By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 21 2025 – In the final quarter of 2024 ,there has been an escalation in the Sudanese civil war, with armed clashes between the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) having grown in brutality. Heightened insecurity has pushed millions of people into displacement, hunger, and poverty. Additionally, the continued hostilities have made it difficult for humanitarian organizations to scale their responses up.

On February 20, UNHCR issued a report that analyzed trends in the displacement and violence in the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2024. The fourth quarter was a relatively tumultuous period for the Sudanese people. Extensive artillery shelling in the Zamzam displacement camp of North Darfur has significantly exacerbated the displacement crisis and prevented displaced persons from seeking safer shelter.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has classified Sudan as the world’s biggest displacement crisis, with over 11.5 million internally displaced persons since the start of the Sudanese civil war in 2023. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has stated that approximately two-thirds of the population are critically dependent on humanitarian aid for survival. Additionally, internally displaced persons face famine-like conditions and neighboring countries face a lack of resources to provide for the externally displaced.

From June to mid-October 2024, clashes between armed groups in the Sennar and Al Jazeera states greatly boosted internal displacements, with UNHCR estimating that humanitarian organizations had to cater to almost 400,000 newly displaced civilians. In the Darfur and Blue Nile regions, agricultural communities experienced attacks which resulted in significant damage to crop production and a rise in sexual and gender-based violence.

According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war has increased greatly in the past year. There have been 120 documented cases of sexual violence and at least 203 victims. The true number of victims is estimated to be much higher due to fear of reprisals, stigma, and a lack of protection, medical, and judicial services for victims.

In January, then-U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared that the recent violations of humanitarian law committed by the RSF constitute as acts of genocide. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been accused of supplying the RSF with weapons, which they denied. The United Nations (UN) has still not issued an extension for the unenforced arms embargo in Darfur.

On February 18, the RSF conducted a series of attacks over the course of three days in the al-Kadaris and al-Khelwat areas, which have little to no military presence. The Sudanese Foreign Ministry estimates that there have been at least 433 civilian casualties. There have also been reports of the RSF committing executions, kidnappings, enforced disappearances and lootings.

The attacks were concurrent with the RSF and its allies arriving in the capital of Kenya to sign a charter for a parallel government in the RSF’s controlled territories. The SAF rejected this proposal and indicated plans to reclaim the entirety of Khartoum.

“The continued and deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian objects, as well as summary executions, sexual violence and other violations and abuses, underscore the utter failure by both parties to respect the rules and principles of international humanitarian and human rights law. Some of these acts may amount to war crimes,” said Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Tom Fletcher, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, adds that the Sudanese Civil War has implications that reach beyond the borders of Sudan, “threatening to destabilize neighbors in ways that risk being felt for generations to come”.

Millions of people in Sudan have been left without access to critical resources, such as food, clean water, shelter, and healthcare.

“People who were already very vulnerable have no access to food or water. Some of them have no shelter, as some neighbourhoods have been burned down, and it’s very cold at night,” Michel-Olivier Lacharite, of Doctors Without Borders (MSF) informed reporters. Lacharite added that after the RSF’s attacks on the Zamzam camp in early February, dozens of severely injured civilians don’t have access to treatment due to limited surgical capabilities in the MSF Zamzam hospital.

According to figures from MSF, approximately 24.6 million people, or roughly half of Sudan’s population, face high levels of acute food insecurity. 8.5 million of these people also face “emergency or famine-like” conditions, according to the latest Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) report. The IPC has detected the presence of famine in five areas, including the Zamzam, Abu Shouk and Al Salam camps in North Darfur, and two additional locations in the Western Nuba Mountains.

“There are reports of people dying of starvation in some areas like Darfur, Kordofan and Khartoum…People in Zamzam camp, which as you know — as we’ve told you — had been regularly bombed, are resorting to extreme measures to survive because food is so scarce. Families are eating peanut shells mixed with oil which is typically used to feed animals,” said Stéphane Dujarric, the Spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General.

Despite the urgent scale of needs, the humanitarian response in Sudan has been largely ineffective. According to MSF, heightened insecurity in the most crisis-affected areas has impeded aid deliveries. Additionally, MSF has blamed the UN for employing “neglectful inertia”, which has done little to alleviate the growing malnutrition crisis.

“Parts of Sudan are difficult to work in. But it is certainly possible, and this is what humanitarian organisations and the UN are supposed to do,” said Marcella Kraay, MSF emergency coordinator in Nyala, South Darfur. “In places that are easier to access, as well as in the hardest to reach areas like North Darfur, options like air routes remain unexplored. The failure to act is a choice, and it’s killing people.”

