By Randa El Ozeir
TORONTO, Sep 2 2025 – If European colonialism had never happened in Canada, matriarchy would still have been strong in Indigenous culture. Matriarchy was the backbone of society’s structure and line of dominance in Turtle Island (North America) before the arrival of Westerners.

In practice, Indigenous women in Canada have been victims of violence and discrimination. In theory, they were supposed, along with children, to enjoy full protection, as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) states in article 22.

“Traditional knowledge would be whole and complete. Our languages, ceremonies, governance systems, planet health, communities, cosmologies, land practices, water preservation, and harvesting practices would be alive and well,” says Anishinaabe Ancestral Knowledge Keeper Kim Wheatley, “Head/Leader of the Fireflower,” the Spirit name she carries.

The female role and influence in traditional Native American culture were powerful and pivotal. Wheatley cites how women’s main duty, “like all community members, was to live in harmony with creation, a life of committed purpose and passion based on the gifts they arrived with from the spirit world. Women were hunters, foragers, medicine folks, healers, educators, leaders, artists, fishers, ceremonialists, singers, dancers, artists, and governance holders—really the societal glue on how to provide for the greater good. They were the ones who made the big long-term decisions for the communities they were responsible for.”

Anishinaabe Ancestral Knowledge Keeper Kim Wheatley.

The story of Indigenous women in Canada is considerably incompatible with what Disney World tried to twist and distort in its popular animation “Pocahontas.” Chrystal Tabobandung, Founder of RAISE Indigenous cultural awareness and competence training with Ojibwe roots, sees the “hatred of white women towards us, as if we were less. We have been kicked out of our homes. We are suffering today and being sexualized by men and social media. Historically, white women envied us because of the roles we held in our communities and our traditional ways.”

This is where the impact of colonialism has come in, right from earlier contact, and changed over time. Women in Europe were not to be seen, not to be heard. They were in the background, and they were very resentful at the fact that, here, Indigenous women had a voice, a seat at the table to make decisions regarding safety, child rearing, politics, and even where to camp.”

Socio-Economic Inequality

The effect of the forced Western social and business model has shattered too many Indigenous communities, and the shift to a Western male-dominant lifestyle has altered the whole picture.

Wheatley believes that over the last 150 years, “The foundation of species became a risk. The destruction of lands and waters through endless resource extraction, racism, misogyny, the vulgarity of political decision-making on women’s bodies, the ever-rising violence against women and girls, and the list goes on and on. We see a dramatic disparity in the socio-economic realities. Our People have vast, complex political systems, governance structures, balanced leadership models, extraordinary, vibrant trade practices, endless creativity, and intimate relationships to lands and waters. Deep moral teachings that contribute to the greater good based on long-standing visioning practices.”

While women can and do run for leadership roles, the colonial system does not support traditional governance and practices. The Indian Act is still law in Canada and is one of the recognized leading racist legal documents in the world. This Act oversees how and what a First Nation community can do within reserve confines and what happens when you leave.”

Chrystal Tabobandung, Founder of RAISE Indigenous cultural awareness.

The differences among Indigenous women vary according to their distinct nations. In Canada, there are over 630 recognized First Nations communities.

“Our nations’ women do things differently based on nation-to-nation teachings that are tied to tradition and culture as opposed to roles,” explains Tabobandung. “There are so many divergent oppressive systems that disconnect them.

They do not necessarily work together, but regarding huge social issues, like murdered and missing Indigenous women and sex trafficking, they do come together. They are active in marches and rallies. They stand up against injustices and reconnect with their tradition and their culture. The more voices that are coming out, the more people feel courageous, strong, and able to come forth with their personal experiences.”

How does lack of access to safe drinking water affect Indigenous women? According to Wheatley, “The water crisis in First Nations communities is under-recognized as a continuous assault on a basic human right. Women who live off-reserve have greater opportunities for employment, housing, and other socio-economic possibilities that simply are not available on many reserves for a wide variety of reasons. Educational facilities are far more accessible, along with social services that are integral to supporting families.”

