Africa

By CIVICUS
Jul 16 2025 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS speaks with Claude Iguma, a mining governance expert with a PhD in Social Sciences, who is based in Bukavu, South Kivu province, eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

On 27 June, the DRC signed a peace agreement with Rwanda. This agreement forms part of a wider deal with the Trump administration promising US access to Congolese coltan in exchange for assistance in quelling armed rebellions and stabilising the region. Coltan is a crucial mineral for the global electronics industry, but its extraction fuels conflicts, insecurity and human rights violations.

Claude Iguma

What is coltan, and how does it affect the DRC?

Coltan, or columbite-tantalite, is primarily mined in eastern DRC, particularly in Kivu and Tanganyika provinces. Its unique chemical properties, particularly its resistance to extreme temperatures, make it an indispensable component of the modern electronics industry.

This global demand has transformed the region in three fundamental ways. First, it has established the DRC as one of the world’s leading coltan suppliers. The Rubaya mine, located in the Masisi territory of North Kivu, is a prime example of this: it produces more than half of the DRC’s coltan, making it a popular destination for international buyers and smelters.

Second, this mineral wealth has fuelled violence. Coltan mining has become inextricably linked to violence perpetrated by armed groups. The Rubaya mine is regularly the scene of tensions between ethnic armed groups and illegal coltan traders. Global Witness has documented this situation in a report that clearly establishes the link between international demand for coltan and the violence ravaging eastern DRC.

Third, the global energy transition has intensified the appetite of western powers for this mineral. A controversial agreement signed in February 2024 between the European Union (EU) and Rwanda regarding strategic minerals is proof of this: the EU is sourcing coltan from a country with little to no coltan reserves. This also explains why the USA is so invested in the minerals-security agreement between the DRC and Rwanda.

What are the human rights and security impacts of mining?

Artisanal coltan mining takes place in a context of widespread illegality that systematically violates human rights. Armed groups have established a sophisticated system of extortion, imposing forced labour, levying illegal taxes and controlling access to mines by erecting barriers on access roads. These same groups also regularly rob miners, creating a climate of permanent terror.

However, responsibility does not lie solely with armed groups. The military is also present at mining sites, where they extort money from miners. The miners work in extreme physical conditions without any protection, digging deep pits where fatal accidents are commonplace. An accident at the Rubaya mine on 19 June claimed 45 lives.

The exploitation of vulnerable people is another shocking aspect of this industry. Despite legal prohibitions, pregnant women and children continue to work in the mines, driven by poverty and the ineffective enforcement of regulations.

This situation perpetuates a vicious cycle of insecurity. Mining areas have become the scene of constant clashes between rival militias fighting for control of these lucrative resources. In the Numbi region of South Kivu, for example, fighting between Nyatura militias and local Mai-Mai groups has become a regular occurrence. These rivalries extend beyond mere territorial control and are deeply rooted in tensions between ethnic groups these militias claim to represent.

The consequences are disastrous: the mass displacement of people, the establishment of military regimes at extraction sites and the complete collapse of state authority in these areas. The absence of state structures creates a legal vacuum where militarisation and arms trafficking flourish.

What does the agreement between the DRC and the USA mean?

Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi’s offer to grant the USA privileged access to Congolese minerals is part of a strategy to secure the territory. The aim is to neutralise the rebellion by M23 – an armed group on the offensive in recent years – exchange for US commitment to regional security. At the same time, the agreement aims to stop Rwanda’s systematic looting of Congolese minerals, as evidenced by the peace agreement signed on 27 June.

On paper, the strategy seems coherent. In practice, however, the challenges are considerable. The porous nature of the DRC’s borders could allow illegal supply networks for coltan and other minerals to keep operating in neighbouring countries. More problematic still is the fact that the M23 is only one of many armed groups present in eastern DRC. Neutralising it, even if successful, will not automatically solve the problem posed by the other militias. Specific dismantling strategies that go beyond the scope of this bilateral agreement will need to be developed.

From an economic perspective, the agreement presents significant opportunities. Investment of billions of dollars in the DRC’s mining sector could generate significant employment and boost an economy already heavily dependent on minerals. These investments should also improve infrastructure, particularly access to mines via the road network and evacuation routes to export ports.

However, three major risks threaten this strategy. First, capital influx could exacerbate corruption among the Congolese political elite. Second, as has happened in the past, minerals may be exported without being processed locally, which would perpetuate the DRC’s dependence on unprocessed raw materials. Third, the intensification of mining could exacerbate the problem of excessive dependence on mining to the detriment of other vital economic sectors, such as agriculture.

What is civil society doing to improve the situation?

Congolese civil society is taking a multifaceted approach to humanise mining. Its intervention is structured around three main areas.

Advocacy is the first part of this action. Many organisations are campaigning with state authorities to improve the living conditions of artisanal miners and clean up supply chains. They systematically denounce irregularities observed at every stage of these chains, creating constant pressure on institutions.

The second pillar is training and support. Civil society organisations are investing heavily in training mining operators, particularly in relation to the mining code and setting up mining cooperatives. Implemented directly on mining sites, these programmes aim to professionalise artisanal mining. Projects such as Madini Kwa Amani na Maendeleo and Minerals for Peace and Development, which are being implemented in Ituri and South Kivu by a consortium of organisations including International Alert, International Peace Information Service, Justice Plus and Observatoire Gouvernance et Paix, illustrate this collaborative approach.

The third component of this initiative is the assessment of mining sites. Civil society organisations actively participate in assessment missions that determine the risks associated with each site in terms of exploitation, security, respect for human rights and environmental impact. This technical expertise helps steer public policy and private investment towards more responsible practices.

GET IN TOUCH
Facebook

SEE ALSO
Human rights under fire in DRC conflict CIVICUS Lens 24.Mar.2025
Deadly conflict in eastern DRC culls human rights and civic freedoms CIVICUS Monitor 10.Mar. 2025
DRC: ‘Rwandan support for M23 threatens to turn conflict into a regional crisis’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Steward Muhindo 04.Feb.2025

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

TANGO (The Gambia), supporting communities in the North Bank Region, through distribution of improved cooking stoves. Credit: TANGO

By Christelle Kalhoule and Sarah Strack
NEW YORK, Jul 16 2025 (IPS)

As delegates gather in New York over the coming weeks for the 2025 High-Level Political Forum (HLPF), we see this moment as a test. A test of whether world leaders are serious about rescuing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – or content to let the promises of Agenda 2030 drift quietly into irrelevance.

For ten years, governments have pledged to “leave no one behind.” But that promise rings hollow when those at the center of sustainable development—civil society and communities—are excluded from decision-making, denied funding, and sidelined in monitoring processes. The credibility of the SDG agenda now hinges on one urgent question: will the world get serious about #UNMuting civil society and enabling it to fully play its role at all levels?

The evidence is stark. In 2024, Official Development Assistance (ODA) fell by 7.1% (16 billion USD approximately. Projections for 2025 suggest additional drops of up to 17% (38 billion USD approximately). Civil society organisations in many countries recently surveyed report funding cuts. At the same time, an enabling environment continues to shrink, especially in fragile or repressive contexts, limiting civil society’s ability to operate as showcased in most recent EU SEE alerts. And while global declarations reaffirm the importance of partnerships, local organisations—particularly feminist, youth-led, and community-based groups—continue to operate at the margins of power and resources.

