As thousands of diplomats, ministers, activists and civil society leaders converge in New York for the annual session of the Commission on the Status of Women, the largest global gathering dedicated to women’s rights and gender equality, an uncomfortable question is quietly reverberating through the corridors of the United Nations system. At the very moment when global leaders publicly declare the urgent necessity of strengthening justice, equality and empowerment for women and girls, the organisation itself is facing growing criticism that it may be preparing to dismantle a crucial part of its own institutional architecture dedicated to those very goals. The controversy centres on a proposal that would merge UN Women, the agency tasked with advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment worldwide, with United Nations Population Fund, widely known as UNFPA, the body responsible for sexual and reproductive health programmes across the globe.
The proposal forms part of a sweeping reform initiative known internally as UN80, an effort intended to reshape and modernise the entire United Nations system as it approaches its eightieth year. Advocates of the reform argue that merging the two agencies could increase efficiency, eliminate duplication and provide governments and international partners with a single unified institution responsible for advancing gender equality and reproductive health objectives. The stated intention is to streamline operations, strengthen programme delivery and respond to mounting financial pressures confronting the organisation. Yet far from generating consensus, the proposal has ignited a profound debate among governments, diplomats and human rights advocates who fear that the restructuring may weaken rather than strengthen the global institutional framework designed to protect women and girls. This debate has unfolded against a deeply turbulent global backdrop in which gender equality and reproductive rights are facing some of the most intense political and ideological challenges in recent decades. At this year’s Commission on the Status of Women meeting the official focus is on strengthening access to justice for women and girls worldwide, a theme that reflects widespread recognition that legal systems continue to fail millions of women confronting violence, discrimination and structural inequality. However, for many participants the discussions unfolding inside conference rooms are overshadowed by concerns about whether the United Nations itself is at risk of diluting the very commitments it is urging governments to strengthen.
Critics of the proposed merger argue that the plan could inadvertently destabilise two agencies that already operate under severe financial constraints while confronting some of the most complex social challenges in the world. Jessica Stern, co president of the Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice, an organisation advocating for human rights within United States foreign policy, has warned that both UN Women and UNFPA have long functioned within a resource depleted environment. She notes that while the agencies are not the sole vehicles for achieving gender equality or guaranteeing reproductive rights globally, they remain among the most significant institutional mechanisms available within the multilateral system. In Stern’s view the current political climate is particularly hostile to gender equality initiatives, making any proposal that destabilises existing structures especially risky.
Her concerns reflect a broader anxiety shared by numerous women’s rights advocates who describe the present global environment as one characterised by an organised and increasingly effective backlash against gender equality and reproductive rights. This backlash manifests in legislative rollbacks, funding cuts and ideological campaigns that challenge established international norms concerning bodily autonomy and women’s participation in public life. In such a context critics argue that institutional restructuring within the United Nations risks weakening already fragile mechanisms designed to defend those rights.
One of the central fears expressed by civil society organisations and several member states is that merging the agencies may inadvertently reduce financial support from donor governments rather than expand it. Development funding operates within complex political dynamics in which institutional consolidation can sometimes signal to donors that programmes will require fewer resources. Gita Sen, a co founder of the feminist network Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era commonly known as Dawn, has emphasised that donors frequently interpret mergers as opportunities to reduce financial commitments. In a global development landscape already characterised by shrinking aid budgets and competing priorities, the perception that two agencies can operate as one may lead donors to conclude that fewer resources are necessary. Sen has cautioned that current funding levels for gender equality and reproductive health programmes are already dramatically insufficient when compared with the scale of need worldwide.
The financial realities of the two agencies underscore the magnitude of the concern. In 2024 the United Nations Population Fund operated with a budget of approximately 1.45 billion dollars while UN Women functioned with a budget of roughly 500 million dollars. Even taken together these figures represent a modest share of global development spending when measured against the enormous challenges associated with addressing maternal mortality, sexual violence, reproductive health access and economic inequality affecting women across the world. Critics therefore question why two agencies with relatively limited budgets and minimal operational overlap have been singled out for consolidation when other parts of the United Nations system involve significantly larger and potentially duplicative bureaucratic structures. A detailed report issued by the international reproductive rights alliance Fòs Feminista in January highlighted precisely this issue. The organisation argued that the merger proposal appears to rest on questionable assumptions about efficiency and overlap. According to its analysis UN Women and UNFPA operate with largely distinct mandates and programme portfolios despite sharing a broader commitment to gender equality. The report suggested that if the objective of UN80 is genuine institutional efficiency, greater savings could potentially be achieved through consolidation in other areas of the United Nations system. The decision to focus on agencies dedicated to rights based mandates has therefore raised suspicion among some observers that political considerations may be influencing the reform process.
Fadekemi Akinfaderin, the chief global advocacy officer at Fòs Feminista, has voiced frustration that alternative restructuring options appear not to have been fully explored. In her assessment the proposal seems to present governments with a binary choice between accepting the merger or abandoning reform entirely, an approach that many diplomats consider inconsistent with the consensus driven culture that has historically guided decision making within the United Nations system. Beyond concerns about funding and organisational efficiency lies a deeper political risk associated with the governance of the United Nations itself. Any merger creating a new agency would require approval through a vote of the United Nations General Assembly. Such a vote would inevitably open the door to political bargaining over the mandate and scope of the new institution. In the current geopolitical environment that prospect alarms many human rights advocates who fear that governments hostile to gender equality and reproductive rights could use the opportunity to weaken or dilute the mandate of the new body.
