By Humberto Márquez
CARACAS, Dec 9 2024 (IPS)
Poverty, while declining in Latin America and the Caribbean so far this century, shows a new face, that of the looming vulnerability of the poor as they become less rural and more urban, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) says in a new analysis.
“Not only is there more urban poverty, but also a greater percentage of the population is highly vulnerable, that is, they are very close to falling – and any small shock will make them fall – below the poverty line,” Almudena Fernández, chief economist for the region at the UNDP, told IPS.“It is no longer enough to lift people out of poverty; we have to think about the next step, to continue on this path, so that the population can consolidate”: Almudena Fernández.
Thus, “there is a segment of the population that remains above the poverty line, but which is pushed below it by an illness or the loss of household income,” Fernández told IPS from New York.
Rosa Meleán, 47, who was a teacher for 20 years in Maracaibo, the capital of Zulia, in Venezuela’s oil-rich northwest, told IPS that “falling back into poverty is like the slides where children play in the schoolyard: they keep going up, but with the slightest push they slide down again”.
Meleán has experienced this in person several times, supporting her parents, siblings and nephews with her salary, falling into poverty when her working-class father died, improving with a new job, her salary liquefied by hyperinflation (2017-2020), leaving teaching to search for other sources of income.
“You have to see what it’s like to be poor in Maracaibo, walking in 40 degrees (Celsius) to look for transport, without electricity, rationed water and earning US$25”, the last monthly salary she had as a teacher before retiring five years ago.
And then came the covid-19 pandemic, limiting her new occupations as an office worker or home tutor. She has barely recovered from that blow.
“We live in a time when shocks are more common – from extreme weather events, for example – and we see a lot of economic and financial volatility. We are a much more interconnected world. Any shock anywhere in the world produces a very direct contagion, they are the new normal,” says Fernández.
Poverty falling in numbers
Starting in the 1950s, Latin America and the Caribbean experienced a rapid process of urbanisation, becoming one of the most urbanised regions in the world.
Today, 82% of the population lives in urban areas, compared to the world average of 58%, according to the UNDP.
Over the last two decades, the region has made progress in reducing extreme poverty and poverty in general. Even with setbacks since 2014, it recorded its lowest poverty rate in 2022 (26%), with slight decreases estimated for 2023 (25.2%) and 2024 (25%).
The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) indicates in its most recent report that poverty in 2023 will affect 27.3% of the region’s population, which it puts at 663 million people this year. This means that “172 million people in the region still do not have sufficient income to cover their basic needs (general poverty)”.
Among them, 66 million cannot afford a basic food basket (extreme poverty). But these figures are up to five percentage points better than in 2020, the worst year of the pandemic, and 80% of the progress is attributed to advances in Brazil, where transfers of resources to the poor were decisive.
ECLAC points out that poverty is higher in rural areas (39.1%) than in urban areas (24.6%), and that it affects more women than men of working age.
Despite the progress, “the speed of poverty reduction is starting to slow down, it is decreasing at a much slower rate. This is a first concern, because the region is growing less,” said Fernández.
She recalled that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecasts point to an average economic growth in the region of two per cent per year, “well below the world average. Thus, it will be more difficult to continue reducing poverty”.
Changing face
The proportion of poor people living in the region’s urban areas increased from 66% in 2000 to 73% in 2022, and the change is more dramatic among those living in extreme poverty, with the proportion of the urban extreme poor rising from 48% to 68% over the same period.
Tracing this change annually, a UNDP analysis found that urban poverty increased markedly during the commodity crisis of 2014 – and also during the pandemic – “revealing that urban poverty is more likely to increase in times of economic downturn than rural poverty”.
It argues that the post-pandemic rise in the cost of living affected urban households more, pushing households into poverty and worsening the living conditions of those who were already poor.
Urban households are more tied to the market economy than rural households, making them more vulnerable to economic fluctuations and related changes in employment.
In contrast, rural livelihoods allow households to use strategies such as subsistence farming, reallocation of labour, community support or selling assets such as livestock to cope with shocks. These are options that urban residents generally do not possess.
Another salient feature of the new face of urban poverty is that it is often concentrated in informal settlements on the peripheries of cities, where overcrowding and limited access to basic services create additional challenges.
Thus, in the Venezuelan case, “the features of poverty and vulnerability that stand out in urban poverty have to do with the precariousness of public services and the lack of opportunities,” Roberto Patiño, founder of Convive, a community development organisation, and Alimenta la Solidaridad, a welfare organisation, told IPS.
Patiño believes that “the burden of the cost of living and inflation is difficult to bear for people living in poverty in both urban and rural areas, even though in rural areas the food issue may be less serious”.