From visibility to power

This year’s High-Level Political Forum focuses on the review of SDGs 3 -health, 5 – gender equality, 8 – decent work, 14 – life below water and 17 – partnerships for the Goals. But these Goals are not abstract targets—they are linked to everyday realities that communities and civil society across the globe confront and act upon for a better future.

In communities across the globe, civil society is not waiting for permission to lead. We are co-creators of solutions, watchdogs of accountability, and stewards of public interest. In Vanuatu, Fale mobilised rapidly after the 2024 earthquake, coordinating shelter, food and psychological support where institutional response lagged. In Mexico, local networks spotlighted how legal barriers and discrimination exclude indigenous and migrant communities from accessing public services. In Nepal, young activists from the NGO Federation of Nepal are working to make health, education and employment policies more inclusive of persons living with disabilities. These are not just stories of service delivery- they are blueprints for equity, agency and justice from the ground up.

Yet such models remain largely invisible in global discussions-not because they lack impact, but because they lack recognition, access and resourcing. Civil society’s role is routinely framed as consultative or complementary. It’s time to move beyond visibility and tokenism. Recognition must translate into resourcing, influence, and leadership.

As Silla Ristimäki, Adviser on Global Justice at Finnish Development NGOs (Fingo), puts it: “Concerning global trends of closing civic space must be countered at all levels. A free, diverse and independent civil society lays the foundation for lasting peace, stable societies and sustainable development.”

Localisation is more than a buzzword: it’s the only way forward

Communities, civil society, and their partners are advancing SDGs from the ground up. Forus’ newly released report, Unlocking the Power of Localisation and Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships, reveals that over 65% of SDG targets rely on local delivery. Yet most global financing, planning, and monitoring systems remain top-down and disconnected from the realities of local actors.

The report highlights over 15 case studies—from Fiji to Morocco, Zambia to Argentina—where CSOs are driving Voluntary Local Reviews (VLRs), engaging in budget advocacy and developing citizen monitoring tools that track public services. But without long-term, flexible financing and stronger multilevel governance, these efforts risk disappearing.

Centering local feminist leadership for systemic change

Despite being at the forefront of local action and deeply embedded in communities, civil society organisations -especially feminist and youth led groups – continue to operate at the margins of power and financing. The “March With Us” campaign, launched by Forus in 2021, has amplified powerful voices over the years such as Hala al Karib in Sudan, Dianah Kamande in Kenya and many more- women and civil society organisations who are peace builders and system changers.

If governments and multilateral institutions are serious about accelerating SDG progress, , then gender must be seen not as a standalone goal, but as a lens across all policies-especially financing. It must be mainstreamed across all SDG implementation and financing strategies—from public development banks to national budgets.

That is why Forus, on the occasion of the fourth international conference on financing for development (FfD4) in Seville, called for a re-imagination of financial architecture – one that recognises the legitimacy of civil society as both actor and agenda setter for transformative change.

Building trust through investing in civil society

Civil society is doing more than delivering services, it is building trust. At Forus, we are investing in storytelling, civic diplomacy, and digital governance to counter disinformation and revitalize democratic participation. Our Local Power Working Group and We Are Leaving No One Behind campaign uplift lived experiences that show not just what’s wrong with current systems—but what’s possible.

These are not “human interest” stories. They are powerful contributions to shaping policies for just and sustainable development.

What needs to change—Now

As the world moves into the final five years before 2030, the window for course correction is rapidly closing. At the 2025 High-Level Political Forum Forus urges governments, donors and international institutions to;

· Fund civil society through long-term, flexible, and core support—not project crumbs.
· Recognise community-led monitoring and data as legitimate contributions to SDG review and accountability.
· Invest in localization, not just through technical support but through the transfer of power and resources
· Embed civil society in financing and planning systems for development processes – including financing for development and public development bank strategies, and not as observers but architects of change.
· Shift power—not just through consultation, but through redistribution of voice, visibility, and resources.

In a world of growing polycrisis and democratic erosion, civil society is not optional. We are an essential part of the ecosystem for social justice, resilience and transformation. If the SDGs are to be saved, it won’t be through declarations-but through redistribution. Of resources. Of voice. Of power.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Excerpt:

Christelle Kalhoule, Forus Chair and Sarah Strack, Forus Director

Maithreyi Kamalanathan is Global Media Coordinator, Equality Now

By Maithreyi Kamalanathan
NEW YORK, Jul 16 2025 (IPS)

Around a quarter of countries still have nationality laws that deny women the same rights as men to acquire, retain, or change their citizenship, or to pass citizenship onto their children or foreign spouses.

Catherine Harrington, Campaign Manager for the Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights. Credit: Ava McLaughlin Gagliardi

These legal inequalities expose women and their families to a wide range of harms. From forced family separation and statelessness to limiting access to education, healthcare, and employment, the consequences are severe and far-reaching.

While some countries have taken commendable steps to reform discriminatory nationality laws, many governments have yet to take meaningful action, leaving millions without equal rights to acquire or confer nationality. Beyond the profound impact on individuals, this discrimination carries deep social and economic costs.

When women are denied equal nationality rights, entire families are held back, restricting their ability to contribute fully to society and ultimately holding back national development.

Model guidelines for nationality laws

A new publication, “Proposed Select Draft Articles on Nationality Rights to Ensure Gender Equality,” by Equality Now and the Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights (GCENR), provides model guidelines for policymakers to reform and enact nationality laws that ensure all citizens, regardless of their gender, have access to equal citizenship rights.

GCENR, housed at Women’s Refugee Commission, is a coalition of independent activists, UN partner agencies, and national and international organisations working to end gender discrimination in nationality laws. Equality Now is a founding steering committee member of GCENR.

Catherine Harrington, Campaign Manager of GCENR, spoke to Equality Now about why gender-equal nationality laws are crucial to building an inclusive, thriving, and prosperous society for all.

What are the real-life consequences for women and girls when nationality laws are not gender equal?

Women’s unequal status in society is the root cause of gender-based violence. At a foundational level, discriminatory nationality laws create a conducive environment for gender-based violence. For example, a woman and her children’s nationality being dependent on an abusive spouse creates a higher barrier for them to leave a situation of domestic violence.

The inability to confer nationality on children and non-citizen spouses inhibits women’s power to choose their partners. It undermines equality in the family, affecting women’s autonomy and ability to form a family.

Statelessness also exacerbates certain risks. For example, a girl born to a Lebanese mother and a stateless Palestinian father in Lebanon would be rendered stateless. She can’t gain Lebanese citizenship through her mother, even if she lives there and cannot acquire another nationality. This puts her at an increased risk of human trafficking and child marriage because, unfortunately, some families see early and enforced marriage as a pathway to secure documentation or citizenship.

Risks extend to the world of work. Lack of formal employment pushes many affected women into informal work environments, making them more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, including sexual harassment and assault by employers. Due to their undocumented status, many don’t report or seek justice for the violence they face.

What’s the objective of the model guidelines published by GCENR and Equality Now, and how can policymakers use them?