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(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’);  

By Kizito Makoye
MBARALI, Tanzania, Feb 21 2025 – A hush had fallen over Mbarali District, but it was not the quiet of peace—it was the silence of uncertainty.

Just months ago, the rolling plains were gripped by fear as government-backed rangers, dressed in olive green fatigues, roamed through villages, seizing cattle, torching homes, and forcing entire communities to the wobbly edge of survival. The REGROW project, a USD 150 million initiative funded by the World Bank to expand Ruaha National Park (RUNAPA), had promised tourism growth and environmental conservation. What it delivered was a brutal campaign of state-sanctioned land grabbing under the guise of protecting nature.

Then, in a stunning turn of events, the World Bank pulled the plug on the project in January 2025 after intense scrutiny from human rights watchdogs and the United Nations. On paper, it was a victory for the thousands of farmers and pastoralists whose lands were threatened. But for many, the damage had already been done.

A Victory Hollowed by Loss

“We lost everything,” said Daudi Mkwama, a rice farmer who watched helplessly as rangers confiscated his cattle and demolished his storehouse. “They told us we were trespassers on land our ancestors have farmed for generations.”

The REGROW project aimed to double the size of Ruaha National Park, claiming vast swaths of farmland and grazing land in the process. Villages that had coexisted with nature for centuries suddenly found themselves labeled as threats to conservation. The government, backed by international funding, deployed heavily armed TANAPA (Tanzania National Parks Authority) rangers to enforce new restrictions.

At least 28 villages in Mbarali District were affected, home to more than 84,000 people. Farmers were barred from their fields, and pastoralists were banned from grazing their livestock. Those who resisted faced brutal crackdowns. Reports of beatings, arbitrary arrests, and even extrajudicial killings surfaced, prompting an investigation by the World Bank’s Inspection Panel.

“One day, they came and took my cows—said I was grazing in a protected area,” said Juma Mseto, a Maasai herder. “We begged them to let us go. They just laughed and told us to go to hell.”

The Politics of Land and Power

Tanzania’s conservation model has long been marred by controversy. Despite its reputation as a wildlife haven, the country’s protected areas have historically come at a high human cost. The eviction of Indigenous communities has been a recurring pattern, from Ngorongoro to Loliondo, and now Mbarali.

The REGROW project was touted as a necessary step to protect Tanzania’s natural heritage and boost its tourism industry, a sector that contributes nearly 17% of the country’s GDP of approximately US$80 billion. But critics argue it was another case of conservation being weaponized against marginalized communities.

“This wasn’t about protecting nature,” said Onesmo Ole Ngurumwa, a human rights advocate who serves as the national coordinator of the Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition (THRDC). “This was about expanding state control over land, profiting from tourism, and sidelining the people who have lived in harmony with these ecosystems for generations.”

The World Bank’s involvement only deepened the controversy. When evidence of forced evictions and human rights abuses surfaced, the institution initially turned a blind eye. But mounting pressure from advocacy groups like the Oakland Institute, along with intervention from nine UN Special Rapporteurs, forced the bank’s hand.

In April 2024, funding was suspended. Seven months later, the entire project was scrapped.

Life After the Cancellation

Despite the decision, villagers say their suffering is far from over. Many who lost their homes and livelihoods have received no compensation. Schools remain closed, water access is scarce, and government beacons still mark the lands they were once told to vacate.

“We are still living in fear,” said Halima Mtemba, a mother of four. “They say the project is over, but will they return our cattle? Will they fix our schools? Will they give us back what they stole?”

Local leaders are calling for the removal of park boundary markers and official recognition of ancestral land rights. They also demand restitution for lost livestock, crops, and homes.

A Broader Pattern of Displacement

The battle over Mbarali is not an isolated incident. Across Tanzania, conservation projects continue to displace communities under the pretext of environmental protection.

In Ngorongoro, thousands of Maasai have been forced out to make way for elite tourism ventures. In Loliondo, violent evictions have turned vast grazing lands into private hunting concessions.

“The government has made it clear: it values animals over people,” said Maneno Kwayu, a pastoralist leader in Mbarali. “We are not against conservation. We are against being treated like intruders on our own land.”

Tanzania’s conservation policies are rooted in colonial-era frameworks that prioritized wildlife tourism over Indigenous land rights. Decades later, the same patterns persist, often with the backing of global financial institutions.

What Comes Next?

With the REGROW project dead, the focus now shifts to reparations. Human rights groups are pushing for an independent commission to oversee compensation and ensure the affected communities receive justice.

But there is little trust in the system.