This is because in rural areas “people have access to smallholdings, to their own crops, and also, being farming areas, food costs tend to be lower than in the city, but health issues and other services such as transport, health and education are very precarious”, the activist pointed out.
Patiño mentioned another mark on the new face of poverty, that of the millions of Venezuelans who migrated to other South American countries in the last decade and who “have not recovered from the pandemic, from an economic point of view, with many of the migrants living in a precarious situation”.
Seeking solutions
The UNDP argues that addressing poverty in urban and rural areas requires differentiated strategies, as policies that work in rural areas, such as promoting agricultural productivity and improving access to assets and markets, do not sit well with the plight of the urban poor.
For them, the cost of housing and food inflation are relevant concerns.
Fernández said that “much of the social policy that was implemented in the region decades ago, which is ongoing, was designed with a very rural poverty in mind, how to help the agricultural sector, how to achieve greater productivity in agriculture, how to meet basic unsatisfied needs in rural areas”.
“Now we must move toward a social policy that focuses a little more on the unsatisfied needs of urban poverty,” she said.
She believes that “urbanisation allows for another series of opportunities. For example, the greater agglomeration of people allows for easier access to services”, although there may also be negative effects such as a more difficult insertion in the labour market or health problems associated with overcrowding.
Among the solutions, Fernández ranked the need for greater economic growth first, “because we are not going to be able to reduce poverty if we do not grow”.
The economist then ranked education, good in quantity (coverage), but which must now focus on quality, in second place, in order to address the digital transition that is underway and the need for more training for workers.
Finally, the need for social protection – and despite slower growth and a tighter fiscal balance across the region, Fernández acknowledges –and investment in protecting people more, with policies and measures that include, for example, care, employability, productivity and insurance.
“It is no longer enough to lift people out of poverty; we have to think about the next step, to continue on this path, so that the population can consolidate, with a stable middle class that has mechanisms so that in times of stress or shock its consumption does not fall sharply,” said Fernández.
In other words, so that those who have their basic needs covered do not have to slide back down the poverty chute with every economic or health shock.
By Jyotsna Mohan Singh
NEW DELHI, India, Dec 9 2024 (IPS)
South Africa’s G20 Presidency begun in December, with only 12% of SDG targets on track and significant backsliding on more than 30%. As we write this today, there is an urgent need for a paradigm shift and practical solutions for a progressive, people-centred, and development-driven agenda in a fractured global landscape that needs collective healing.
This sense of urgency was pinned down at the recent G20 Summit in Brasil, where South Africa assumed the Presidency amidst calls from global civil society at the Civil20 (C20) Summit to address today’s most pressing challenges: climate change, gender inequality, social inequalities, economic injustice and attacks on civic space.
This year, the Brasilian Association of NGOs (Abong), chaired the C20, amplifying the demands of social movements and civil society for global justice, highlighting the importance of gender in public policies, anti-racist economies, climate justice, the fight against hunger and the urgent need for a reform of international governance.
“Civil society is not merely a participant; it is a driving force for justice, equity, and sustainability. Without our voices at the table, solutions risk being incomplete, inequitable, and disconnected from the realities of the most vulnerable,” says Henrique Frota, Executive Director of Abong.
Yet, while the G20 leaders addressed major global crises, from climate change to economic inequities, the voices of those most affected by these challenges—grassroots movements, communities that have been historically marginalised, and civil society actors—still struggle to resonate within the halls of power. In fact, gaps persist in ambition and action, exposing a troubling disconnect between commitments made in international forums and the lived realities of citizens from across the globe.
Civil Society as Equal Partners: Moving Beyond Symbolism
The G20 Rio de Janeiro Declaration, emphasizes inclusivity and acknowledges civil society’s role , but it omits the issue of shrinking civic space in many member countries. The G20 should adopt concrete measures to protect civic freedoms and support CSOs in challenging environments. Futhermore, while the Declaration noted the inclusion of civil society groups in dialogues like the G20 Social Summit, it stopped short of guaranteeing institutionalised access for CSOs.
Aoi Horiuchi, Senior Advocacy Officer at the Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation (JANIC) shared that despite opportunities for C20 to meet, decision-makers and submit recommendations, “access is still limited”. The meeting with President Lula happened just days before the Leaders’ Summit. He emphasizes, “civil society as an official stakeholder group, should have access to all preparatory meetings and have space for speaking up. To truly “leave no one behind”, we need to maintain the momentum and push for more progressive policies on taxing and economic justice.”
Meaningful engagement with civil society cannot be an afterthought. Governments must ensure that civil society has the autonomy, resources, and protected spaces necessary to contribute fully to global governance processes. Expanding civic engagement is crucial, especially at the national level. Data shows that 87% of the global population lives in countries where civic freedoms are restricted.
