity.

As the world finally acknowledges the critical role of Indigenous knowledge in combating climate change, Tanzania appears to be turning its back on one of its most knowledgeable communities. The Maasai’s way of life—marked by mobility, traditional water harvesting, and sustainable grazing—is precisely what we need more of, not less.

As journalists, we must continue to expose these contradictions. We must challenge the narratives crafted by bureaucrats and investors. We must amplify the voices of the marginalized.

To policymakers, I say this: you cannot conserve nature by destroying its oldest custodians. You cannot build sustainability on the ruins of a culture. And you cannot earn credibility while ignoring the cries of your own citizens.

What is urgently needed is a moratorium on all evictions. Relocation must be paused. Compensation must be fair, participatory, and transparent. Above all, Indigenous land rights must be upheld—not overridden by state power.

True conservation is rooted in partnership, not punishment. In dialogue, not displacement.

As climate threats grow, the world is realizing what the Maasai have known for centuries: that living with nature, not against it, is the only path forward. Tanzania must not squander this wisdom.

There is still time to change course. Until then, the Maasai will resist—and I will continue to write. Because in the face of such injustice, silence is complicity.

Notes: Makoye is a Tanzanian journalist and environmental advocate with extensive experience covering Indigenous rights, conservation, and climate justice issues across East Africa.

This opinion piece is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Time to Rethink Health Financing: It’s Not Just a Public Sector Concern

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Economy & Trade, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Parents and caregivers line up with their children at an immunization centre in Janakpur, southern Nepal. Meanwhile recent funding cuts have caused “severe disruptions” to health services in almost three-quarters of all countries, according to the head of the UN World Health Organization (WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. April 2025. Credit: UNICEF

LONDON, Jun 19 2025 (IPS) – As G7 leaders of the world’s wealthiest nations wrapped up their summit in Kananaskis June 16, a critical issue was absent from the agenda: the future of global health financing.

Amid escalating geopolitical tensions, trade conflicts and cuts to development aid, health has been sidelined – less than five years since COVID-19 devastated lives, health systems and economies.

With the fiscal space for health shrinking in over 69 countries, it’s time to recognise that health financing is no longer solely a public sector concern; it is a fundamental pillar of economic productivity, stability, and resilience.

A glimmer of hope has emerged from South Africa, the current G20 Presidency host, and from the World Health Organization (WHO). A landmark health financing resolution, adopted at last month’s World Health Assembly calls on countries to take ownership of their health funding and increase domestic investment.

While this is a promising step, the prevailing discourse continues to rely on outdated solutions which are often slow to implement and fall short of what is needed.

Invest Smarter, Not Just More, in Health

Recent trends among G20 countries show that annual healthcare expenditure is actually declining across member states. In 2022, health expenditure dropped in 18 out of 20 G20 nations, leading to increased out-of-pocket expenses for citizens.

While countries like Japan, Australia, and Canada demonstrate a direct correlation between higher per capita health expenditure and increased life expectancy, others, such as Russia, India, and South Africa, show the opposite.

This disparity underscores a crucial point: the quality and efficiency of investment matters more than quantity. Smart investment encompasses efficient resource allocation, equitable access to affordable care, effective disease prevention and management, and broader determinants of health like lifestyle, education, and environmental factors.

Achieving positive outcomes hinges on balancing health funding – the operational costs – with sustainable health financing – the capital costs.

Private capital is already moving into health, what’s missing is coordination and strategic alignment

Despite the surge in healthcare private equity reaching USD 480 billion between 2020 and 2024, many in the sector remain unaware of this significant shift. Recent G20 efforts have focused on innovative financing tools, but what’s truly needed are systemic reforms that reframe health as a core pillar of financial stability, economic resilience, and geopolitical security, not just a public service.

This year’s annual Health20 Summit at the WHO, supporting the G20 Health and Finance Ministers Meetings, addresses this need by launching a new compass for health financing: a groundbreaking report on the “Health Taxonomy – A Common Investment Toolkit to Scale Up Future Investments in Health.”

Why do we need an investment map for health?

The answer is simple: since the first ever G20 global health discussions under Germany’s G20 Presidency in 2017, there has been no consistent effort to rethink or coordinate investments. G20 countries still lack a strategic dialogue between governments, health and finance ministries, investors and the private sector.

Market-Driven, Government-Incentivised: The Path Forward

Building on the European Union’s Green Taxonomy, the health taxonomy aims to foster a shared understanding and common language among governments, companies, and investors to drive sustainable health financing. Investors, Asset Managers, Venture Capitalists, G20 Ministries of Health and Finance, Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), and International Organisations broadly agree that a market-driven taxonomy is both credible and practical.

Governments can have greater confidence knowing it has been tested with investors and is grounded in market realities.

The Health Taxonomy report identifies a key barrier to progress: the fundamental confusion between health funding and health financing: Health financing refers to the system that manages health investments, such as raising revenue, pooling resources and purchasing services. In contrast, health funding refers to the actual sources of money.

Increasing health funding alone will not improve health outcomes if the financing system is poorly designed. Conversely, a well-developed health financing framework won’t succeed without sufficient funding. Both are essential and must work together.

The health taxonomy has the potential to serve as a vital tool for policy planning sessions, strategic boardroom discussions and investment committees, thereby enabling health to be readily integrated into existing portfolios and strategies. It could also support more systematic assessments of health-related risks and economic impacts, including through existing processes like the IMF’s Article IV consultations and other macroeconomic surveillance frameworks.

The report urges leading G20 health and finance ministers to rethink and align on joint principles for health funding and financing.

The next pandemic could be more severe, more persistent, and more costly. Failure to invest adequately in health before the next crisis is a systemic risk our leaders can no longer afford to ignore.

Hatice Beton is Co-Founder, H20Summit; Roberto Durán-Fernández; PhD, is Tec de Monterrey School of Government, Former Member of the WHO’s Economic Council; Dennis Ostwald is Founder & CEO, WifOR Institute (Germany); Rifat Atun is Professor of Global Health Systems, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

IPS UN Bureau

  Source