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

How Many Developing Countries Are Forging Paths to Climate Accountability at SB62

Posted on by admin

Climate Change, Climate Change Finance, Conferences, Featured, Headlines, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Climate Change

Ongoing negotiations at Bonn, Germany, during the ongoing SB62. Credit: UNFCCC

Ongoing negotiations at Bonn, Germany, during the ongoing SB62. Credit: UNFCCC

SRINAGAR & BONN, Jun 25 2025 (IPS) – A packed conference room buzzing with the energy of over 300 national experts, negotiators, and implementers discussed their submissions of the First Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs) during the 62nd session of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SB62) negotiations taking place in Bonn, Germany.

The workshop was convened as part of the ongoing SB62 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and was being held at a crucial time for global climate governance, providing a rare and vital platform for countries to exchange honest reflections on their first forays into enhanced climate transparency.

Daniele Violetti, Senior Director at the UNFCCC, while offering a snapshot of global progress, said, “As of today, 103 Biennial Transparency Reports have been submitted, of which 67 are from developing countries, including 15 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS).”

The reports, which were due in December last year under the Paris Agreement’s Enhanced Transparency Framework, aim to enhance transparency and build trust among parties to the UNFCCC by providing a regular update on progress towards climate goals.

He lauded the extensive support provided through the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and other agencies, noting, “We at the UNFCCC Secretariat remain fully committed to collaborating with partners and enhancing the capacity of developing countries.”

Over the past five months, the Secretariat convened 17 country support events attended by 319 national experts and 11 sub-regional and regional workshops with 373 experts from 112 developing countries. Additionally, 1,700 review experts were certified under the BTR Technical Expert Review Training Program.

“This is a meaningful and valuable learning experience under the Paris Agreement,” Violetti said, stressing the importance of “reflection and mutual learning” to build “stronger national transparency systems that will serve countries well beyond this reporting cycle.”

The workshop’s agenda moved from introductory remarks to a series of concise presentations by key implementing agencies: the Global Environment Facility (GEF), Conservation International (CI), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

Esteban Bermudez Forn, Climate Change Specialist from the GEF stated that the Facility has supported the preparation of 163 BTRs in 111 countries, including multiple reports from countries advancing to their second and third BTRs. “We encourage countries to see GEF support as a savings account—prepare your BTR, but also request access to ensure you have resources available when you need them,” he advised.

Highlighting  the continued availability of funds, Forn  said, “We still have USD 92 million available under the current replenishment cycle. Please, if you haven’t requested support from the GEF, do it as soon as possible before the replenishment cycle ends.”

Ricardo Urlate of Conservation International spotlighted the importance of nurturing local talent, referencing a project in Rwanda that partners the government with academia. “Normally, there is a big dependency on external experts—very expensive experts from outside—and this is something that cannot continue if countries want to be more efficient and engaged,” he warned.

Through the Evidence-Based Climate Reporting Initiative, Rwanda’s Environmental Management Authority and the African Institute of Mathematical Sciences trained over 50 staff in data analysis, climate modeling, and greenhouse gas inventories. Ricardo emphasized, “The important thing is that there are a lot of options… to identify at the country level which is the one that better fits their own needs and priorities.”

CI also highlighted a sub-regional project with the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), which aims to build capacity for enhanced transparency across member countries. “Reporting and transparency are two of the key elements they are supporting,” Ricardo said, pointing to the value of regional approaches.

FAO’s Marcel Bernhofs drew attention to a persistent challenge: finding appropriate executing agencies with the managerial capacity to lead projects. “This gap can create bottlenecks and delay implementation, slowing down the preparation and submission of funding requests,” he observed.

FAO’s approach emphasizes on-the-ground engagement, leveraging regional and national teams. Their Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency (CBIT) and Forestry and Other Land Use (FOLU) project, for example, “provides easy-to-access and knowledgeable technical experts” and focuses on supporting agriculture and land use sectors—areas that are “not easy, where we are really struggling quite a lot to do a good job,” Marcel acknowledged.

Marcel also stressed the importance of language accessibility: “Sometimes working in English is fine, but we also need, when we enter the detail and close discussion, to use the national languages.” FAO’s capacity-building activities, including a recent forest monitoring course in three languages, supported 2,500 participants from 141 countries.