As we approach the first G20 Summit on the African continent in 2025, “breaking silos, shifting power, and amplifying Global South movements must become central priorities for global governance reform,” says Anselmo Lee, Lead from the Asia Civil Society Partnership for Sustainable Development.
“We must move beyond a purely event-driven approach and establish clear, systematic mechanisms for reviewing decisions and ensuring their effective implementation,” adds Harsh Jaitli, Chief Executive Officer of the Voluntary Action Network India (VANI). Over the years, along with other national platforms, VANI has worked towards strengthening the voice of civil society in this space.
Inequality and Systemic Change: Missing the Mark
The Declaration rightly identified inequality as a root cause of global challenges but failed to propose bold measures to dismantle the structures that sustain the giant inequality pyramid. The creation of the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty is a step forward. Specifically on access to food, the declaration identifies hunger as a pressing global issue, affecting 733 million people in 2023, and emphasizes the G20’s commitment to eradicating hunger. The vague language and lack of binding commitments undermine these efforts. Specific timelines and accountability frameworks are missing.
We need clear action to address inequalities and extreme wealth concentration, fair financing and reforms of multilateral development banks (MDBs) and public development banks (PDBs) to provide financing that directly benefits marginalised communities and an increase in support to local actions, notably investing in community-driven solutions that prioritise equity and sustainability. In the narratives and the actions, there is insufficient detail on the mobilization of resources for grassroots and community-led initiatives, a critical element of Forus’s advocacy for inclusive and sustainable financing.
Policy Coherence: Balancing the Scales and Building a Holistic Approach to Sustainability
While the G20 Declaration highlighted policy coherence as essential for achieving the SDGs, it leans heavily on private sector-driven solutions. Blended finance and private capital mobilization dominated the agenda, sidelining civil society and community-led initiatives and reinforcing the systemic inequities that perpetuate inequality.
A just and sustainable world cannot be achieved through fragmented efforts. Instead, a holistic approach that leverages the collective expertise and experiences of all stakeholders, public, private, and civil society. From a CSO perspective, a critical gap persists in aligning economic growth objectives with environmental, social, and human rights priorities. Without such alignment, conflicting objectives risk perpetuating systemic inequalities and ecological harm, undermining the promise of the SDGs. Moreover, the recent trend of certain governments, such as Argentina’s proposed withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, highlights a dangerous backslide from climate commitments and a disregard for sustainable development goals.
Gender Equality: From Rhetoric to Reality
The G20 Declaration’s recognition of gender equality and commitments to combating gender-based violence are important steps forward. However, the absence of concrete action plans undermines their potential impact. Women and girls continue to face systemic barriers, including unequal access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunities, as well as the pervasive threat of gender-based violence. To achieve meaningful progress, policies must go beyond rhetoric and actively dismantle discriminatory norms while creating leadership opportunities for women across all sectors.
The C20 group, has emphasised the need to address exclusion in all its forms. Expanding spaces for groups that have historically been marginalised and ensuring their full, equal, and meaningful participation in governance processes is not only a matter of justice but also a prerequisite for the type of development that We want. This includes acknowledging the intersecting challenges faced by rural and Indigenous women and those experiencing multiple forms of discrimination.
“Beyond commitments, we need frameworks that address intersectional inequalities and create leadership opportunities for all women, including rural, Indigenous, and LGBTIQ+ communities,” says Alessandra Nilo, C20 Sherpa, Director of Gestos, Brasil.
Reforming Global Governance for a Just Future
The G20 Declaration acknowledges the urgent need to reform global governance systems to address the complex crises of our time—geopolitical tensions, economic inequities, and climate emergencies. Commitments to the UN reform and enhancing transparency in global governance are promising. The emphasis on anti-corruption measures and progressive taxation aligns with civil society’s struggles.
A critical starting point is amplifying the voice of World Majority countries in global decision-making. The inclusion of the African Union as a full G20 member is a welcome development, signaling progress toward inclusivity. However, current power imbalances, where wealthier nations disproportionately influence global policy agendas, must be dismantled to ensure fairness and inclusivity.
As the G20, a premier global forum, assumes increasing responsibility for shaping the global agenda, it is imperative that it takes a strong stance on these issues and “shift powers”.
As the C20 Declaration reminds us, the solutions to today’s challenges lie in inclusive governance that empowers those most affected by global crises. We urge governments and G20 stakeholders to institutionalise civil society participation, prioritise rights-based solutions, and deliver on commitments to equity and sustainability. By weaving together the principles of rights, equity, sustainability, and collaboration, we can begin to build a future where “no one is left behind” not just in theory but also in practice.