Gender discrimination in nationality laws is the canary in the coal mine for gender equality. When nationality laws discriminate on the basis of gender, they implicitly ascribe women a second-class status. The guidelines examine different elements of nationality laws and propose how the law should look to uphold comprehensive gender equality.

It provides helpful context for policymakers, outlining countries’ existing obligations to uphold gender-equal nationality laws through a range of international human rights conventions, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The good news is that reforming nationality laws is pretty straightforward. Countries must simply ensure that provisions related to acquiring, changing, retaining, or conferring nationality, whether to a child or a non-national spouse, uphold the rights of all citizens equally. They can achieve it through gender-neutral language, like referring to everyone as ‘citizens’ or using inclusive terms like ‘parent’ or ‘spouse.’ If gendered terms are used, ensure both terms, such as ‘mother and father’ or ‘wife and husband’, are included.

What are some of the barriers to adopting gender-equal nationality laws?

Xenophobia is one of the biggest challenges we face in most countries. Wherever I’ve visited, be it a rich or a poor country, I often hear the same argument from those opposed to reform.“Our situation is unique. And because of that, we must protect other people from getting our citizenship.”

Nepal, for example, shares open borders with two big countries, India and China. Some people there argue that “they’ll invade the country through the womb.” The economic argument of some countries is that citizenship comes with many benefits, and they don’t want to spend all those resources on outsiders.

Regardless of the desire not to allow others to come in, in most countries, if a man marries a woman from another country, he can confer nationality to his wife. His children automatically become citizens because it’s treated as a man’s natural right.

But when it comes to women, there is an intersection of xenophobia with deeply rooted patriarchal mindsets and sexism. The desire to make it harder for others to get citizenship is seen as more important than ensuring equal rights for women.

The irony is that discriminatory nationality laws inhibit sustainable development and exacerbate poverty. They undermine countries’ commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), especially SDG 5 on gender equality, SDG 10 on reducing inequalities, and target 16.9 on ensuring legal identity for all by 2030.

When statelessness gets passed down from parent to child, it creates multigenerational poverty. An entire population of children will grow up without equal access to education. In adulthood, they won’t have access to employment and membership in professional syndicates, required in some countries to practice certain professions such as law, engineering, architecture, or medicine. At a societal level, we’ll have all these talented individuals who genuinely want to contribute economically to the countries they call home, but are prevented from doing so.

What progress has there been in ending gender discrimination in nationality laws?

Since the launch of our global nationality campaign, we’ve seen progress in many countries. Recently, the national campaign of our coalition member Family Frontiers, led by impacted mothers, has had a remarkable influence in Malaysia. In 2024, both houses of Malaysia’s Parliament passed a constitutional amendment to uphold Malaysian women’s right to confer citizenship to their children born abroad on an equal basis with men, which will hopefully come into effect this year.

Madagascar, Sierra Leone, and Liberia have eliminated laws that denied women’s right to confer nationality on their children. While Lesotho, Benin, and Niger had already eliminated provisions preventing women from passing nationality to their children, they have now taken the final step to amend laws prohibiting women from conferring nationality on a spouse on an equal basis with men.

Eswatini is the only country in southern Africa where women still cannot pass citizenship to their children. During the UNHCR’s High-Level Segment on Statelessness, Eswatini’s government pledged to eliminate this discrimination by 2024. While that reform hasn’t happened yet, the pledge remains a significant step forward.

Today, 90% of countries uphold women’s right to pass citizenship to their children on an equal basis with men, and three-quarters have achieved comprehensive gender equality in their nationality laws. These governments amended their laws because they recognised it was the smart thing to do. Countries yet to enact reforms must learn from the good examples and understand that it’s not something to be feared but an opportunity to uphold equality and inclusive development for all citizens.

Equality Now is a worldwide human rights organisation dedicated to securing the legal and systemic change needed to end discrimination against all women and girls. Since its inception in 1992, it has played a role in reforming 120 discriminatory laws globally, positively impacting the lives of hundreds of millions of women and girls, their communities and nations, both now and for generations to come.

Working with partners at national, regional and global levels, Equality Now draws on deep legal expertise and a diverse range of social, political and cultural perspectives to continue to lead the way in steering, shaping and driving the change needed to achieve enduring gender equality, to the benefit of all.

For more details, go to www.equalitynow.org, Bluesky equalitynow.bsky.social, Facebook @equalitynoworg, Instagram @equalitynoworg, and LinkedIn Equality Now.

Proposed Select Draft Articles on Nationality Rights to Ensure Gender Equality.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Excerpt:

Maithreyi Kamalanathan is Global Media Coordinator, Equality Now

Muhammadu Buhari’s life tracked dramatic changes over decades – and he was often at the centre of events.

Muhammadu Buhari’s life tracked dramatic changes over decades – and he was often at the centre of events.

Muhammadu Buhari’s life tracked dramatic changes over decades – and he was often at the centre of events.

Every day, Yondela Kolweni has to hold down her son, who screams and fights when it is time for his daily life-saving TB tablets—a painful reminder of her battle with the world’s top infectious killer disease. “It is a fight I win feeling awful about what I have to do,” says Kolweni (30), a Cape […]

Burna Boy, one of the biggest names in Afrobeats, says he didn't want his sound to be "in one box".

Doctors administer diphtheria and tetanus vaccinations provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) to children in Haiti displaced by the earthquake in 2010. Credit: Sophia Paris/UN Photo

By Naomi Myint Breuer
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 15 2025 (IPS)

The latest data highlights that the world is off track to meet the targets set by the Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) to achieve 90 percent global immunization coverage for essential childhood vaccines and halve the number of unvaccinated children by 2030.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) released the 2024 Estimates of National Immunization Coverage (WUENIC) on July 15, revealing both progress and challenges in global childhood immunization.

WUENIC, the world’s largest dataset on childhood immunization, reports on 16 antigens across 195 countries.

In 2024, 20 million children did not receive at least one dose of the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccine, a global marker for childhood immunization coverage. Of those children, 14.3 million received no vaccines at all. This is 4 million more than the 2024 target and 1.4 million more than in 2019, the IA2030 baseline year.

“We’ve hit this very stubborn glass ceiling, and breaking through that glass to protect more children against vaccine-preventable diseases is becoming more difficult,” Dr. Kate O’Brien, Director of the Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals at WHO, said at a July 14 press briefing.

Conflicts are much to blame for the difficulty in immunization. Children living in one of the 26 countries affected by fragility, conflict or humanitarian emergencies are three times more likely to be unvaccinated than those who live in stable countries. Half of unvaccinated children live in these 26 countries.

“These aren’t just numbers. They are real children in places like Sudan and Yemen, where instability makes vaccine delivery difficult,” Thanbani Maphosa, Managing Director of Country Programmes for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, said. “In these settings, reaching a charge can mean navigating danger, displacement and a fractured health system.”

However, the 14.3 zero-dose children is a reduction from the 2023 number of 14.4 zero-dose children, and 85 percent of infants in the world received three doses of the DTP in 2024, an increase of 1 million more from 2023.

“While that growth may sound modest, in each of these children, this means another child protected at the same time,” O’Brien said.