The Value of Timely Technical Assistance

Richmond Azee from UNDP shared practical lessons on the importance of selecting the right executing partners and providing timely technical assistance. “Never let [countries] work alone on the BTRs but be ready beside them with some resources… to provide technical assistance as soon as possible and as needed to unlock some issues and overcome some challenges,” he advised.

He cited Guinea-Bissau’s experience aligning multiple reporting requirements and Niger’s successful correction of technical errors in their submission, both facilitated by UNDP’s hands-on support. “As a result, Guinea-Bissau, an LDC, submitted its BTR before December 2024… and Niger submitted on time, enhancing their understanding for the next cycle of BTRs.”

Funding Modalities and Sustainability Susanne Lecoyote, dialing in from UNEP, addressed the evolving funding modalities.

“Out of the total 111 countries that have accessed funding so far for BTRs, UNEP has supported 66,” she stated, describing how diverse modalities—such as bundled projects—help tailor support and ensure continuity for countries as they move through reporting cycles.

Susanne explained the streamlined approval process for expedited funding, typically taking just three to four months. She encouraged project coordinators to “be flexible to start preparing proposals while you are concluding your reports… do not mind about the technical review comments, because when they come in, we will provide a room for you to make amendments if needed.”

UNEP’s CBIT-GSP (Global Support Program) is a hub of collaboration, she said, “working closely with the Consultative Group of Experts, Climate Promise, Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change (PACC), Implementation and Coordination of Agricultural Research & Training (ICART) and many other initiatives to make sure that transparency-related services are provided to all countries, irrespective of whether they are supported by UNEP or other agencies.”

National Ownership and the Importance of Coordination

Rajan Dhappa from WWF shared Nepal’s experience, celebrating the country’s recent submission of its first BTR and its third Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), making Nepal the first in South Asia to do so.

“We tried our best to submit the document with the best available data and information. But BTR is a time-taking process; it requires coordination among agencies and also the technical and financial support,” he reflected.

He stressed the centrality of government ownership: “If there is a high level of ownership and if they tend to implement such projects… then every project gets a success result or every project receives its intended goal on time.”

Nepal’s work on establishing a national Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) mechanism is expected to pay dividends for future reporting.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Time to Redesign Global Development Finance

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Conferences, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Education, Environment, Financial Crisis, Food and Agriculture, Gender, Global, Headlines, Health, Inequality, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Sarah Strack, Forus Director and Christelle Kalhoule, Forus Chair

Farmer in Colombia. Credit: Both Nomads/Forus

SEVILLE, Spain , Jun 23 2025 (IPS) – Can the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4) be a turning point? The stakes are high. The international financial system—so important to each and every one of us—feels out of reach and resistant to change, because it is deeply entrenched in unjust power imbalances that keep it in place. We deserve better.

Under its current form, the Compromiso de Sevilla – the outcome document of FFD4 adopted on June 17 ahead of the conference – reads like a mildly improved version of business as usual with weak commitments. To avoid being derailed, decision-makers at FFD4 must act with clarity and courage, and here’s why.

With predatory interest rates, the international financial system is pushing hundreds of millions into misery as several nations continue to be shackled by a deepening debt crisis. While millions struggle without adequate food, healthcare, or education – basic services and rights – their governments must funnel billions to creditors.

Shockingly, 3.3 billion people – almost half of humanity – disproportionately in Global South nations, live in countries where debt interest payments outstrip education, health budgets and urgent climate action. This imbalance is particularly pernicious toward women, who bear the brunt of the failure of the gender-blind global financial architecture. This system fails to acknowledge and redistribute care and social reproduction responsibilities, resulting in women, especially those located in the Global South, lacking access to adequate essential services and decent jobs.

“The current model of international cooperation is not working, and its financing is also not working while we are facing a series of interconnected crises,” says Mafalda Infante, Advocacy and Communications Officer at the Portuguese Platform of Development NGOs, sharing their recently released Civil Society Manifesto for Global Justice calling for change and a restoration of fairness at FFD4 and beyond.