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
By Joyce Chimbi
ADDIS ABABA & NAIROBI, Dec 9 2024 (IPS)
Ethiopia’s education system is buckling under the weight of complex, competing challenges. The aftermath of a deadly war in the north, ongoing violence, climate-induced disasters, and widespread forced displacements have converged to push as many as 9 million children out of school. With close to 18 percent of schools in the country destroyed or damaged and persisting intercommunal conflicts in various regions, there are fears that many might never find their way back to school.
“In the absence of education, both boys and girls may be mobilized into militant groups, and frequently, girls will be subjected to child marriage. The choice is to provide them with an education, as it is the pathway to their future and contribution to their society and also as a protection mechanism,” says Yasmine Sherif, Executive Director of Education Cannot Wait (ECW), the global fund for education in emergencies and protracted crises in the United Nations. “Being out-of-school puts them in harm’s way and onto the path of abuse, violations, and the destruction of their lives, their communities, and eventually their country. We must ensure that no child is left behind in the education system. Investing in the very real potential of Ethiopia’s young generation is not an option—it is an absolute necessity.”
Sherif traveled to the Tigray region in the first week of December 2024 together with the ECW Global Champion and Finance Minister of Denmark, Nicolai Wammen. ECW’s high-level delegation saw first-hand the devastating effects of the deadly three-year conflict between the Ethiopian central government and the northernmost region of Tigray, Ethiopia.
The aftermath and recovery process are such that, amid limited resources, the country is putting back the pieces of a broken education infrastructure to jumpstart an education system that had come to a complete halt. At the end of their joint visit, the two called for bold donor action to deliver the promise of a quality education to millions of crisis-impacted children.
“We have a multi-year investment and great partners on the ground, including a very supportive government. We work with UN agencies, including UNICEF, and civil society organizations such as Save the Children, the Norwegian Refugee Council, Image1Day and other local Ethiopian organizations,” Sherif told IPS.
The ECW delegation visited schools benefiting from funding by ECW and strategic partners, met children, parents, and teachers, and saw first-hand the impact of ECW-supported programmes. In one school alone, enrollment increased by an impressive 20 percent last year due to a comprehensive package of interventions funded by ECW.
“It is heartwarming to witness the life-transforming power of quality education in the most complex crisis situations. I met strong and resilient girls and boys who are returning to learning, healing and thriving thanks to ECW’s support. However, conflicts, climate change and other crises continue to push millions of children out of school every year—in Ethiopia and beyond. Business as usual will not meet this challenge. I encourage private sector partners to join ECW’s efforts and invest in new and innovative financing strategies to fill the widening gap,” said Nicolai Wammen, Minister of Finance, Denmark, and ECW Global Champion.
Sherif says the delegation saw significant progress in supported schools, such as “rehabilitated infrastructure and others rebuilt from scratch. We saw learning supplies, teachers who are well trained and sensitized, and professionals offering mental health and psychosocial services. There is a strong academic curriculum. Included in the national curriculum are critical issues of peacebuilding, ethics, and the arts. Education is ongoing in primary and secondary schools but also in pre-primary and early childhood development schools. Children with disabilities also benefit from targeted supports and inclusive education.”
Overall, they witnessed a protective learning environment that included systematic implementation of a referral identification of children in need and distribution of assistive devices, and children in need of assistance integrated with their peers, which promotes their inclusion and improves their social and learning skills.
There were girls’ clubs too for pursuit of shared and common interests. Teachers are trained on gender-sensitive issues, and there is systematic implementation of menstrual hygiene for adolescent girls, designated sanitation areas for girls, and promotion of water and sanitation.
“The children are receiving quality, safe, and inclusive holistic education. Having gone through mental health and psychosocial support through ECW investment, they are confident and expressive of their dreams. This is what investment in education can do, and we can do even more through bold donor action to reach every child with quality education and prospects for lifelong learning and earning,” Sherif observes.
But the challenges are still significantly complex and pressing, and resources are scarce.
Ethiopia also hosts the third largest refugee population in Africa, significantly exacerbating the country’s educational challenges. There were over 200,000 new arrivals from Sudan and Somalia in 2023-2024 alone, further increasing pressure on existing resources.
After a visit that revealed the numerous challenges Ethiopian children face and their unwavering determination to learn, ECW announced a USD 5 million First Emergency Response grant, increasing its total investments in the country to USD 93 million since 2017.
Of the new USD 5 million grant, UNICEF will be the implementing partner for USD 4 million. A local organization, Imagine 1Day, will implement the remaining USD 1 million. The organizations will work together with their partners to address urgent needs in the Oromia and Afar regions, where renewed conflict, intercommunal violence, drought and displacement have further disrupted education services in recent months.