Through their Zero-Dose Immunization Program (ZIP), UNICEF and partners have vaccinated over 1 million children in conflict-affected regions of the Sahel and the Horn of Africa since 2023. In 2024, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, supported more children against more diseases than ever before.

“That is not just a statistic. It is a testament to the resilience and determination of countries,” Maphosa said.

Furthermore, two-thirds of countries have maintained at least 90 percent coverage of four key vaccines over the past five years.

WUENIC reports there is improving immunization against measles. First-dose coverage rose to 84 percent, with 1.7 million children vaccinated in 2024, while second-dose coverage increased from 74 percent in 2023 to 76 percent in 2024.

Still, 20 million children missed their first dose, and 12 million did not complete their second, leaving 30 million at risk for measles. 360,000 measles cases were confirmed globally in 2024, the highest number since 2019. The number of countries with large and disruptive measles outbreaks rose to 60, almost double the 2022 number.

The rise in cases is due to an accumulation of people who are unvaccinated since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

Dr. Ephrem T. Lemango, Associate Director for Health and Global Chief of Immunization at UNICEF, warned that the progress made in 2024 is not enough to prevent measles outbreaks.

Lemango warned that even where national coverage rates appear high, disparities among districts put many disproportionately at risk. Measles outbreaks can only be prevented with 95 percent coverage with two measles vaccine doses in every community in every county.

Immunization efforts are challenged by fewer health facilities, workforce shortages, vaccine stockouts, and difficulties reaching remote communities, especially in areas affected by conflict or displacement. In high-income countries, immunization is challenged by decreased acceptance and vaccine hesitancy due to misinformation and distrust in institutions. Funding cuts are further putting children at risk for vaccine-preventable diseases. Nearly 50 countries have been disrupted by funding cuts.

“Misinformation and any forms of vaccine hesitancy are a reflection of a broader lack of trust or mistrust in the systems that deliver the vaccines, in the health workers that provide the vaccines, in the manufacturing facilities or ecosystem that manufactures the vaccines,” Lemango said.

Social media and the COVID-19 pandemic are largely to blame for disinformation and misinformation surrounding vaccines.

Lemango and O’Brien emphasized the importance of training health workers to address the questions and concerns of parents in regard to vaccinating their children and the critical role community leaders play in influencing public trust. O’Brien noted that a family’s local medical practitioner is the most influential voice in their decision to vaccinate their children.

“Political leaders, community leaders, religious leaders, and family leaders have a powerful influence on the choices that families make around the health of their children, and the voices of leaders can either reinforce trust or erode trust,” O’Brien said.

However, O’Brien emphasized that lack of access remains the primary barrier to immunization, rather than misinformation. Lemango noted that 95 percent of parents want their children to be vaccinated.

An area of notable progress is HPV vaccination. 43 million girls were vaccinated against HPV in 2024, setting the world on track to reach 86 million adolescents by the end of 2025. 60 million girls are now protected against cervical cancer, more than in any previous decade.

He noted that many countries are committing record levels of domestic financing to immunization, but a funding gap persists. Of the USD 11.9 billion needed to achieve their goals, only USD 9 billion has been raised.

Maphosa noted that millions of children are still not being reached and there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution. Lemango called on governments, partners and communities to close funding gaps, serve fragile or conflict-affected communities and address misinformation.

Maphosa emphasized the urgency of the situation, given a global rise in conflict, fragility and population. “Vaccines have never been more important and urgent than they are now,” he said.

He added that countries and organizations must work together to close the immunization gap so that every child is protected.

“That’s the promise of immunization,” he said. “One of the best tools the world has to ensure health, security and prosperity. And with continued commitment and continued investment, it’s a promise we can keep.”

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById({js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• The Risks Artificial Intelligence Pose for the Global South
• Post-Earthquake Myanmar Faces ‘Immense’ Suffering, Cannot Be Forgotten
• WFP Deputy Chief Describes Unprecedented Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza

A Spaniard and two local people were shot multiple times during the conflict in northern Ethiopia, MSF says.

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Jul 15 2025 (IPS)

Trump’s billionaire cronies want more monopoly profits, not competition. With more policies crafted for them, wealth concentration is set to become greater than ever.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Neoliberalism?
There is no clear consensus on what neoliberal economics stands for now. Many who claim to be liberal economists have different, even contradictory views.

Some demand market competition and oppose monopolies and oligopolies. For others, property rights are crucial, typically strengthening monopoly rights.

Many avowed neoliberals deemphasise competition and hesitate to insist on antitrust action or opposition to abuses of market power.

Property rights confer monopoly or exclusive ownership rights to an asset, typically denying access to others except for payment. Many such rights are recent.

While UK Prime Minister from 1979, Margaret Thatcher triggered a worldwide neoliberal economic counter-revolution, especially in the Anglosphere.

With generally more limited public ownership, the US economy has long been more ‘private’, offering little scope for privatisation.

Tech Big Bro
PayPal and Palantir founder Peter Thiel is the most influential of the so-called ‘tech bros’ supporting re-elected US President Donald Trump.

Thiel was the two-term president’s biggest funder for his unexpectedly successful 2016 campaign. As former boss, funder and mentor, he is now Vice President JD Vance’s godfather.

In 2014, Thiel’s ‘Competition is for Losers’ established him as the lead apologist for lucrative rentier monopolies, especially those invoking intellectual property rights (IPRs).

Thiel noted ‘perfect competition’ is “both the ideal and the default state in Economics 101”. In textbooks, firms in competitive markets are presumed to be similar, selling the same goods.

Hence, they have no ‘market power’ and must sell at market-determined prices. When demand rises, firms invest to increase supply, reducing prices and profits.

In mainstream economics, there can be no economic rent under perfect competition. But prices can be raised more easily in cornered markets.

Buyers will then have no other source to buy from. Without competition, monopolies can maximise profits by controlling market supplies and prices.

Hence, profit maximisation involves capturing more rents in monopolistic conditions. To become richer, firms eschew competition in favour of monopoly.

Government role contradictory
Tech ‘Big Brother’ Thiel notes, “To an economist, every monopoly looks the same, whether it deviously eliminates rivals, secures a license from the state or innovates its way to the top.”

The state’s role is contradictory as government “works hard to create monopolies (by granting patents to new inventions)” while enforcing antitrust law to undermine them.

Thiel claims to be uninterested in “illegal bullies or government favorites”, but surely knows governments create and sustain the monopolies he so cherishes.

He notes that “Americans mythologize competition and credit it with saving us from socialist bread lines”. But for him, “capitalism and competition are opposites”.

“Capitalism is premised on the accumulation of capital, but under perfect competition, all profits get competed away.”

The advocate of monopoly claims monopolists are “incentivized to bend the truth” and to “lie to protect themselves … [from] … being audited, scrutinized and attacked”.

Thiel unabashedly acknowledges that rentiers have every incentive to protect, disguise and “conceal their monopoly” and incomes.

Instead, the billionaire rentier wants monopoly powers and profits to grow faster without being taxed or having to share.

Monopoly best for capitalism?
Thiel acknowledges that monopolists accumulate rents in a static world.

But he insists they “invent new and better things … Creative monopolies aren’t just good for the rest of society; they’re powerful engines for making it better.”