“The proximity of travel to/from work, social gatherings, support spaces, cultural activities, educational options, and greater social interactions are much more accessible in urban areas,” continues Wheatley. “This contributes to a greater sense of well-being. In small towns, racism may not support greater opportunities, but in cities with larger populations, the odds increase in a woman’s favor.”

Reconciliation and Preserving People’s Culture

In her opinion, Wheatley sees that the Truth and Reconciliation Report was a gift to Canadians, challenging their comfort in historic amnesia and continued ignorance of cultural genocide committed by the highest leadership in this country.

“Anytime we have a voice from ‘our people’ to say how we need to look at restitution and restoration of our sovereignty, it is the right path. We do not need to be told how to heal… We need to tell the country how to support our healing. This is what the report does beautifully. It is as comprehensive as the country can digest at this time and yet… few of the ‘calls to action’ have been addressed meaningfully to date.”

Ten years have passed, yet not much has changed, Wheatley adds.

“This country has continuously operated under the fallacy of the Doctrine of Discovery and theft of land that was never theirs to take.”

The Western Eurocentric perspective has been imposed even on terminology and on what an Indigenous person uses. Tabobandung says, “Only in the past couple of generations have we empowered our children to have voices and ask questions. I grew up in a smaller town where colonialism impacted us, but we were still able to carry down our teachings and our stories. People who have been removed from their culture or have become disconnected in any way wouldn’t know these teachings.”

In British Columbia, Indigenous people are knowledgeable about their culture.

“They really project the importance of their Indigenous women,” says Wheatley. “If there is any movement for any Indigenous or Aboriginal rights to change in the court system, it will take place in precedence in British Columbia and will set that precedent for all other nations across Canada.”

Is There a Way Out?

Wheatley believes the solution between the government and Indigenous people has not been prioritized. “

Hence, Third World conditions exist as a norm in many [Indigenous] communities. To reconcile the crimes of the past in Canada, the perpetrators need to take responsibility, but that continues to be a threat to colonial intrusion and imposition on lands that are rightfully ours!”

Everyone takes Reconciliation differently.

Tabobandung heard different voices; some people are more extreme than others. On the ground, the fait accompli is that Indigenous people, Westerners, and other immigrants are practically sharing their lives on Turtle Island.

Tabobandung finds herself in the middle

“You have this Western business, social, and political model, and your model. How would you balance this? Many First Nations people have had this difficulty, especially those who come from Northern rural, remote communities. You have to know who you are and have deep roots. It is really hard to make that transition, especially in the Western Eurocentric system, where they want to get rid of us; they want to integrate us into the Westernized society so that we don’t exist anymore. Some get to a point where they find peace and balance.”

“I am Anishinaabe. I am Ojibwe. I refuse to acknowledge myself as Indigenous, First Nation, or Aboriginal,” says Tabobandung. “Our people are older than the terminologies the federal government imposed upon us. I walk softly and gently upon the earth. Culture has saved me, knowing that I am First Peoples to this land, in this territory, and knowing that a system is trying to annihilate my people, and knowing that I am still here thriving and surviving.”

This is what motivates her.

“It is why I walk with my head held high. It is why I educate myself as much as I can on anything. I paint indigenous paintings and do indigenous art to pass that knowledge down.”

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 Hugo-Maria Schally
VIENNA, Austria, Sep 2 2025 – The governance of nature and biodiversity has evolved from early 20th-century treaties on hunting and migratory species to today’s complex web of multilateral environmental agreements.

Initial efforts, such as the 1902 Convention for the Protection of Birds useful to Agriculture, reflected utilitarian concerns, but by the 1970s global awareness of extinction and habitat loss led to more systemic instruments, including the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (1971) and Washington Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (1973).

The 1992 Rio Earth Summit marked a turning point with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the first treaty to address biodiversity at genetic, species, and ecosystem levels, supported by the Global Environment Facility as a financial mechanism.