These emergency interventions will build on the USD 24 million Multi-Year Resilience Programme announced last month by ECW, targeting needs in the Amhara, Somalia, and Tigray regions.
“Imagine1Day is deeply grateful for this Education Cannot Wait First Emergency Response grant. With this generous support, we will provide over 13,000 out-of-school children in the Afar region—60 percent of whom are girls and 13 percent are children with disabilities—with access to safe learning environments. This project will not only enhance their well-being but also empower them to reach their full potential. Given that education in emergencies in Ethiopia has been severely underfunded, this grant is crucial in ensuring that crisis-affected children receive the education and support they need to build a brighter future,” said Dr. Seid Aman, Country Director of Imagine1Day.
To date, ECW’s combined multi-year and emergency investments in Ethiopia have reached more than 550,000 children and adolescents, providing a comprehensive range of supports—school rehabilitation, teacher training, mental health and psychosocial support, inclusive education, school feeding, gender transformative initiatives, early childhood education, and more. ECW’s support focuses on the most vulnerable, including girls, children from refugee, displaced and host community communities, and children with disabilities.
ECW’s investments are aligned to the Ethiopia Humanitarian Response Plan and the Ethiopia Education Sector Development Programme VI, a detailed planning document that provides a comprehensive outlook of the roadmap that the country’s education sector is taking. The Global Fund urgently calls for additional resources to fill the USD 64 million funding gap to meet the requirements for the acute education needs in the 2024 Humanitarian Response Plan for Ethiopia.
Working in emergency and protracted crisis settings across the globe, ECW supports quality education outcomes for refugee, internally displaced, and other crisis-affected girls and boys, so no one is left behind.
IPS UN Bureau Report
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
By Dharmesh Shah
KERALA, India, Dec 9 2024 (IPS)
As the fifth round of negotiations of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) for a global plastics treaty concluded in Busan, South Korea (25 November-December 1 2024), the meeting underscored both the complexities and the promises of multilateralism. What we saw in Busan was indicative of other environmental treatymaking spaces, including ones on climate and biodiversity.
There is a stark contrast between countries who are willing to show ambition and those who will engage in obstruction at any cost. This exposes the systemic challenges that both plague and demonstrate the enduring potential of multilateral environmental diplomacy to confront global challenges.
The plastics crisis affects every living being on the planet, becoming an undeniable reality rather than just a collection of statistics or headlines. Every day brings new stories of its impact on our health, environment, and livelihoods. Recognizing the scale of this crisis, countries around the world came together almost three years ago to say enough is enough.
The plastics treaty negotiations are the result of this collective realization, marking a critical step toward addressing a problem that touches every corner of our shared existence.
We were supposed to leave Busan with treaty text that would be ready for adoption. But instead, negotiators left without an agreement on the treaty, the barriers ahead are not only procedural or political; they are also philosophical. They reflect a deeper battle between the outdated paradigms of profit-driven growth and the urgent need for a collective reimagining of progress.
Petro-states are continuing to cling to fossil-fueled profits at the expense of collective well-being. It is not merely an economic strategy—it is a moral failure that will damage generations to come!
A Tale of Two Ambitions
Despite significant challenges, the negotiations also showed critical pathways forward. Panama and the Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) emerged as powerful voices advocating for a global cap on plastic production—a bold proposal that garnered substantial support from 100 countries.
In a decisive show of ambition during the closing plenary, Rwanda, speaking on behalf of 95 nations, championed ambitious controls on plastic production, while Mexico, representing 85 countries, pressed for stringent regulations on chemicals of concern. These elements represent the backbone of a treaty that is fit to overcome the scale of the plastics crisis and deliver meaningful and lasting solutions.
The Shadow of Petrochemical Interests
The petrochemical industry’s influence loomed large over INC-5, with industry representatives forming the largest single delegation at the talks — outnumbering delegations of Indigenous Peoples, scientists, and some countries including the European Union and all of its member states.
This outsized presence underscores the strategic interest of fossil fuel giants toward plastics as renewable energy and progressive climate policies shrink traditional markets.
Petrochemicals, used in everyday products like plastics and medical equipment, are now the largest drivers of global oil demand, surpassing cars and planes. They are projected to account for over a third of oil demand growth by 2030 and nearly half by 2050, adding 7 million barrels of oil and 83 billion cubic meters of natural gas consumption daily by mid-century.
This shift represents a calculated gamble to embed plastics deeper into the global economy, ensuring the fossil fuel industry’s continued dominance despite the environmental and health costs. Yet the environmental and health costs of this strategy are catastrophic. Without significant reductions in plastic production, the sector is poised to consume up to 31% of the remaining carbon budget needed to keep global warming below 1.5°C.