He insists a monopoly is “so good at what it does that no other firm can offer a close substitute”. For him, “the history of progress is a history of better monopoly businesses replacing incumbents”.

The tech billionaire insists decades of monopoly profits provide a powerful incentive to innovate. Thus, monopolies continue to drive progress.

He denounces mainstream neoliberal economists as “obsessed with competition as an ideal state? It is a relic of history … Their theories describe … perfect competition because that is what’s easy to model.”

“In the real world outside economic theory, every business is successful exactly to the extent that it does something others cannot … Monopoly is the condition of every successful business.”

Monopolies thrive under Trump
Unsurprisingly, many supposed neoliberals today stress property rights while ignoring liberal economics’ claim to promote competition.

Competition is dismissed as 19th-century economic liberalism. Meanwhile, contemporary monopoly capitalism accelerates wealth and income concentration.

But Thiel exaggerates monopolies’ contribution to human progress, capitalist dynamism and innovation, while understating their considerable harms.

With the tech bros increasingly supporting the president, Trump 2.0 promises to further enrich rentiers, especially those of their ilk.

His selective Liberation Day tariffs and other policies, especially his new ‘big beautiful bill’, will significantly increase, not reduce, US government debt while deepening American fiscal inequities.

As US tariffs, wars and other distractions preoccupy the world, unwitting MAGA loyalists remain loyal to Trump and his billionaire rentiers’ ‘counter-revolution’.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Trump Undresses Rival Trade Myths
• Trump Accord Sows Discord in US Empire
• Trump’s ‘Shock and Awe’ Tariffs
• Intellectual Property Cause of Death, Genocide
• Intellectual Property Monopolies Block Vaccine Access
• Intellectual Property Raises Costs of Living
• Neoliberal Reforms Strengthening Monopoly Power and Abuses
• What’s different about Trump’s tariffs?
• Trump’s Trade War in Perspective
• Intellectual Property Regime Undermines Equity, Progress
• Free Trade Agreements Promote Corporate Interests

By Bhumika Muchhala
NEW YORK, Jul 15 2025 (IPS)

The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) took place in Seville, Spain from 30th June to 3rd July amidst intensifying attacks on multilateralism, unprecedented cuts to global aid and development financing, and regression of decades of progress in the fight against poverty.

Participants at the once-a-decade United Nations (UN) conference included 70 heads of states, over 1,000 civil society leaders, and over 400 policymakers from governments around the world, who engaged in over 100 panel events and 50 protest actions.

Importantly, civil society actors experienced an unprecedented wave of restrictions and lack of access, from difficulties obtaining accreditations, discriminatory profiling, chilling of freedom of speech, and exclusion from key negotiations.

This left many advocates, including those who had followed the FfD4 negotiations closely, to organize a protest at the conference’s venue on its final day.

However, the outcome document, or Compromiso de Sevilla, was adopted weeks ago by consensus of UN member states on 17th June in New York, making this fourth conference the first where an outcome document was agreed before the Conference began. This was lamented by many participants as rendering the conference itself a purely symbolic event, without the final negotiations taking place.

The adoption of the text was marked by the official withdrawal of the U.S. who stated a refusal to participate in Sevilla, who waited to withdraw until almost a year of intergovernmental negotiations had concluded.

The role of the US in the negotiations has been publicly reported, in terms of aggressively blocking and requesting deletions across entire paragraphs of the seven themes of FfD, that of domestic public resources, international development cooperation, private finance, sovereign debt, systemic issues, science and technology, and follow-up and monitoring.

Also, driving the race to the bottom during the negotiations was the European Union and other developed country delegations such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan and the U.K. The aggregate effect inflicted dilutions, distortions, and erasure of global economic governance milestones and actionable commitments into a reaffirmation of the status quo, with many critics arguing that the Compromiso de Sevilla shows little shift, or even backsliding, from the previous three FfD outcome documents in 2015 (Addis Ababa Action Agenda), 2008 (Doha Declaration) and 2002 (Monterrey Consensus).

In fact, lost in the sweeping tide of attention that private financing, and in particular blended finance and incentivizing institutional investors, received at the Seville conference, is the political genealogy and systemic origins of FfD.

Its roots are in the collective initiative of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in the late 1990s to address the systemic asymmetries that characterize the international financial architecture, resulting in the boom-bust financial crises experienced by the global South through 1980s and 1990s.

The nations of NAM called for a multilateral process that would generate action towards reforms that expand policy and fiscal space for structural transformation toward economic, monetary and financial sovereignty in the South. The 2002 Monterrey Consensus argued that the systemic drivers of global inequalities between nations and regions cannot be resolved on the national terrain alone—international cooperation and democratic global economic governance is critical.

Specifically, these systemic drivers refer to the key pillars of the international financial architecture: the international currency hierarchy marked by US dollar hegemony—or the scaffolding of unequal economic exchange, deregulated capital flows, market-based exchange rates, financial speculation and dependency, chronic sovereign debt distress, and a trade architecture defined by extractive, value-chain dependent and low-value-added production structures that are the legacy of colonialism.

Debt Battleground

At a time when debt servicing costs across the global South have reached a historic high of $1.4 trillion in 2023 (principal plus interest), public budgets are being eviscerated, the SDGs derailed, and climate action rendered into a fiscal impossibility. In this looming context, FfD4 fell far short on delivering meaningful reform of the outdated and imbalanced global debt architecture.

While the first iteration of outcome document, The Elements Paper, issued on 24 November 2024, included proposals for a new multilateral sovereign debt resolution framework for fair, binding, and effective crisis prevention and burden sharing.

At the heart of the debacle of sovereign debt is the absence of a sovereign debt crisis resolution mechanism. Meanwhile, the creditor profile has shifted over the decades from predominantly official creditors to a five-fold increase in private creditors, who not only refuse to participate in equitable debt restructuring but also impose high and variable interest rates, creating a crisis in the cost of capital for sovereign borrowers.

The historical context of the post-war regime of international crisis management governed by international financial institutions (IFIs) conditions continued market access and international financial legitimacy on both the uniformity and continuity of debt servicing. In turn, the means of debt repayment are enforced through austerity measures which has for decades eroded social equity, economic resilience, and the delivery of public services and systems across the global South.

During the FfD4 negotiations, the Association of Small Island Developing States, the Africa Group, and countries like Cuba, Brazil, and Pakistan called for the creation of a UN Framework Convention on Debt. Indeed, external debt payments by many countries far exceed aid and other financial transfers, or public expenditures on essential public services like health and education, generating both a net outflow of financial resources from South to North while simultaneously eroding economic development, social equity, and well-being.

Supported and campaigned for by global civil society, the framework would encompass a global consensus on the rules, principles, and structures of the various stages of the debt cycle. By locating deliberations in the UN General Assembly’s one-state-one -vote system, member states argued the Convention would facilitate the fairness and transparency of debt resolution mechanisms and civil society advocates clarified that it would democratize the global debt architecture from exclusive and creditor-dominated G20 and IMF forums.

However, the staunch opposition of most creditor countries, in particular the US and EU, led to the deletion of the Convention language and an insistence on relegating debt issues to the Group of 20 (G20) Common Framework. Critics in civil society and academia have consistently argued that the G20 status quo has failed to resolve debt distress and create fiscal space, is unable to ensure equitable participation of private creditors (e.g. comparability of treatment), enables a lack of transparency in debt contracts, and blocks rules on responsible lending and borrowing, for example.