Since then, biodiversity governance has expanded through additional conventions, protocols and scientific platforms such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) but has also become increasingly fragmented.

Global biodiversity loss continues at alarming rates, despite this dense architecture of internationally agreed rules and institutions. Biodiversity related Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) span terrestrial, freshwater, and marine realms; regulate access to genetic resources and trade in species; set site based protections; and address drivers of land degradation and desertification. Yet, implementation remains hampered by institutional fragmentation, duplicative reporting burdens, and misaligned financial flows.

Against this backdrop, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) provides a shared vision for 2030 and 2050. Converting that vision into action requires not merely more resources, but better coordination—within and across MEAs, and between MEAs and broader sustainable development processes.

This article (i) maps the mandates and legal obligations of the principal biodiversity related MEAs, (ii) analyzes governance fragmentation and financial constraints, (iii) explores political dynamics among key actors, and (iv) proposes realistic, equity centred pathways for strategic coherence, with comparisons to the more integrated chemicals and waste cluster.

1. Mandates, Legal Functions, and Obligations of Key Biodiversity Related MEAs

1.1 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Protocols

The CBD’s tripartite objective—conservation, sustainable use, and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources—is codified in Article 1. Parties are obligated to prepare and implement National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and to report at regular intervals.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety establishes precautionary and risk assessment procedures for the transboundary movement of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs), while the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization operationalizes Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) by requiring national frameworks for access permits, benefit sharing, and compliance measures. The KMGBF provides a global goal and target structure to guide CBD implementation.

1.2 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

CITES regulates international trade through a system of appendices and permits, supported by compliance review and trade related measures. Its focus is targeted—ensuring that trade does not threaten species’ survival—complementing broader conservation duties under CBD. CITES’ decisions and periodic reviews create quasi regulatory effects at national borders, with enforcement typically delegated to customs and wildlife authorities.

1.3 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)

CMS requires range states to cooperate to conserve migratory species and their habitats, often via MoUs and specialized regional agreements. Its ‘umbrella’ function has catalyzed multiple instruments and action plans across taxa and flyways.

1.4 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

Ramsar obliges Parties to designate wetlands of international importance and to promote their ‘wise use.’ Its compliance approach is facilitative and cooperative—anchored in site listing, monitoring, and the Montreux Record—rather than punitive measures.

1.5 World Heritage Convention (WHC)

The WHC, administered by UNESCO, integrates natural and cultural heritage through site nomination, protection, and monitoring. While enforcement is largely reputational (e.g., inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger), the Convention has proven influential in safeguarding globally significant ecosystems and landscapes.

1.6 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA)

ITPGRFA establishes a Multilateral System of Access and Benefit-Sharing (MLS) for a defined list of crops and forages essential to food security. The proceeds from that system finances on the ground projects that sustain agrobiodiversity and farmer resilience. The Treaty complements CBD/Nagoya by providing sector specific ABS tailored to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.

1.7 United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)

UNCCD aims to combat desertification and mitigate drought effects through national action programmes and regional cooperation. Its land use orientation connects directly to biodiversity and climate agendas, particularly on ecosystem restoration, drought resilience, and sustainable land management.

1.8 Agreement under UNCLOS on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ)

The most recent addition to the MEA system for nature and biodiversity, the BBNJ Agreement, which has yet to enter into force, addresses conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction—roughly two thirds of the ocean. Its four pillars encompass marine genetic resources (including benefit sharing), area based management tools (including marine protected areas), environmental impact assessments, and capacity building/technology transfer. It complements the CBD, whose scope is limited to areas under national jurisdiction.

The Agreement foresees a COP, subsidiary scientific/technical bodies, a secretariat, and compliance arrangements; it also provides for benefit sharing modalities and a voluntary trust fund to support participation and early implementation.

2. Governance Fragmentation and Institutional Complexity

Biodiversity governance is institutionally dispersed across UNEP (CBD, CITES, CMS), FAO (ITPGRFA), UNESCO (WHC), independent or IUCN hosted secretariats (Ramsar), directly under UNGA ( UNCCD) and the UNCLOS system (BBNJ). This dispersion yields divergent rules, reporting schedules, compliance approaches, and scientific interfaces.

By contrast, the chemicals and waste cluster, where there is a uniform link to UNEP as a hosting institution, has progressively institutionalized synergies (shared services, coordinated COPs), producing clearer lines of authority and operational economies of scale.

2.1 UNEP and the Environment Management Group (EMG)

UNEP provides a convening platform and hosts several biodiversity secretariats; through the EMG it seeks to promote UN system wide coherence. However, neither UNEP nor EMG has binding authority over treaty bodies. Their effectiveness hinges on political buy in, voluntary coordination, and financing. Past reviews have cautioned against proliferating stand alone secretariats and have encouraged shared services and clustering where mandates allow.

2.2 Science–Policy Interfaces

IPBES has strengthened the knowledge base for biodiversity policy, but linkages to individual MEAs vary. Unlike the chemicals and waste cluster—which benefits from standing scientific committees (e.g., POPRC, CRC)—biodiversity MEAs rely on a patchwork of SBSTTAs, technical working groups, and ad hoc expert committees. A more connected science interface would support cross MEA target setting, monitoring, and methodological alignment.

2.3 Legal and Operational Overlaps

Overlaps are evident in ABS (CBD/Nagoya, ITPGRFA, and BBNJ), site based conservation (Ramsar, WHC, CBD), and species measures (CITES, CMS, CBD). Countries face capacity overload from multiple national focal points and asynchronous reporting cycles. Harmonized reporting and data platforms can reduce this burden; the CBD led Data Reporting Tool for MEAs (DaRT) could be a promising step if broadly adopted.

3. Financial Mechanisms and Constraints

Finance is the critical enabler of synergy. CITES, RAMSAR and CMS lack a dedicated financial mechanism and rely on ad hoc external funding, including from the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The GEF currently also serves as the financial mechanism for CBD and its Protocols, UNCCD, and is expected to support BBNJ related actions as these kick in after it’s entry into force. Cumulatively, GEF has allocated over USD 22 billion in grants with substantial co financing. Yet funding often flows through siloed windows aligned to individual MEAs, complicating multi convention projects.

3.1 Beyond GEF: Complementary Funds

The ITPGRFA MLS provides resources to farmer led conservation and breeding initiatives. Ramsar and WHC depend heavily on voluntary contributions and project finance, creating chronic underfunding for site management and monitoring.

The BBNJ Agreement includes a voluntary trust fund to facilitate early implementation and participation by developing countries as well as a special trust fund to be alimented by proceeds from the use of genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

3.2 Persistent Gaps and Fragmentation

Despite aggregate growth in biodiversity finance, Parties at CBD COP15 noted continuing gaps between ambition and available resources, alongside barriers to access and absorption. Integrated programming for cross MEA outcomes remains limited. By comparison, the chemicals and waste cluster uses joint services and synchronized COPs to align budgeting cycles, capacity building, and technical assistance, creating a more coherent pipeline of support.

4. Political Dynamics and Major Actor Positions

Political economy shapes what institutional designs can achieve. Secretariats tend to protect their autonomy; governments weigh sovereignty, trade, and development priorities; and equity concerns remain salient. Contention around digital sequence information (DSI) and ABS illustrates divergent interests across MEAs.

4.1 Major Actors

• United States: outside CBD and Nagoya; engages actively in CITES and sectoral bodies; cautious on multilateral ABS.
• China: strong role in CBD/KMGBF; supportive of capacity building; cautious about far reaching benefit sharing modalities under BBNJ.
• India and Brazil: emphasize equity, technology transfer, and fair benefit sharing; wary of burdens without commensurate support.
• European Union: generally cohesive advocate for biodiversity ambition and cross MEA coordination, though internal sectoral trade offs (e.g., agriculture) persist.
• African Group, strong on conservation and sustainable use, focused on the provision of additional financial resources and keen on the establishment of dedicated financial mechanisms.

4.2 Ocean Governance Politics

The BBNJ Agreement must navigate interactions with existing sectoral and regional bodies, notably RFMOs. Debates over institutional hierarchy, benefit sharing of MGRs (including DSI), and standards for ABMTs/EIAs reflect broader geopolitics and North–South equity concerns.

5. Comparative Insights and Pathways Toward Strategic Coherence

5.1 Lessons from the Chemicals and Waste Cluster

The BRS Conventions operationalize synergies through: (i) joint services and administrative functions; (ii) back to back or joint COPs; (iii) harmonized technical assistance and capacity building strategies; and (iv) standing scientific committees.

While mandates remain distinct, institutionalized coordination has yielded efficiencies in budgeting, technical support, and compliance assistance. The Minamata Convention on Mercury, though separate, benefits from and contributes to shared technical platforms and capacity building networks.

5.2 A Practical Synergy Agenda for Biodiversity MEAs

1) Joint Work Plans under the KMGBF: Develop time bound, target linked joint programs among CBD, CITES, CMS, Ramsar, WHC, UNCCD, ITPGRFA, and (as it matures) BBNJ. Prioritize cross cutting areas such as ecosystem restoration, invasive species, wildlife trade, and genetic resources.
2) Harmonized Reporting and Data Architecture: Scale up the CBD DART platform across MEAs; align indicators, metadata standards, and submission cycles.
3) Integrated Funding Windows: Establish a GEF multi MEA ‘synergy window’ either under the General Trust Fund or under the GBFF to finance projects that deliver jointly against KMGBF targets and related MEA obligations; incentivize national level integrated programming and shared enabling activities.
4) Coordinated Capacity Building: Create a joint help desk and roster of experts servicing multiple MEAs; bundle regional training; and promote South–South cooperation.
5) Science Interface Linkages: Mandate reciprocal participation of scientific bodies (e.g., SBSTTAs, CMS Scientific Council) and further formalize channels between IPBES and all biodiversity MEAs.
6) UNEP/EMG and UNEA Leadership: Utilize UNEA to adopt resolutions inviting MEAs and UN agencies to report on synergistic implementation and to pilot joint services.
7) National Level Integration: Encourage ‘Integrated Biodiversity Implementation Plans’ that consolidate NBSAPs with Ramsar site strategies, WHC site management plans, CITES/CMS action plans, UNCCD NAPs, and—where relevant—BBNJ commitments. This reduces duplication and clarifies institutional responsibilities.

5.3 Guardrails for Equity and Effectiveness

Synergy must not translate into additional burdens on developing countries without resources. Equity guardrails can include: predictable finance; technology cooperation; fair access to genetic resources and DSI benefits; and attention to indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ rights. Political buy in improves when integration demonstrably reduces workload (e.g., one integrated report instead of many) and mobilizes additional finance.

6. Conclusion

Biodiversity MEAs collectively provide a comprehensive rulebook, but fragmentation blunts their impact. The KMGBF offers a unifying roadmap; the BBNJ Agreement extends governance to the global commons. By institutionalizing joint work, harmonizing reporting and data, integrating finance, and strengthening science and coordination functions, the biodiversity regime can replicate the practical synergies achieved in the chemicals and waste cluster—while also emphasizing equity and capacity.

The alternative is continued inefficiency and missed outcomes during a critical decade for nature. Given the institutional complexities of the biodiversity related MEAS it might be advisable to establish a two step process. Bringing the UNEP hosted secretariats closer together and based on possible results open a broader process to see how the other MEAs that are hosted by other institutions could be brought in.

Hugo-Maria Schally is former Head of the Multilateral Environmental Cooperation Unit at the Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission.

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’);  

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Sep 2 2025 – In late June, thousands flooded the streets of Lomé, Togo’s capital, presenting the ruling dynasty with its biggest challenge in decades.

The catalyst was constitutional manoeuvring by President Faure Gnassingbé to maintain his grip on power. In March 2024, his government pushed through constitutional amendments that transformed Togo from a presidential to a parliamentary system. This created a new position, the President of the Council of Ministers – effectively Togo’s chief executive – elected by parliament rather than by popular vote, and with no term limits. Gnassingbé assumed this new role in May, making it abundantly clear the changes were only about keeping him in power indefinitely.

This constitutional manoeuvre was the latest episode in a 58-year family saga that began when Faure’s father, Gnassingbé Eyadéma, seized power in a 1967 coup. For 25 years, the elder Gnassingbé ruled over a one-party state, staging ritual elections that reached absurd heights in 1986 when he claimed re-election with close to 100 per cent of votes on an implausible 99 per cent turnout. Even after nominal multiparty democracy arrived in 1992, elections remained charades with predetermined outcomes, as opposition parties faced systematic obstacles that made fair competition impossible.

When Eyadéma died in 2005, the military simply appointed his son Faure as successor, despite the constitution mandating immediate elections. International pressure forced a hastily organised vote, but this followed the familiar script of violence, fraud and repression. The pattern repeated in 2010, 2015 and 2020, with each election offering a veneer of legitimacy for continued authoritarian rule – and eliciting successive waves of protest that were either violently repressed or pre-emptively suppressed.

Now, two decades after Faure took power, this latest constitutional gambit has triggered the most significant challenge to his rule. The constitutional changes designed to keep him in power have instead galvanised opposition, creating a focal point for decades of accumulated grievances.

The current protests differ from their predecessors by being overwhelmingly led by young people who’ve never known any other leaders than the Gnassingbés. Raised on promises of multiparty democracy, they’ve witnessed systematic electoral fraud to perpetuate a government wholly unresponsive to their needs. They connect their daily struggles with unemployment, power outages and crumbling infrastructure with the long-term denial of their democratic freedoms.

The arrest in May of a popular rapper and TikToker, Aamron – for posting a video calling for street protests to coincide with Gnassingbé’s birthday on 6 June – galvanised discontent, turning simmering frustration into organised resistance. Aamron’s detention sparked the formation of the 6 June Movement (M66), led by young artists, bloggers, diaspora-based activists and civil society figures who rely heavily on social media to coordinate protests, bypassing state-controlled channels.

The government’s response, however, has followed a familiar path of authoritarian crackdown. In late June, security forces killed at least seven people, including 15-year-old Jacques Koami Koutoglo, and they’ve also used teargas, beatings and mass arrests against protesters. The regime has detained journalists, forced deletion of protest footage and imposed internet shutdowns during protests. It has suspended international media outlets including France 24 and RFI for their protest coverage. it has even issued international arrest warrants for M66 leaders based abroad, accusing them of terrorism and subversion.

Protests have continued despite repression. The leadership of young people, less intimidated by the security apparatus and better connected through social media, has allowed for the diversification of opposition tactics, with activists shifting between street protests, legal challenges and international advocacy as circumstances dictate. The diaspora is also playing a role, with Togolese communities abroad organising solidarity protests and advocating with international organisations for sanctions against the Gnassingbé regime.

Significant obstacles however remain. Gnassingbé controls all levers of power, including security forces, the electoral commission and the Constitutional Court. For a democratic transition to result, international pressure would need to intensify, including the imposition of targeted sanctions on regime officials and their economic interests. Regional bodies, particularly the Economic Community of West African States, would need to act, including by threatening to suspend Togo until democratic reforms are implemented.

Whether these protests trigger democratic change or become yet another chapter in the history of repressed dissent will ultimately depend on the ability of pro-democracy forces to sustain pressure and whether the international community finally decides to act. Gnassingbé’s constitutional manoeuvre may prove to be his final act, not because it succeeded in keeping him in power, but because it awakened a new generation. Togo’s young people have discovered the power of collective action—and that could prove decisive.

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

For interviews or more information, please contact [email protected]

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’);