But climate impact is only part of the story. Plastics are fundamentally chemical products, often containing a cocktail of toxic additives that threaten human and planetary health. From endocrine disruptors leaching into water supplies to carcinogens linked to manufacturing processes, the chemical footprint of plastics amplifies the crisis far beyond its carbon implications.
Decarbonizing the plastics industry, as some companies now propose, is a false solution. True solutions must address not only the climate footprint of plastics but also their broader toxic legacy.
An Unfinished Fight
While the Busan meeting failed to produce a treaty, it succeeded in highlighting what must change for future negotiations to succeed. Moreover, it remained successful in retaining the obligations that mattered by countering derailing tactics by certain bad-faith actors. The next resumed session (INC-5.2) offers a critical opportunity to address key sticking points:
1. Production Limits: A global cap on plastic production is non-negotiable. Countries must resist attempts to dilute this measure and instead push for clear, enforceable targets.
2. Chemical Regulation: The treaty must include robust mechanisms to phase out harmful chemicals in plastics, coupled with transparency and traceability requirements to ensure that people have a right to know what chemicals go into their products.
3. Financing Mechanisms: Developing nations are disproportionately affected by plastic pollution and they need financial and technical support to implement treaty obligations. The treaty should be funded by developed countries and should also ensure that the private sector, especially polymer producers, pays its share.
4. Inclusivity and Transparency: The exclusion of observers, Indigenous peoples, and civil society from critical stages of the Busan session undermined the treaty’s legitimacy. Future sessions must prioritize meaningful inclusivity and transparency, ensuring that all voices, especially those from Indigenous Peoples and frontline communities, are heard.
Holding Spoilers Accountable
It is imperative to call out countries that continue to obstruct progress in the INC negotiations. Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran, among others, self-organized under the so-called “Like-Minded Countries” bloc and have consistently opposed meaningful advances in the treaty process. Their tactics go beyond mere scepticism of the process. They actively undermine the treaty’s ambition and hold back substantive decisions by weaponizing the requirement for consensus in all decisions.
Consensus, while valuable for inclusivity, is being misused as a way to stifle ambition. International precedent, from the Minamata Convention to the Montreal Protocol, demonstrates that incorporating voting as a last resort when countries can otherwise not agree, strengthens negotiation processes and ensures democratic decision-making. Without this safeguard, the plastics treaty risks being shaped by the interests of the few at the expense of the many.
To salvage the treaty’s ambition, the INC must embrace procedural reforms that prioritize efficiency and inclusivity. Voting provisions are essential to overcoming the current impasse and enabling the majority of nations to push forward robust, science-based measures.
A Path Forward
The road to a binding global plastics treaty will not be easy, but the urgency of the crisis leaves no room for complacency. Multilateralism, while imperfect, remains our best hope for tackling global challenges. The successes of past agreements, from the Montreal Protocol to the Minamata Convention, remind us that persistence and ambition can yield transformative results.
We may have left Busan without a treaty — but no treaty was better than a weak one. Civil society, scientists, and progressive nations must rally to maintain pressure, ensuring that the treaty addresses the full lifecycle of plastics—from extraction to disposal—and delivers justice for affected communities. High-ambition country negotiators will have to leave their diplomatic tightropes at home and bring their steel-toed boots to the next session.
In the words of Panama’s lead negotiator, Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, “When we reconvene, the stakes will be higher. This is not a drill, this is a fight for survival. We did not accept a weak treaty here, and we never will.”
Dharmesh Shah is Consulting Senior Campaigner with Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), and coordinator of the Civil Society and Rights Holders Coalition.
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
By Leah Mitaba and Bibbi Abruzzini
LUSAKA, Zambia, Dec 6 2024 (IPS)
Over the past few years, new “tools of control” affecting the work of civil society organisations have multiplied, often imposing forms of “bureaucratic criminalisation” and “administrative harassment”. In particular, more and more restrictive and demanding laws are hurting civil society organisations’s capacity to operate across the globe.
2024 saw a new NGO Bill being proposed in Zambia. The proposed Bill seeks to introduce new regulations for the governance of civil society organisations. Under the bill, all NGOs would be required to re-register every five years and adhere to mandatory membership in a government-regulated central body. It also imposes stringent reporting requirements, including disclosure of activities, funding sources, and personal wealth declarations by NGO officials. Failure to comply with these provisions could result in severe penalties, including heavy fines and imprisonment.