“Gender equality perspectives are absolutely central to how we understand global justice and financial reform, because let’s be clear: the current system isn’t neutral. It produces and reinforces inequalities, including gender-based ones. The debt crisis and climate emergency disproportionately affect women and girls, especially in the global south. We’ve seen it again and again when public services are cut, when healthcare is underfunded or when food systems collapse, it’s women who carry the heaviest burden. But at the same time, feminist economics also offer solutions. They challenge the idea that GDP growth is the ultimate goal. They prioritise care, sustainability and community well-being. They demand that financing should be people-centered and rights-based and accountable as well. So the role of civil society has been to bring these ideas into the FFD4 space to connect macroeconomic reform with everyday realities and to insist that justice – economic, climate, racial, gender justice – is indivisible,” Infante adds.

FFD4 offers an opportunity to reimagine a financial architecture that can be just, inclusive, and rights-based. This is not a technical summit for experts alone. It is the only global forum where governments, international institutions, civil society organisations, community representatives and the private sector sit together to shape the future of global finance, and it’s happening after 10 years since the latest edition in Addis Ababa.

But there are realities that decision-makers just can’t shy away from. While some powerful countries borrow at rock-bottom rates, other nations face interest charges nearly four times higher. We must thus ask ourselves: is this really a pathway to truly sustainable development or a continuation of profound financial injustices through something akin to “financial colonialism” ?

“Many countries like us in the South, are totally concerned that there can be no development with the current debt situation not discussed. The issue of debt vis-a-vis taxes is vitally important. The money that countries are collecting from the domestic mobilization of resources is all channeled to self-debt servicing. And debt handcuffs social policy. Without these resources, these countries cannot deliver on public services like health and education. There can be no way of improving people’s social indicators without addressing the question of debt stress,” says Moses Isooba , Executive Director of the Uganda National NGO Forum (UNNGOF).

Forus is attending FFD4 as a global civil society network with one clear message: the current model must change.

We call for a radical transformation of global finance that moves away from a system that enables “tax abuse” and outsized influence from a powerful few.

A crucial step for transformation is creating a UN Convention on Sovereign Debt to fairly and transparently restructure and cancel illegitimate debt, as many countries spend more on debt than on essential services.

In today’s context of shrinking development aid, the role of public development banks is ever more important in support of Agenda 2030 and the Paris Agreement on climate change. Forus therefore calls on public development banks to work in partnership with civil society and community representatives through a formal global coalition and local engagement to ensure development finance is locally-led and reflects the real needs of people, rooted in consent and mutual trust.

Official development assistance (ODA) must be protected and increased, reversing harmful aid cuts that damage civil society as well as urgent and basic services. The UN has warned that aid funding for dozens of crises around the world has dropped by a third, largely due to the decrease in US funding slashed US funding and announced cuts from other nations.

Finally, governments should support a new UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, adopting gender-responsive, environmentally sustainable fiscal policies while disincentivizing polluters and extractive industries.

“Development financing must not perpetuate cycles of debt, austerity, and dependency. Instead, it must be grounded in democratic governance, fair taxation, climate justice, and respect for human rights. It’s also crucial to promote inclusive decision-making by strengthening the role of the United Nations in global economic governance, countering the dominance of informal and exclusive clubs such as the OECD,” says Henrique Frota, Executive Director of the Brazilian Association of NGOs (ABONG) and former C20 Brazil Chair.

FFD4 must ensure that there is a genuine space for civil society engagement, where all voices are heard and can influence financial decision making, to strengthen accountability and transparency, and to promote greater inclusion.

“The voices of the communities most affected should be included, otherwise large-scale development projects are not sustainable. Local communities and local civil society are the point of contact to make implementation more inclusive,” says Pallavi Rekhi, Programmes Lead at Voluntary Action Network India (VANI), reinforcing that FFD4 must shift from vague aspirations to binding, systemic reforms that rebalance power and serve justice.

“Don’t take stock of what has been done. Instead, look at what has not yet been done at this conference and you will see the immense challenges that lie ahead for the future of our planet,” says Marcelline Mensah-Pierucci, President of FONGTO, the national platform of civil society organisations in Togo.

“The continuous cycle of unfairness and social inequality must come to an end. The time to act is now,” adds Zia ur Rehman, Chairperson of Pakistan Development Alliance.

For many, the road to Sevilla has been long and hard and still, the world’s majority are left behind on this journey. The hard work continues after FFD4 on the need for bold leadership, real action and transformative change that can lead to a more effective and responsive global financial architecture.

IPS UN Bureau

 

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