Particular attention has focused on the role of the United States, which in recent years has taken positions opposing several international initiatives related to reproductive rights. During the presidency of Donald Trump the United States withdrew funding from both UN Women and UNFPA while advancing policies such as the expanded global gag rule that restricts support for organisations involved in abortion related services. The United States also promoted the so called Geneva Consensus Declaration, an initiative emphasising national sovereignty over reproductive policy and rejecting any interpretation of international law that would create a right to abortion.
Jessica Stern has warned that if a merger proposal reaches the General Assembly, the United States could mobilise diplomatic pressure to reshape or weaken the mandate of the resulting agency. Such a scenario would place reproductive health programmes and broader gender equality initiatives at risk of becoming politically contested within the institutional framework that currently protects them. The political environment surrounding the Commission on the Status of Women illustrates the intensity of the ideological battle underway. Ultra conservative advocacy groups have increasingly sought to influence international negotiations over gender equality language in United Nations documents. One such organisation, the Centre for Family and Human Rights often known as C Fam, has been actively mobilising supporters during the conference. In a fundraising message circulated to its followers the group’s president Austin Ruse described the gathering of thousands of gender equality advocates in inflammatory terms while urging financial contributions to ensure that negotiated documents do not include language supporting reproductive rights or broader definitions of gender equality.
Although the rhetoric used by such organisations may appear extreme, it reflects a wider ideological movement that has gained traction in various regions. In parts of Africa narratives portraying reproductive rights and abortion access as forms of ideological colonialism imposed by Western governments have gained political resonance. In Latin America several governments aligned with conservative religious movements have reduced or dismantled institutional structures dedicated to gender equality. Countries such as Peru, Argentina, El Salvador and Panama have in recent years downgraded or closed ministries and public bodies responsible for advancing women’s rights.
Against this backdrop many advocates believe that merging UN Women and UNFPA could inadvertently weaken one of the few remaining global institutional safeguards protecting sexual and reproductive health programmes. Beth Schlachter, director of United States external relations at MSI Reproductive Choices, has described the proposal as potentially representing a critical moment in which decades of progress in international gender policy could begin to unravel.
The concern has prompted a broad coalition of civil society organisations to mobilise in defence of existing institutional mandates. More than five hundred rights groups along with nearly one hundred individual advocates have signed an open letter addressed to António Guterres, the Secretary General of the United Nations. The letter urges the organisation to safeguard sexual and reproductive health rights within the United Nations development system and warns that integrating such programmes into broader development mandates without explicit recognition risks rendering them politically invisible and chronically underfunded.
Support for protecting these mandates is not limited to civil society organisations. During a recent meeting of the UNFPA executive board several member states including the United Kingdom, Sweden, Brazil and Germany urged the United Nations leadership to ensure that sexual and reproductive health rights remain fully protected regardless of any institutional restructuring. The United Nations leadership has responded by emphasising that an assessment examining the potential benefits and risks of the merger is currently underway. Officials insist that the objective of the reform process is to strengthen rather than weaken the organisation’s ability to serve women and girls globally. In a recent address to member states the executive director of UN Women Sima Bahous reaffirmed that the agency’s mandate remains the most comprehensive within the United Nations system dedicated to achieving gender equality and protecting women’s rights. She assured governments that this mandate would continue to serve as the foundation of the organisation’s work even amid financial constraints and political headwinds.
Despite these assurances many advocates arriving in New York for the Commission on the Status of Women remain deeply sceptical. For those delivering frontline services in communities affected by gender based violence, forced marriage, honour killings and reproductive health crises, the prospect of institutional disruption carries real and immediate consequences. Programmes supported by UNFPA and UN Women provide essential resources including access to contraception, sexual education, legal advocacy for survivors of domestic abuse and support for accountability in cases involving marital rape and other forms of gender based violence. The stakes therefore extend far beyond bureaucratic restructuring within the United Nations headquarters. For millions of women and girls across the world the agencies represent lifelines that connect international norms to practical support on the ground. In regions where national governments lack the resources or political will to address gender inequality, the presence of United Nations programmes often provides the only avenue through which women can access basic reproductive health services or legal protection. As delegates continue their deliberations during this year’s Commission on the Status of Women meeting the debate over the proposed merger is likely to intensify. For many observers the central issue is not simply whether the United Nations should pursue institutional efficiency but whether it can do so without compromising the fragile architecture that has been built over decades to protect women’s rights at the international level.
Fadekemi Akinfaderin captured the essence of the concern in blunt terms when she suggested that the reform proposal risks sacrificing gender equality in response to financial pressures created by the withdrawal of major donor funding. Her remark reflects a sentiment shared by many activists who fear that the pursuit of organisational efficiency may ultimately result in the erosion of the very principles the United Nations was created to defend.
The coming months will determine whether the UN80 reform initiative evolves into a pragmatic effort to strengthen global governance or becomes a turning point at which the institutional foundations supporting women’s rights are weakened at precisely the moment when they are needed most. For now one reality remains unmistakably clear. In the midst of global crises, political backlash and shrinking development budgets, the battle over the future of gender equality within the United Nations system has become one of the defining tests of the organisation’s commitment to the rights and dignity of women and girls everywhere.