“Placing the same onerous registration requirement on small Community Based Organisations in the provinces as their national well resource counterparts shows very weak understanding of the NGO landscape in Zambia. These requirements would wipe out scores of organisations who carry out vital grassroot work,” says Laura Miti, Executive Director at Alliance for Community Action.
Zambian CSOs warn that these measures, far from promoting accountability or transparency, represent an overreach by the state, placing undue burdens on organizations and jeopardizing their autonomy. If enacted, the NGO Bill could severely limit the ability of CSOs to operate independently, advocate for human rights, and support development initiatives across the country.
“The Non-Governmental Organisations Bill continues the trend by the government to oversee the work of civil society. Several provisions undermine the work that advocacy civil society organisations undertake. The Bill is not a result of consensus among civil society and between civil society and government. Civil society’s asks have not changed since the government began taking steps to enact legislation regulating the sector years ago. Yet, each time a Bill is shared, it does not reflect the aspirations of the sector and does not provide any protections an enabling legislation should,” says Josiah Kalala, Executive Director at Chapter One Foundation.
In a joint statement signed by platforms representing over 400 organizations, including the Zambia Council for Social Development (ZCSD), Transparency International, NGOCC, and the Civil Society for Poverty Reduction (CSPR), Zambian CSOs have highlighted the following critical issues with the proposed bill:
Leah Mitaba, Executive Director of the Zambia Council for Social Development, underscores the need to have laws that promote collaboration and transparency, not control and coercion: “Zambia is a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights. These legal frameworks call on member states to avoid enacting laws that restrict civic space or hinder fundamental freedoms, including expression, association, and assembly. Unfortunately, the proposed 2024 Bill risks undermining these commitments. Therefore, the government’s decision to initiate consultations is a step in the right direction. It is hoped that this dialogue will lead to a self-regulatory framework that fosters the vibrancy and effectiveness of civil society organizations in Zambia.”
Additional concerns: cybersecurity and Anti-Terrorism legislation
In addition to the NGO Bill 2024, three new bills—the Cyber Security Bill 2024, Cyber Crimes Bill 2024, and Anti-Terrorism Bill—have been introduced and fast-tracked to parliament. While the stated objectives of these bills are to safeguard national security, combat cybercrime, and address terrorism, their provisions raise serious concerns about human rights, democratic governance, and constitutional compliance.
Key concerns raised by Zambian CSOs include:
In a joint statement, Zambian CSOs called on Members of Parliament to reject these bills in their current forms and urged the United Party for National Development (UPND) administration to withdraw them for broader consultation and review. “Laws protecting Zambia’s security must also protect Zambia’s democracy and rights,” the statement emphasizes.
CSOs also highlighted that these laws, if enacted, would undermine constitutional protections and set a dangerous precedent for future legislation. They have appealed to Zambian citizens to demand accountability from their representatives, warning that these laws will shape the future of freedoms, privacy, and the ability to speak out in the country.
What do the bills mean for civil society?
The concerns raised by Zambian CSOs go beyond the immediate implications of the proposed bill. At stake is the broader enabling environment for civil society—a combination of legal, institutional, financial and social factors that allow CSOs to operate effectively and contribute meaningfully to development efforts and community support. This includes ensuring:
“Many CSOs are caught in a web of increasingly complex regulations that limit their ability to operate freely. From endless bureaucratic delays to arbitrary decisions and denial of permits, these tactics slow civil society organisations down and drain their resources. Many are denied access to critical funding, while also facing stringent reporting requirements from donors, creating financial insecurity. This results in various forms of economic and emotional pressures,” said Forus director Sarah Strack in a recent article.
Next steps: what civil society is calling for
Zambian CSOs have consistently demonstrated their commitment to transparency and accountability through self-regulation initiatives. They have called on the government to build on these efforts rather than impose restrictive measures that could stifle civic engagement.
Zambian CSOs are calling on the government to demonstrate its commitment to democratic governance by:
With the UN Special Rapporteur visiting Zambia in January 2025 there is a call now to bring these issues to light and advocate for meaningful reforms. Zambia’s civil society calls on national and international partners to stand in solidarity with their efforts to protect the enabling environment.
Leah Mitaba Executive Director of the Zambia Council for Social Development and Bibbi Abruzzini Communications Coordinator at Forus.
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
By Joyce Chimbi
THE HAGUE & NAIROBI, Dec 6 2024 (IPS)
Kenya agrees with many UN member states testifying before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that the law of international responsibility should hold countries legally responsible for major damage to the global climate system.
“Responsible states must cease wrongful acts or remedy any omissions harmful to the climate system as well as make reparations for all damage caused by their breach. Such reparation may take the form of compensation for loss and damage. Of course, the court need not definitively pronounce on compensation in the context of historical omissions,” said Phoebe Okowa, a Kenyan lawyer and Professor of Public International Law.