“The World Bank may have walked away, but the government hasn’t,” said Ole Ngurumwa. “Until there are real legal protections for these communities, another project like this will happen again.”

For now, the people of Mbarali continue to live in limbo—celebrating a victory that came too late, in a battle they should never have had to fight.

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(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’);  

By Mavic Cabrera Balleza, Ben Donaldson and Anne Marie Goetz
NEW YORK, Feb 21 2025 – The selection of the next UN Secretary-General (UNSG) will be a pivotal moment in global efforts to resist authoritarianism and work together to address shared problems. Where do UN Member States stand on appointing a feminist woman to this role?

Informal campaigning is already underway for the position of the next UN Secretary-General. The race will officially kick off towards the end of the year; the successful candidate will take office on 1 January 2027. A decade ago, state after state stood up and said the next Secretary-General should be a woman. Then they voted for a man.

This time, civil society is not taking good intentions at face value, and wants concrete actions. The simplest way to break the 80-year old glass ceiling is if states commit publicly to only consider nominating women candidates – hardly a challenge given the plethora of talented leaders available.

The Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) coalition of 27 countries has included this issue to their list of key areas for revitalizing the UN’s effectiveness, insisting, last November: “We cannot miss the transformative opportunity to appoint the UN’s first woman SG.”

Civil society groups such as the 1 for 8 Billion coalition and the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders (GNWP) point out that the appointment won’t be ‘transformative’ unless the next SG is not just a woman but a feminist.

A recent study by the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders, 1 for 8 Billion, and students at the Center for Global Affairs, School of Professional Studies, New York University, showed that only three UN Member States – Costa Rica, Spain and Slovenia – have backed up their emphatic support for a woman SG with concrete reform proposals to bring gender equality to the SG selection process.

The study is based on analysis of Member State public statements at the UN, for instance at the General Assembly in September last year and the meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly last November.

Beyond individual country positions, the research analyzed joint statements by collectivities such as the Non-Aligned Movement, the ACT group, the European Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and a group of 78 states coordinated by Mexico, Slovenia and Spain on the representation of women at UN leadership. Statements are assessed as ‘Very Strong’, ‘Strong’, ‘Indirect/Implied’, or ‘Opposed’.

Fifty states have indicated ‘Strong’ support, which means they have said that the next SG should be a woman, but they have not outlined specific actions to increase the chances of this outcome. Another 124 states have shown indirect support by saying that gender equality should be one of several considerations in the next selection round.

In the source material studied, not a single UN Member State has called explicitly for a feminist woman SG. Of the 15 countries that align with ‘feminist foreign policy’, only 5 – Canada, Chile, Spain, Slovenia and Germany – made a point of mentioning the importance of selecting a woman SG during the opening of the 79th General Assembly in September.

A lone woman leader will not be able to fix what ails the UN. To call for a feminist woman SG is to invoke the broader changes that the next SG must be empowered by Member States and work together to undertake. Gender equality has been proven to be an accelerator of all UN priorities, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

However, there is a serious attack on feminist thinking and activism by autocratic populists and religious fundamentalists. From Project 2025 to the edicts of the Taliban, weaponized misogyny – or the ‘gender ideology backlash’, as well as attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion – are used to revive antique versions of patriarchal control and eliminate opposition to unbridled militarization.

This makes the centering of gender equality by the first Madam Secretary-General imperative both substantively and symbolically.

Beyond calling for feminist women candidates with reform agendas, there are calls for an open selection process to enable candidates to build a broad support base for their visions. Carrying this support through to the 38th floor once in role will be vital, as the first Madam Secretary-General will need to work creatively to get things done in the current environment, reaching beyond Member States to connect directly with civil society and the global public.

Without a powerful mandate to lead, the first woman SG will be set up for failure, appointed to the edge of a glass cliff as polarization in geopolitics splinters the organization.

Doors are closing fast to opportunities to democratize the selection process and to ensure that a woman is selected. 1 for 8 Billion has set out feasible moves to support an inclusive and fair process. The General Assembly has the chance over the next few months to implement this agenda, when all states get a platform to publicly comment on the SG selection process at the meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Revitalization of the General Assembly.

The research mentioned above will be available on an Interactive Map tracking UN Member States’ positions on the appointment of a feminist woman SG. This will be launched on March 5th. GNWP’s website to register for the event.

Mavic Cabrera Ballez is Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Global Network of Women Peacebuilders; Ben Donaldson is Advisor, 1 for 8 Billion campaign; Anne Marie Goetz is Clinical Professor, Center for Global Affairs, School of Professional Studies, New York University

Source: UN Association of the UK

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’);