Unsurprisingly, debt crises are reproduced while any resulting fiscal space is funneled into paying off private creditors, generating a ‘kicking the can down the road’ scenario that simply extends debt purgatory. The final debt architecture agreement in paragraph 50(f) states that member states “… will initiate an intergovernmental process at the UN, with a view to closing gaps in the debt architecture and exploring options to address debt sustainability, including but not limited to a multilateral sovereign debt mechanism.

While an intergovernmental process is included its function is limited to “making recommendations,” fundamentally weakening the mandate of member states to take meaningful action on debt.

Reign of Private Finance

In the dozens of speeches made and hundreds of events held in Seville, it was impossible not to notice the aggressive promotion—and normative consensus—of private financing, proffered as a monolithic answer to narrow the estimated $4.3 trillion financing gap in the South.

The derisking development model, replete with its constellation of mechanisms such as blended finance and guarantees, dominated FfD4 with a laser focus on how private capital can be incentivized by the global South through the use of securitization, or the bundling of individual project loans into vehicles that can be bought by financial funds.

Buttressed by over a decade of the ‘Billions to Trillions’ narrative authored by the World Bank and the UN ecosystem, the idea asserts, with brazen decisiveness, that scarce public resources in the global South will always fall short of ever-growing development and climate financing needs and thus, private (and profit-seeking) capital is indispensable.

The seemingly logical resolution to this depoliticized reality becomes a quid pro quo: fiscal gaps can only be closed by attracting Wall Street (e.g. investment banks, asset managers, insurers, pension and private equity funds, among others) to invest in development, infrastructure, and green projects.

Commitments to private capital mobilization run rife across the Compromiso de Sevilla text. For example, scaling up private financing from “public sources by 2030 by strengthening the use of risk-sharing and blended finance instruments, such as first-loss capital, guarantees, local currency financing, and foreign exchange risk instruments, taking into account national circumstances” is highlighted.

In turn, such a scaling up requires “an enabling policy environment which facilitates private investment in agriculture and food systems, and the role that public investments can play in incentivizing and derisking private investments.” To realize this, member states are encouraged to “strategically attract foreign development investment, including from institutional investors.

However, the ‘billions to trillions’ aim of activating the supposed spigot of private cash has been recently exposed by multiple sources as a myth. A Financial Times article titled, “The magic pony of private finance fails to fund the global green transition,” revealed that only 10 per cent of private financing went to global South nations.

The ratio of private to public capital has struggled to rise above 1:1, and institutional investors like pension funds are notable by their almost total absence. Furthermore, number-crunching from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that every dollar of multilateral investment activated merely 30 cents of private investment.

Simply put, trillions are not manifesting. One explanation is that the scale of profits expected by financiers cannot be delivered with public goods and services investments; they two are inherently contradictory in nature.

Two fundamental issues persist.

First, rather than galvanizing new heights of financing, private creditors are in reality responsible for net outflows of financial resources from developing countries and into their own coffers. Indeed, the World Bank discloses that since 2022, “foreign private creditors have extracted nearly US$141 billion more in debt service payments from public sector borrowers in developing economies than they disbursed in new financing … this withdrawal has upended the financing landscape for development.”

And second, structural, institutional, and political changes to address fiscal space, such as redressing tax evasion and avoidance, fiscal restraint rules, constraints on public money creation, economic diversification, and technology transfer, for example, are conveniently elided.

Survival of the Systemic?

The integral focus of the Monterrey Consensus in addressing the need for international monetary cooperation, recurrent financial crises, vulnerabilities to exogenous shocks, and adverse spillovers of rich country policies across the global South has essentially evaporated from FfD discourse and text.

In a text that supposedly addresses the international financial architecture, it is shocking that there is no meaningful reference to the international monetary system, nor to central banks, the core institution of national money creation. Indeed, the 4th FfD text presents the sharpest regression of systemic issues across the four FfD texts produced over 23 years, despite the recent experience of the COVID pandemic and current debt crisis exposing the systemic fault lines of a global financial architecture designed to extract rather than provide.

However, one key deliverable is offered in the outcome document, that of addressing the inordinate power of Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs) in determining the cost of capital in the global South and the central role they play in both debt and climate crises.

Paragraph 55 states a decision to “establish a recurring special high-level meeting on credit ratings under the auspices of ECOSOC for dialogue among Member States, credit rating agencies, regulators, standard setters, long-term investors, and public institutions that publish independent debt sustainability analysis.”

While this falls short of proposals to establish an intergovernmental commission to regulate CRAs for the objective of producing accurate, objective, and long-term oriented credit ratings, it is a potential step forward in bringing CRAs into global economic governance.

There is widespread agreement by UN member states on the urgency for multilateral oversight on the oligopoly of three central CRAs, that of Moody’s, Standard and Poor, and Fitch, with attention to their multiple dysfunctionalities.

Recent pandemic and debt crises have exposed challenges, from a developing country perspective, in terms of bias and pro-cyclicality in ratings, conflicts of interest, and penalization of debt, climate and social vulnerabilities.

Beyond the inadequacy of CRAs rating methodologies and bias in implementation that undermine developing countries’ access to capital markets and increase their borrowing costs by inflating risk premiums, advocates for financial regulation have asserted that CRA regulation must include the establishment of multilateral, public, and independent rating agencies, promoting competition to avoid quasi-monopolistic market dynamics.

The spotlight on CRAs has the potential to hold financial power to account, however, it will depend on the ability of member state voices and proposals to set the agenda forward, rather than that of CRAs and other financial actors.

Given the colossal challenges in development financing at a time of global authoritarianism, war and conflict, and the spectre of ‘post-aid international development,’ what are the possibilities of democratizing global economic governance? The right to development, inclusive dignity, historical equity, and the political economy of inequality will require grappling with old and new forms of power.

One thing is certain. The way forward must hold steadfast to the aspiration and vision of a fair, equitable, and effective financial architecture that works for the majority.

Bhumika Muchhala is Senior Advisor, Third World Network and Adjunct Professor, The New School.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Ghana beat Tanzania 4-1 to secure their quarter-final place at the 2024 Women's Africa Cup of Nations as holders South Africa secure top spot in Group C.

Dr Tshepo Lipholo, an opposition MP, is yet to apply for bail and remains in police custody

A child receives treatment at a cholera clinic in the DRC, where clean water is scarce and healthcare even scarcer. Credit: UNICEF

By Shreya Komar
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 14 2025 (IPS)

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is grappling with one of its worst cholera outbreaks in recent history, exposing deep systemic cracks in public health, water infrastructure, and humanitarian response, leaving its youngest citizens in peril.

On April 3, 2025, the United Nations released a stark warning: a fast-spreading cholera outbreak in the southern province of Tanganyika was placing thousands at grave risk. As of that date, 9 out of 11 health zones in the province were affected, with over 1,450 confirmed cases and 27 deaths, marking a six-fold increase compared to the previous year.

By early June, the outbreak had exploded far beyond Tanganyika. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported 29,392 suspected cholera cases and 620 deaths nationwide, making this the worst outbreak in the country in six years. Most alarmingly, children, especially those under five, are dying in disproportionate numbers due to weakened immune systems, chronic malnutrition, and an almost total collapse of access to clean water and sanitation in many areas.

A recent Instagram post from the WHO underscored the scale of response efforts: “To tackle the rise in #cholera cases & deaths in #DRCongo, WHO is mobilizing resources for the hardest-hit areas: emergency beds, free medical care, and deployment of over 7,000 community health workers.”

Cholera is an acute diarrheal infection caused by ingesting food or water contaminated with the Vibrio cholerae bacterium. It is entirely preventable and highly treatable. So why is it still killing hundreds in a single outbreak?

“The reason cholera has persisted is that we have not addressed poverty to the level that we should,” said Dr. Anita Zaidi, director of the Enteric and Diarrheal Diseases program at the Gates Foundation.

The answer lies not in the biology of the disease, but in the fragile reality of life in the eastern DRC. In provinces like Tanganyika, North Kivu, and South Kivu already scarred by decades of armed conflict, mass displacement, and collapsing infrastructure the cholera bacterium finds ideal conditions to spread.

A 2024 study on cholera risk in Goma found that the lack of water infrastructure forced communities to rely on unsafe sources like Lake Kivu, the small Lake Vert, and the Mubambiro River, which are often contaminated with human waste.

In the most affected areas, only 20 percent of residents have access to safe drinking water. Healthcare infrastructure is threadbare, with limited beds, medicine, or trained personnel to handle waves of acute cases. Years of humanitarian funding cuts have only made the situation worse especially for women and children.

Between July 2024 and June 2025, nearly 4.5 million children under five are expected to suffer from acute malnutrition in the DRC, 1.4 million of whom are experiencing severe acute malnutrition. Cholera, which causes rapid dehydration and can be fatal within hours, is especially deadly in malnourished children. With their immune systems already compromised, even the smallest lapse in hydration or care can become fatal.

Still, field efforts are outpaced by the scale of the emergency. In 2017, the Global Task Force on Cholera Control (GTFCC) launched the “Ending Cholera: A Global Roadmap to 2030”, which aimed to eliminate the disease from 20 countries, including the DRC.

The strategy emphasized early detection, integrated prevention (clean water, sanitation, vaccination), and international coordination. But with only five years left before 2030, the roadmap’s vision is faltering in the DRC. In 2023, the DRC recommitted to cholera elimination, as documented by the WHO, but outbreaks have only worsened.

A Doctors Without Borders emergency response in Lomera, South Kivu, highlights the impact of unmanaged gold rushes, poor sanitation, and overburdened clinics creating a perfect storm for cholera transmission.

Efforts by the UN and NGOs have ramped up in recent months. Oral Cholera Vaccines (OCVs) are being deployed in hotspots. Emergency treatment centers are being established. Supplies are arriving, albeit slowly. But a true resolution requires structural investments in safe water infrastructure, consistent access to healthcare, and conflict stabilization.

More importantly, child-focused solutions must be prioritized. In a recent peer-reviewed article, Congolese researcher Aymar Akilimali called for dedicated pediatric cholera wards in eastern DRC, noting that most children have no access to tailored emergency care even during active outbreaks.

He also stated that “a community-based and multisectoral response must be implemented, including an anti cholera vaccination campaign, a budgeted response plan with involved partners, as well as the development of national cholera control plans, epidemiological surveillance, risk communication on cholera, community awareness, and social mobilization.”

The cholera outbreak in the DRC is not just a public health crisis; it is a humanitarian failure. It is a warning signal of what happens when decades of conflict, poverty, and weak governance go unaddressed. As 2030 approaches, the question isn’t whether we can end cholera, it’s whether we’re willing to invest in the lives of those most at risk of it.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById({js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

“Plastic Ocean” by Alejandro Duràn, one of the artworks previously on display in the UN lobby. Credit: Jennifer Levine/IPS

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 14 2025 (IPS)

The United Nations’ HOMO SARGASSUM exhibition served as a public immersion into the marine world and called upon viewers to take action in the face of the climate crisis, specifically regarding invasive species and water pollution.

For the past month, an art exhibition entitled HOMO SARGASSUM took up residence in the New York headquarters lobby in connection to World Ocean Month and the 2025 UN Ocean Conference. Organized by the Tout-Monde Art Foundation. In its final week on display, visitors walked through the various projected films, sculptures and photographs. The exhibit closed on July 11.

The work is described as an immersive multisensorial art and science exhibition intended to bring together various experts in science, scholarship and creativity from the Caribbean to share their perspectives on the prevalent environmental and social issue. The exhibit is primarily an introspective study of sargassum, a type of seaweed or algae commonly found on the coast of the Americas and in the Caribbean.

Sargassum, which has proliferated significantly in recent years due to pollution and chemical fertilizer, releases toxic gases that harm nearby residents in water and on land. Animals struggle to survive, and humans experience respiratory failures and burns. This algae has inspired fear since Christopher Columbus recorded his crew’s sighting of the plant. Sargassum has also become a symbol recently for climate change in the Caribbean as well as the coexisting nature of marine and human life.

Co-curator and executive and artistic director of the Tout-Monde Art Foundation Vanessa Selk described the exhibit as a journey rather than a singular experience. She said, “Much like sargassum migrating through the Atlantic Ocean, we encounter natural and human-made challenges such as pandemics, pollutants and hurricanes. This narrative of the global ecological crisis, reflected in silent floating algae, warns us to change our existing paradigms and consider ourselves as one with our environment.”

Billy Gerard Frank, one of the featured artists in HOMO SARGASSUM, echoes this sentiment.

Frank created a mixed-media piece entitled “Poetics of Relation and Entanglement” with a painting featuring Columbus’ archival notes and sargassum pigment, as well as a film he shot on the island of Carriacou. The film centered on a large metal tank surrounded by sargassum, which had washed on shore and rusted onto the massive object. He specifically shot the film around the sargassum and the tank, an eyesore for the locals who used the beach and a barrier to boats trying to leave. Growing up in Grenada, Frank recalls sargassum as a mild inconvenience but explained how it has become more prevalent due to climate change.

However, only in recent years has conversation around sargassum shifted towards the impact of climate change and geographical inequities, like, as Frank noted, how smaller islands that produce significantly lower levels of pollution are the worst affected by climate change through natural disasters.

He referenced the recent Hurricane Beryl, a Category 5 storm that “completely devastated” islands like Carriacou. His inclusion of Columbus’ notes brings a decolonial perspective: the threats Caribbean islands face from mounting climate change are exacerbated by their history of occupation, mostly from European colonial powers. In a global organization like the UN where historical, geographical and environmental context is key to making any decision, such an interdisciplinary perspective is key.

From countless gifts from member states to various donations, the UN has been an artistic hub since its inception. As both a tourist attraction and space of work for international diplomats, the UN is a particularly ripe space for more radical, political art—notably Guernica, a tapestry based on a Picasso painting portraying the Spanish Civil War—due to its broad audience.

Speaking to IPS, Frank shared how influential art has been in political, social and intellectual movements, saying, “historically…creators, writers, and artists have been able to forge ahead and create new spaces…it gives us some hope that our work and the calling are even more important.”

Frank also told IPS how important it was for him to have the work featured at the UN.

“Because the UN is also a site of consternation right now, specifically with everything that’s happening globally. And in fact, that’s the space where this type of work should be, where there should be more conversation, and a space in which it could create a critical dialogue amongst people who work there, but also the public facing that too.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById({js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• HIV/AIDS Funding Crisis Risks Reversing Decades of Global Progress
• Does the UN Overstep Its Responsibility to Protect Mandate?
• A Growing Gap between Principle and Implementation: 20 Years of Responsibility to Protect

Muhammadu Buhari, who led Nigeria as both a military ruler and elected president, died in London on Sunday.

Clara Luvanga on meeting Al-Nassr team-mate Ronaldo and how Tanzania are gaining "experience" at their second Wafcon.

Clara Luvanga on meeting Al-Nassr team-mate Ronaldo and how Tanzania are gaining "experience" at their second Wafcon.

A garden of medicinal plants in Cali, Columbia. The Cali Fund, unveiled earlier this year, will ensure that companies that profit from digital sequencing will pay into a fund to protect biodiversity. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
HYDERABAD, India, Jul 14 2025 (IPS)

When the Cali Fund was unveiled in February on the sidelines of COP16.2 in Rome, the announcement sent ripples through the global conservation community. For the first time ever, companies that profit from digital sequence information (DSI)—the digitized genetic material of plants, animals, and microorganisms—will be expected to pay into a multilateral fund to protect the very biodiversity they benefit from.

The Fund, estimated to mobilize USD 1 billion a year, was immediately hailed as a historic breakthrough. Half of the money is earmarked for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs)—especially women and youth—in recognition of their role as stewards of the world’s genetic resources.

But three months in, as the launch celebration fades, hard questions begin to emerge: Will corporations pay voluntarily? Will money reach those who need it most? And can a fund that is built on goodwill deliver real-world impact fast enough?

How the Fund Was Born: From Cali to Rome

The Cali Fund was born out of Decision 16/2 at COP16 in Cali, Colombia, under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Until now, companies could freely access and commercialize digital genetic data without any obligation to share their profits with the countries or communities the data came from.

The Fund seeks to end that free ride. With the UN Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office serving as the administrator and with backing from UNEP, UNDP, and the CBD Secretariat, the Cali Fund promises strong institutional muscle. Its governance structure includes governments, UN agencies, and representatives from IPLCs—making it a test case for embedding justice into the global bioeconomy.

What the Cali Fund Pledges

New money for nature: About USD 1 billion a year from the private sector, not governments or traditional donors.

Corporate accountability: Businesses using DSI are expected to contribute 1 percent of profits or 0.1 percent of revenue.

Justice for IPLCs: A guaranteed 50 percent of funds goes directly to Indigenous and local communities.

Scientific and digital infrastructure: Resources will build DSI capacity, support biodiversity strategies, and close digital divides—especially in the Global South.

A Billion-Dollar Question: Will Companies Pay?

Despite the optimism, serious concerns are rising about its viability even as the Fund’s foundations are still being laid.

First, corporate contributions are voluntary, and there’s no mechanism to enforce them. Sectors like pharma, biotech, cosmetics, and synthetic biology rely heavily on DSI—but many don’t even track their usage. Expanding the Fund’s reach beyond willing participants could provoke resistance unless countries impose stronger regulations.

“The Secretariat continues to engage with business to ensure that intentions to contribute translate into actual payments,” CBD Executive Secretary Astrid Schomaker tells IPS News.

Accountability is another major issue. While the Fund pledges participatory governance, the specifics of auditing, public reporting, and oversight are still vague.

The Realities Behind the Rhetoric

The figure of USD 1 billion is impressive—but it’s not legally binding. Without transparency and enforcement, there’s a risk companies could treat the Fund as a PR checkbox rather than a true commitment.

“It’s crucial that disbursements align with the self-identified needs of IPLCs,” Schomaker says. “That’s the responsibility of the Steering Committee.”

The steering committee that Schomaker refers to was formed in April with 28-members representing National Focal Points, representatives of indigenous peoples and local communities, the scientific community and the private sector. The Steering Committee is expected to meet twice in 2025, once virtually during the second quarter of the year and once in person later in the year. Two meetings are expected in 2026.

But critics argue that’s not enough. Without robust systems for tracking DSI use, collecting dues, and allocating funds, the Cali Fund could become yet another initiative that sounds good but achieves little.

India: A Biodiversity Giant Watching Closely

India—one of the most biodiverse countries and a rising player in the DSI economy—is watching the Cali Fund closely.

“If the Fund is equitably governed and recognizes India as a priority beneficiary, it could support our protected areas, community conservation, and biodiversity research,” says Achalendra Reddy, Chair of India’s Biodiversity Board.

However, Reddy flags that for the Fund to truly benefit countries like India, three things are essential: 1) Transparent allocation mechanisms to ensure funds reach national and local actors; 2) Support for locally led efforts, not top-down programs; and 3) Complementarity, so the Fund adds to—rather than replaces—existing domestic and international investments.

If done right, the Fund could help plug chronic funding gaps and scale up conservation across India and the Global South.

Mrinalini Rai is the head of an advocacy organization that coordinates the CBD Women’s Caucus, a coalition of 300–500 women’s and indigenous rights groups that work to integrate gender equality into the CBD and related international agreements.

Speaking to IPS, Rai appears to agree with Reddy: “The launch of the Cali Fund is a promising step towards addressing that gap. However, for it to be truly transformative, the fund must be accessible, inclusive, and responsive to the realities of women biodiversity champions and defenders—especially those from Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Transparent processes, flexible funding, and dedicated support for capacity strengthening will be key to overcoming historic barriers and ensuring that no one is left behind, she says.

Speed vs. Sustainability: A Cautionary Note

Experts warn that rushing the Fund’s implementation could undermine its long-term credibility. “Genetic resources are national assets. So is DSI,” says Nithin Ramakrishnan, a DSI policy researcher with India’s Center for Public Policy Research.

“CBD and its member states must prioritize sustainability over speed and avoid reducing benefit-sharing to just a financial transaction,” he says, cautioning against letting corporations dictate biodiversity governance. “If countries are made responsible for reporting DSI usage to companies, we risk placing corporate interests above sovereign conservation agendas,” he adds.

Why the Cali Fund Still Matters

Despite its growing pains, the Cali Fund represents a paradigm shift. For the first time, the global community is acknowledging that genetic information has monetary value—and that value must be shared equitably, not extracted and hoarded.

As Vishaish Uppal—Governance, Law and Policy Director at WW India—notes, the Cali Fund “speaks to the third, often overlooked, pillar of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity: benefit-sharing.”

That matters deeply in today’s context of digital colonialism, where genetic data is extracted from the Global South and monetized in the Global North—leaving Indigenous and local communities out of the loop.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById({js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Amidst Choking Garbage, Locals Join Hands to Build a Zero-Waste Bali
• Lawyer-Turned-Activist Bhuwan Ribhu Honored for Leading a Campaign to End Child Marriage
• World’s Largest Religious Gathering Becomes Trans-Inclusive Despite Controversies