“However, this is a precious opportunity to integrate the corpus juris (body of law) of climate change treaty law and customary international law, including the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, in a way that will assist states in establishing workable frameworks for compensation.”
Okowa was speaking on behalf of Kenya at the ICJ, which is one of 98 countries and 12 organizations participating in ongoing public hearings, contributing to the UN top court’s advisory opinion on the obligation of states to prevent climate change and ensure the protection of the environment for present and future generations.
The ongoing landmark climate change case dates to September 2021, when the Pacific Island of Vanuatu announced its intention to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ. Vanuatu supported the efforts of a youth group—the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change—who were concerned about the vulnerability of small island developing states in the region to climate change.
Vanuatu then lobbied other countries to support this initiative and formed the core group of UN member states to take the initiative forward to the General Assembly.
In pursuit of this advisory, Ambassador Halima Mucheke on behalf of Kenya said the court “has had numerous participants stress the existential nature of the threat caused by climate change. In response, this court must bring clarity to the law, informed by the perspectives of developing states, particularly those in Africa, where temperatures are rising the fastest.”
“We believe that a clarification of the existing legal obligations will provide much-needed guidance to states, as well as the impetus for the next phase of political negotiations. Kenya specifically invites the court to draw on equitable principles reflected in climate change treaties, such as the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities,” she said.
Fred Sarufa, Permanent Representative of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea to the UN, said in the country’s nearly 50 years of nationhood, this was their first appearance before ICJ because climate change can no longer be ignored. He then proceeded to illustrate the significant issues at stake.
“Papua New Guinea is home to and the custodian of a diverse geophysical and geomorphic landscape, including 20,197 kilometres of coastline, 40,000 square kilometres of coral reefs, one of the highest known levels of marine biological diversity in the world, around 10 percent of the world’s biodiversity in less than 1 percent of the world’s total land area, and the world’s third largest expanse of pristine tropical rainforest, covering 77.8 percent of our total land area,” Sarufa told the court.
Stressing that Papua New Guinea’s biodiversity is directly linked to its unsurpassed linguistic diversity, with over 850 spoken languages, the most in the world. Pila Niningi, the Minister for Justice and Attorney General of Papua New Guinea, discussed the numerous ways that climate change is wreaking havoc.
These include “forcing people to abandon their ancestral lands and territories, altered landscapes and seascapes, disrupted livelihoods, and led to civil unrest among traditional landowners, fighting over increasingly limited land and space. It has also endangered food crops, water and security, and the collapse of traditional and cultural practices and indigenous systems of governance,” Niningi said.
Rising seas have forced the islanders from northeast Bougainville and the people of Veraibari in the Gulf province of Papua New Guinea to abandon their ancestral lands because it engulfed their homes and schools and inundated what remains of the arable land.
This led Papua New Guinea to join other Pacific nations in adopting, within the framework of the Pacific Islands Forum, the Boe Declaration on Regional Security, which affirms, among others, that climate change remains the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security, and well-being of the peoples of the Pacific.
On her part, Kenya invited the court to confirm that significant financial assistance and technology transfer are binding legal obligations and not matters of discretion.
Professor Dr. Makane Moïse Mbengue from the African Union told the Court the matter on hand was about climate justice, as “climate change is a phenomenon that has not been caused by all states equally, and nor will all states suffer its effects equally.”
He emphasized that science serves as the cornerstone of climate justice for states, peoples, and individuals affected by climate change, underscoring the necessity of protecting the climate system and demanding responsibility from states that have caused harm to it. In this context, he said the African Union welcomes the court’s engagement with experts from the IPCC prior to the commencement of the hearings.
“The African Union notes efforts of certain states, albeit a minority, to negate science and trivialize the ordinary meaning of the terms of the request (for an advisory opinion). Their repeated calls for undue caution now, and in their written submissions, are transparent attempts to dilute the very object of the present proceedings. The African Union respectfully urges the court to dismiss these unfounded arguments,” he observed.
Further inviting the court to “reject the flawed argument, which was repeated again this week, that the relevant obligations are reduced solely to the so-called specialists of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. The same arguments were tried, tested, and defeated before they lost. Nonetheless, they should find no fertile ground before the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, whose advisory opinions have consistently contributed to maintaining the systemic coherence of the international legal system.”
Mbengue said that if the court didn’t say who was responsible, it would be the same as a situation of non-liquet, which means there is no law that applies, and states would be free to keep damaging the climate system. Such an outcome could hardly have been the intention of the General Assembly in seeking this advisory opinion.”
IPS UN Bureau Report
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Excerpt: