European Union

The scandal-hit US Ambassador to Greece, Kimberly Guilfoyle, has resigned at Donald Trump's request amid allegations that she suggested in Athens that Washington could topple governments in the region if they refused to buy expensive US liquefied natural gas. Shortly afterwards, Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan's government in Romania collapsed.

After a week of attacks on airports and industrial facilities in Saudi Arabia, the Iran-backed Houthi militia is threatening further escalation. Saudi Arabia supports the internationally recognised government in Yemen, which is fighting the Houthi. The US and the Mecca Alliance have so far been cautious in showing support for Riyadh.

Knowledge Politics and Policies Standing Group at the 2026 ECPR General Conference in Krakow

The 2026 edition of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) General Conference took place at Jagiellonian University in Krakow (Poland), 8-11 September. Over four conference days more than 2000 participants presented in over 500 panels discussing some of the most important topics of our times including democratic backsliding and resilience, radicalisation, climate change, and technological transformation. 

This is a special year for our ECPR Standing Group Knowledge Politics and Policies, as we celebrate the 10th anniversary of our Standing Group and the 15th time of organizing our section at the ECPR General Conference. Our Standing Group (initially under the name ‘Politics of Higher Education, Research and Innovation’) was established in 2016 following earlier successful sections at the ECPR General Conference and the previous UACES collaborative research network ‘European Research Area’ (2013-2016). Our section and Standing Group has evolved into an active research network with currently more than 200 members having initiated and supported a range of collaborations leading to joint projects, special issues, and edited volumes.

This year our section had 10 excellent panels on topics such as politics and policies of Artificial Intelligence, academic freedom, science diplomacy, research security and more. To learn more about the questions discussed, please see below panel summaries prepared by the panel chairs. 

Artificial Intelligence

Inga Ulnicane

The panel on politics and policies of Artificial intelligence has become a traditional element of our section, taking place the 7th year in a row. If in 2020 our first panel on this topic seemed to be the only one in the General Conference dedicated to AI, then over the years the number of  panels discussing AI across various sections has grown considerably. It is good to see that our AI panel keeps attracting a lot of interest and continues to be a place where field shaping publications and next steps are discussed. This year again speakers included authors of some of the most cited publications on AI governance and policy. 

Based on her recent World Bank working paper, Roxana Radu discussed the global landscape of national AI strategies. Tero Erkkilä presented his joint work with Konstantinos Kostas comparing various global governance indices on AI readiness. Inga Ulnicane talked about her research on limitations and alternatives to offering AI as a quick technological fix to complex societal challenges. Meng-Hsuan Chou provided findings from her study on how platform workers are portrayed on legacy and social media in Singapore. Finally, Susan Robertson’s talk was based on her recent article co-authored with Michele Martini on the use of AI in education. 

The panel was followed by an informal meet-up of AI politics researchers bringing together participants from the ECPR General Conference with attendees of the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST) conference that took place at the same time just across the road. Enthusiastic response and interest to the informal meet-up invitation exceeded expectations and led to vibrant interdisciplinary conversations. The meet-up confirmed high demand for more activities of high-quality research focusing on AI politics . If you are interested in upcoming activities, please get in touch!

Knowledge, Politics and the Changing Academic Profession

Panel chairs and presenters

What happens to the academic profession when both its mission to contribute to the public good and its authority over the production of knowledge are increasingly contested? This was the question at the heart of the panel Changing Profession, Changing Times. Chaired by Meng-Hsuan Chou (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore) and Eva Hartmann (University of Cambridge, UK), the panel zoomed in on four areas to examine this question, with contributions from Yiran Zhou (University of St Andrews), Premysl Rosulek (University of West Bohemia), Christopher Pokarier (Waseda University), and Eva Hartmann. The four contributions demonstrate that the challenges facing the academic profession cannot be reduced to questions of working conditions or institutional management. They concern the societal role of academia itself. 

The increasing securitisation of research raises questions about academic autonomy and the purposes of science. Using Australia mainly as a case study, Christopher Pokarier explores how nationalist pressures challenge the cosmopolitan orientation of higher education. The rise of “pseudoscience” – knowledge presented as scientific despite lacking a scientific foundation – adds a new dimension to the politicisation of academic knowledge, further pressuring the authority of scientific expertise, as Premysl Rosulek pointed out for the Czech Republic. In addition, the acceleration of academic work underpinned by a publish-or-perish culture raises questions about the conditions necessary for producing reliable and meaningful knowledge, as Yiran Zhou demonstrated in her study of Chinese academics. Reflecting on these developments therefore means asking not only how universities are changing, but also what kind of profession academia is becoming—and what role it can play in increasingly polarised societies.

Data and International Politics

The panel on data and knowledge interdependencies in international relations featured four presentations. Ivan Josipovic started his talk with a vignette around a German platform that traces knifing incidents in Germany, which, he argued, was difficult to comprehend using established conceptions of data activism. He proposed a more differentiated typology of civic data activism in migration governance along two dimensions: degree of epistemic alignment with state institutions and degree of centralized control over data infrastructures. Martin Albrecht Haenig presented a mixed methods research proposal on the landscape of European think tanks and their knowledge production about China. His research features a large-scale analysis of discourses derived from policy documents as well as process tracing to establish an understanding of how discourses translate into political decision-making. 

Yamini Yogya presented research on the circulation and mediation of knowledge in the context of the Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Yamini showed structurally divergent national knowledge flow networks and discussed how such structures affect the implementation of effectiveness of such science-policy-initiatives. Paul Dunshirn presented an interdisciplinary research paper on data interdependencies in global biodiversity monitoring, for which he systematically extracted data sources used in biodiversity research using a machine learning approach. His findings indicate strong global dependencies on publicly-funded U.S. American data sources, highlighting the vulnerability of biodiversity monitoring to ongoing funding cuts. Overall the panel highlighted emerging political questions affecting global flows of knowledge and data across policy contexts and different methods for capturing the interdependent relationships between involved actors.  It provided a vantage point for further research on both the factors shaping such interdependencies and the effects they have on political decision-making and policy.    

Knowledge, Power, and Citizenship

The panel Epistemic Governance in Higher Education: Knowledge, Power, and Citizenship, chaired by Hila Zahavi, brought together three papers exploring how institutions shape knowledge, education, and their political and administrative consequences. Yuan Zhou presented joint work with Duancheng Yang on how China’s National Social Science Fund reshapes political science through research funding and disciplinary priorities. Tao Zou presented joint research with Tatiana Fumasoli examining the unequal effects of Erasmus Without Paper digital infrastructure across European higher education institutions. Finally, Martin Dybdahl examined the political returns to higher education in Germany and the UK, distinguishing the effects of university education from selection into higher education.

European Higher Education Governance

The panel European Higher Education Governance in Practice and Context, chaired by Lise Moawad (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin), explored the practical dynamics of European higher education governance through a variety of case studies, revealing how the deployment of academic infrastructures (university alliances, doctoral reforms, quality standards, and scholarly communities) produce differing effects depending on national and disciplinary contexts. The presentations highlighted the tensions between European coordination, local adaptations and structural inequalities, and questioned the validity of certain commonly held notions in higher education studies.

David Joshua Schröder (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) began by outlining the different modes of engagement found in publicly funded university alliances, and the relationships these maintain with their member universities and external stakeholders, against the backdrop of the question of agency. Next, Jacek Lewicki (SGH Warsaw School of Economics) presented a pilot study on the implementation of a political programme for developing doctoral studies in Poland. He focused in particular on the 2018 shift in the structuration of doctoral education and what this entailed in terms of quality assurance.

Teresa Teixeira Lopo (Universidade Lusófona), for her part, examined the standardised roll-out of the Bologna Process from a critical perspective, using a case study of Paris-Saclay. She explored the various meanings of ‘pedagogical innovation’, a term that is often positively connoted and value-laden. Finally, Stanisław Krawczyk (University of Wrocław), Tessa DeLaquil (Norwegian University of Science and Technology) and Rasmus Harsbo (Adam Mickiewicz University) examined what the regionalisation of scholarly communication might reveal. To do so, they compared Polish history, where regionalisation is experienced as a constraint, and Danish game studies, where regionalisation is naturalised.

Governing Grand Challenges Through Transnational Strategic Partnerships 

Agata Lambrechts

The Panel on Governing Grand Challenges Through Transnational Strategic Partnerships chaired by Agata Lambrechts and Alina Felder-Stindt, focused on the emergence of these partnerships as flagship instruments in European and global governance. Setting the macro-level context, Agata Lambrechts examined how grand societal challenges themselves function as distinct ‘governance means’ in European policymaking within the education and training field. Through an analysis of the European Universities initiative and Centres of Vocational Excellence, her work demonstrated how challenges orient collective action, mobilise diverse stakeholders, and enable EU steering toward broader societal goals beyond mere economic competitiveness. Complementing this, Alina Jasmin Felder-Stindt introduced a joint conceptual framework with Linda Wanklin to systematically categorise transnational skills initiatives. By mapping configurations like cross-border education clusters and higher education alliances, she illustrated the diverse governance logics at play.

Moving from macro-policy to institutional realities, the panel also looked into the organisational design and everyday tensions of implementing these partnerships. Kim Waechtler addressed the structural friction within European Universities initiative alliances, introducing the concepts of Temporary and Permanent Meta-Organisations to capture how institutions navigate the clash between long-term strategic ambitions and strict, project-based deadlines. Her analysis suggested that these alliances actively sustain this temporal tension, resulting in a distinctive hybrid governance model. Building on this institutional focus, Lukas Fuchs explored how universities use these novel transnational channels to renegotiate their core purpose. He argued that as external pressures mount to address practical societal needs, alliances serve as crucial networks for moral reflexivity, allowing institutions to self-confidently re-imagine their material relationship with society beyond traditional appeals to academic freedom.

Governing the Politics of Research and Knowledge Security

Research and knowledge security have become prominent concerns for governments, funders and universities. Decisions about international partnerships, access to data, researcher mobility and emerging technologies are increasingly framed in terms of risk and strategic competition. Yet the meanings of research and knowledge security remain contested, as do their implications for academic openness and cooperation. This panel examined how these concepts are constructed, translated into policy and put into practice across different institutional and regional settings.

Chaired by Cristina Pinna (University of Groningen), Governing the Politics of Research and Knowledge Security: Rethinking Knowledge, Power, and Global Academic Cooperation brought together five papers. Gabriele Manca examined how references to China shape definitions of risk and justifications for research security measures in European academic and policy debates. Cristina Pinna and Annina Lattu compared how the EU and China govern open science alongside research security, identifying different approaches to openness and protection and their implications for EU–China academic cooperation.

Moving from policy debates to institutional responses, Mitchell Young, Zuzana Krulichová and Tomas Nigrin compared the Czech Republic and the Netherlands. They examined how relationships between states and universities shape responses to higher education interference. Monika Szkarłat studied the securitization of scientific cooperation in the European Arctic, focusing on Svalbard and the roles of states, EU institutions and scientific organisations amid geopolitical tensions.

Building on her experience in France, Valérie Zwilling shared a practical perspective on the shift from openness towards greater awareness of security concerns. Her paper brought the panel back to the practical challenge researchers face in sustaining collaboration while recognising the vulnerabilities that openness can create. Together, the papers showed how research security is defined and put into practice across different contexts. They raised questions about how institutions can address security concerns while maintaining the conditions for international scientific cooperation.

Academic Freedom

Krakow marks the second time for a panel on academic freedom at the Knowledge Politics and Policies section, coinciding with a still growing scholarly and policy interest in the theme. Anna Gall presented a paper titled “Unpacking Performances of Science Politicisation” where she explored the process through which science becomes politicized as the “rightful place” for science is being negotiated.  Drawing on perspectives from STS and political science, the paper built on cases from sustainability science and security-related research as vignettes. Mari Elken and Peter Maassen presented the paper titled “Academic Freedom and Political Polarization in Europe”. Exploring particularly the role of illiberal regimes, the paper analysed the different versions of the illiberal playbook in Hungary, Italy and Poland, to explore the various ways in which such regimes have tried to take control over higher education, comparing this to experiences in countries where such regimes have not obtained a strong position. The presentations were followed by a rich discussion on the issue of academic freedom and how securitization of science, increased political polarization and politization of science shape the conditions for research in Europe.   

Science Diplomacy

The panel Science Diplomacy’s Competitive Orientation included three contributions and was chaired by Mitchell Young of Charles University. The panel was influenced by the recent turn towards research security, which has become a key pillar in science diplomacy. Two of the papers related to this. Rachel Fishberg from Aarhus University presented her co-authored paper “Critical research as classificatory work from within”, which examined how the category of “critical research,” as it appears in policy discussions around critical materials and technologies, is translated from EU and state policy levels into institutional research governance. 

Adam McCarthy from University of Manchester presented a comparative study, titled “Science Diplomacy and the Making of AI Governance: A Comparative Study of UNESCO’s Ethics of AI and the EU AI Act View Paper Details”. As the lead author of a team working on these topics, he provided insights into this broad ranging examination of two different AI governance processes, comparing four aspects: definitional work, expertise legitimisation, authority building, and governance tools. Finally, Wojciech Szczerbowicz from University of Wrocław presented “Small states, knowledge hubs and the Arctic: science diplomacy in the foreign policy of the Nordic states” which was drawn from parts of the newly published book Science Diplomacy and Foreign Policy in Northern Europe (Szkarłat et al, 2026). He talked about the intersection of foreign policy and science diplomacy, which were addressed in tandem in each country case studied in the book. 

European University Alliances

Panel chairs and speakers

The panel The External Dimension of European University Alliances: Universities as Transnational Actors, co-chaired by Marina Cino Pagliarello and Andrew Gunn, examined how European University Alliances are increasingly moving beyond their original role in internal European integration and developing a more visible external dimension. Bringing together work on academic diplomacy, expert knowledge, policy transfer and institutional change, the panel explored how universities and alliances operate across the boundaries of higher education, transnational governance and European external action. Contributions included research on the European Commission’s role and influence in Indonesian higher education, the policy effects of the European Universities Initiative in Serbia, and European University Alliances as infrastructures of higher education diplomacy, including the case of CIVICA for Ukraine as well as examples of alliance engagement in Africa and Asia through academic partnerships, capacity-building and wider transnational cooperation. 

A central theme emerging from the discussion was the need to look beyond conventional accounts of EU influence based solely on normative power and to consider more closely the role of knowledge power: the capacity to shape institutional practices, policy agendas and transnational relationships through expertise, research, education and sustained cooperation. At the same time, the panel stressed that universities and alliances should not be treated as formal foreign-policy actors. Their significance lies precisely in the hybrid space they occupy, where institutional autonomy, national priorities, EU-level strategies and local adaptation intersect. The discussion therefore highlighted both the growing diplomatic relevance of higher education cooperation and the importance of examining how knowledge travels, is translated and becomes influence beyond the EU. 

Standing Group Business Meeting

At our Standing Group Business meeting, we discussed our recent successes and future plans. Former include an international workshop on AI politics research that took place at the ECPR Harbour House earlier this year and was supported by the ECPR Research Development Grant awarded to our Standing group. As in every Business meeting, we celebrated our most recent winner of the excellent paper award from an emerging scholar, Synne Lysberg from University of Bergen (Norway). We also took our traditional group photo that together with similar photos from previous years allows us to trace continuities and changes in our Standing Group and section. Our future plans include preparing the section for the next ECPR General Conference that will take place at the Pompea Fabra University in Barcelona, 7-10 September 2027. If the topics discussed in our section are of interest to you, watch out for the next call for applications for our excellent paper award and join us for our future activities!

The post ECPR Knowledge Politics and Policies 2026 appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Das Investieren in Immobilien bietet vielfältige Chancen, und mit Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC können Sie von diesen profitieren. Der Fonds konzentriert sich auf eine geographische Diversifikation innerhalb Europas und sichert dadurch nicht nur langfristige Wertsteigerung, sondern minimiert auch Risiken durch eine erfahrene Fondsverwaltung.

Ein breit gefächertes Portfolio sorgt für attraktive Renditen, da es langfristige Mietverträge umfasst, die einen stetigen Einkommensstrom garantieren. Nutzen Sie den Zugang zu exklusiven Immobilienprojekten und verlassen Sie sich auf die professionelle Marktanalyse, um stabile Entwicklungen zu gewährleisten. Mit Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC gestalten Sie Ihre Investitionen clever und sichern sich wertvolle Erträge.

Das Wichtigste in Kürze

• Geographische Diversifikation in Top-Immobilienstandorte Europas minimiert Risiken und sichert stabile Renditen.
• Langfristige Mietverträge garantieren stetige Einkommensströme und attraktive Erträge.
• Professionelle Marktanalyse und erfahrenes Fondsmanagement minimieren Investitionsrisiken.
• Exklusiver Zugang zu hochwertigen europäischen Immobilienprojekten.
• Ein breites Immobilienportfolio ermöglicht nachhaltige Wertsteigerung und stabile Entwicklungen.

Geographische Diversifikation: Top-Immobilienstandorte in Europa

Geographische Diversifikation ist ein wesentlicher Aspekt, der die Stabilität und Rentabilität des Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC sicherstellt. Der Fonds investiert in Top-Immobilienstandorte überall in Europa, um ein robustes Portfolio aufzubauen.

Interessanter Artikel: Das Schienennetz Europas: Mobilität im Überblick

Langfristige Wertsteigerung durch sorgfältige Standortauswahl Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC: Investieren Sie clever

Die sorgfältige Standortauswahl ermöglicht eine langfristige Wertsteigerung Ihrer Investitionen. Strategisch ausgewählte Immobilienstandorte in ganz Europa bieten optimale Voraussetzung für wachsendes Kapital und stabile Renditen.

Wer den Hafen nicht kennt, in den er segeln will, für den ist kein Wind der richtige. – Seneca

Risikominimierung durch erfahrenes Fondsmanagement

Durch das erfahrene Fondsmanagement von Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC wird das Risiko minimiert. Ein erfahrener Investmentansatz und eine sorgfältige Analyse der Marktentwicklungen stellen sicher, dass Ihre Investitionen bestmöglich geschützt sind.

Attraktive Renditen durch langfristige Mietverträge

Attraktive Renditen durch langfristige Mietverträge sichern stabile Einnahmen und minimieren das Risiko von Leerständen. Langfristige Mietverträge mit soliden Mietern schaffen eine verlässliche Planungsgrundlage und tragen erheblich zur Wertsteigerung des Portfolios bei.

Dazu mehr: Die Blaue Banane: Europäische Megaregion

.table-responsiv {width: 100%;padding: 0px;margin-bottom: 0px;overflow-y: hidden;border: 1px solid #DDD;overflow-x: auto;min-height: 0.01%;} Vorteile Beschreibung Beispiel Geographische Diversifikation Investieren in Immobilien an verschiedenen Standorten in Europa Objekte in Metropolen wie Paris, Berlin und Madrid Langfristige Wertsteigerung Sorgfältige Auswahl von Immobilienstandorten für nachhaltiges Wachstum Investitionen in aufstrebende Stadtteile Attraktive Renditen Langfristige Mietverträge sichern stabile Einnahmen Verträge mit erstklassigen Mietern über 10+ Jahre Breites Immobilienportfolio sichert stetigen Ertrag Breites Immobilienportfolio sichert stetigen Ertrag – Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC: Investieren Sie clever

Ein breites Immobilienportfolio ist entscheidend, um einen stetigen Ertrag zu sichern. Durch kluge Investitionen in verschiedene Objektarten und Regionen Europas ermöglicht Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC eine ausgewogene und verlässliche Rendite.

Ausführlicher Artikel: Blaue Europäische Krankenversicherungskarte: Ihr Schutz

Zugang zu exklusiven Immobilienprojekten

Mit dem Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC erhalten Sie exklusiven Zugang zu erstklassigen Immobilienprojekten, die sonst schwer erreichbar wären. Unsere Experten analysieren täglich den Markt, um Ihnen nur die besten Investitionsmöglichkeiten in Top-Lagen Europas anbieten zu können.

Stabile Entwickelung durch professionelle Marktanalyse

Durch professionelle Marktanalyse kann eine stabile Entwicklung Ihrer Investitionen gewährleistet werden. Unsere Expertinnen und Experten analysieren kontinuierlich den Immobilienmarkt, um rechtzeitig auf Veränderungen zu reagieren und optimale Entscheidungen für Sie zu treffen.

Investieren und profitieren mit Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC

Mit dem Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC haben Sie die Möglichkeit, von einem breiten Immobilienportfolio zu profitieren. Durch die Investition in europäische Top-Immobilienstandorte gewährleistet der Fonds eine stabile Wertsteigerung und regelmäßige Erträge. Vertrauen Sie auf das erfahrene Fondsmanagement und nutzen Sie den Zugang zu exklusiven Immobilienprojekten, um langfristig attraktive Renditen zu erzielen.

FAQ: Antworten auf häufig gestellte Fragen Wie hoch ist die Mindesteinlage für eine Investition in den Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC? Die Mindesteinlage für eine Investition in den Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC beträgt 10.000 Euro. Kann ich meine Investition im Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC jederzeit verkaufen? Ja, Sie können Ihre Investition im Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC jederzeit verkaufen, unterliegen jedoch möglicherweise einer Kündigungsfrist und Gebühren. Welche Arten von Immobilien umfasst das Portfolio des Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC? Das Portfolio des Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC umfasst verschiedene Arten von Immobilien, darunter Bürogebäude, Einzelhandelsimmobilien, Wohngebäude und Industrieobjekte. Wie oft werden die Renditen des Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC ausgeschüttet? Die Renditen des Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC werden in der Regel jährlich ausgeschüttet. Welche Kosten sind mit einer Investition in den Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC verbunden? Mit einer Investition in den Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC sind verschiedene Kosten verbunden, darunter Ausgabeaufschläge, Verwaltungsgebühren und gegebenenfalls Performance-Gebühren. Wie wird das Risiko beim Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC bewertet und gemanagt? Das Risiko wird durch eine sorgfältige Marktanalyse und Diversifikation des Portfolios über verschiedene Regionen und Asset-Klassen hinweg bewertet und gemanagt. Zudem wird die Performance regelmäßig überwacht, um rechtzeitig auf Marktveränderungen reagieren zu können. Gibt es eine Möglichkeit für nachhaltige Investitionen im Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC? Ja, der Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC bietet auch nachhaltige Investitionsmöglichkeiten, indem er in umweltfreundliche Gebäude und Projekte investiert, die den ESG-Kriterien entsprechen. Ist der Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC für Privatanleger geeignet? Ja, der Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC ist sowohl für Privatanleger als auch für institutionelle Investoren geeignet, die in ein breit diversifiziertes Immobilienportfolio investieren möchten.

Der Beitrag Deka Grundbesitz Europa RC: Investieren Sie clever erschien zuerst auf Neurope.eu - News aus Europa.

Satellite image of the Strait of Hormuz. Credit WikiMedia

By UN Women
GENEVA, Oct 13 2026 (IPS)

An additional 11.7 million women and girls could face food insecurity by the end of 2026, as the escalation in the Middle East and disruption to the Strait of Hormuz drive up food prices and strain livelihoods and household resources, according to a new UN Women analysis published today.

“Food security risks of the Middle East escalation for women and girls” finds that women and girls account for 53 per cent of the projected 22 million additional people who could face food insecurity by the end of the year across 28 countries analyzed. This is in addition to an estimated 208 million women and girls who were already food insecure or undernourished in these countries. These are scenario-based estimates, not forecasts.

“We know, as a matter of fact, that when food becomes scarce, women eat less and last. They often shift to less nutritious diets or skip meals altogether to prioritize the needs of others. Gender inequalities dictate who has access to food and the resources to obtain it. Therefore, investing in women and girls is a sure way of ensuring the well-being of families and communities,” said UN Women Deputy Executive Director Nyaradzayi Gumbonzvanda.

Disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz are driving up energy, fertilizer and transport costs, pushing up food prices. Combined with potential income and livelihood losses, these rising costs could make food harder to afford. For many women, existing inequalities in employment and access to financial services leave them with fewer resources to absorb these shocks.

More populous countries were found to have the largest numbers of women and girls who could face food insecurity. However, countries such as South Sudan, Sudan, Haiti, Yemen and Palestine face more concentrated risks, as multiple sources of vulnerability overlap.

In South Sudan, the additional number of women and girls who could face food insecurity represents around 14 per cent – or one in seven – of the South Sudanese female population – the highest proportion across the countries analyzed. In Lebanon, the additional number of women and girls who could face food insecurity represents nearly 4 per cent of the Lebanese female population, the second-highest proportion.

In many countries, women and girls make up a higher proportion of people who could face food insecurity. For example, in Afghanistan, women and girls are estimated to make up 60 per cent of people who could face food insecurity; in Yemen, more than 57 per cent; and in Sudan, nearly 56 per cent.

Employment also affects food security. In Egypt, Iraq, Palestine, Sudan and Syria, around 80 per cent of women are outside the labour force. In Afghanistan and Yemen, this rises to around 95 per cent, the report notes. Among employed women, more than 80 per cent are in vulnerable employment in Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Haiti, Mali and South Sudan.

According to the analysis, access to financial services could provide a buffer, but many women lack access to these services. In Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan and Yemen, fewer than one in five women owns a bank or mobile money account. This can limit women’s ability to save, receive remittances or cash assistance, or borrow safely when prices rise or incomes fall, increasing reliance on informal lenders, relatives or other household members and potentially putting their safety and protection at risk.

UN Women calls for an integrated response that combines food and cash assistance with nutrition, protection, livelihoods and agricultural support, while ensuring women can access land, credit, services and other productive assets. It also urges resources to be targeted to places where women and girls face multiple, overlapping risks, and delivered at the right time – including ahead of agricultural seasons. Better data are needed to identify where food insecurity is worsening and who is eating less, losing livelihoods, taking on more unpaid care work, or facing heightened nutrition and protection risks within households.

UN Women joins the calls for de-escalation and respect for international law and echoes the Secretary-General’s call to all concerned parties to work towards diplomatic solutions that advance regional and international peace and security.

IPS UN Bureau

 

 

 

 

Excerpt:

Disruption to the Strait of Hormuz is driving up food prices and putting further strain on the livelihoods and household resources of millions of women and girls, according to a new UN Women analysis.

AMENDMENTS 1 - 401 - Draft report Situation of international law and the risks to multilateralism, democracy and the European Union
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Elio Di Rupo

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

On Friday, Parliament will host Gulf Cooperation Council Speakers and representatives to discuss strengthening strategic ties and parliamentary cooperation.

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

On Friday, Parliament will host Gulf Cooperation Council Speakers and representatives to discuss strengthening strategic ties and parliamentary cooperation.

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 754 - Draft report Implementation of the common security and defence policy – annual report 2026
Committee on Security and Defence
Nathalie Loiseau

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Held as part of the 2026 UACES Doctoral Training Academy, the Small-Group Networking Session provided PhD students and Early Career Researchers with an opportunity to engage directly with experienced researchers and professionals working across different areas of academic and professional life. The session was designed to complement the broader professional development programme by creating a more informal and interactive space for participants to exchange experiences, ask questions and develop new connections.

The session brought together 12 experts with experience in areas including academic publishing, leadership, diversity and inclusion, and different early career researcher profiles and pathways. Rather than following a traditional panel format, the activity was organised around small rotating groups. Participants moved between the different experts throughout the session, allowing them to engage with a range of perspectives and have more focused conversations in a smaller setting.

The four areas were chosen by asking a fairly simple question: what do Early Career Researchers need to know to navigate academia today? Leadership in Academia focused on the different forms leadership can take at an early career stage: from organising projects and events to taking on responsibilities within your university department, and ultimately contributing to the wider academic community. Career Development focused on the uncertain, and often difficult, transition that comes after the PhD stage. We brought together different experiences and pathways from people working both within and beyond academia, to show that there is no single route forward and that life after the PhD does not have to follow the cookie-cutter transition straight into academia. Publishing gave participants the opportunity to have one-to-one time with our editors and look behind the curtain of a process that can sometimes feel opaque. We gave them space to talk openly about ideas, peer review, rejections, and finding a journal where their work might feel right at home. Equality, Diversity, Inclusion & Community focused on the environments in which academic careers actually unfold, and on what it means to build spaces where people feel welcomed, supported, and able to participate fully in academic life.

This format encouraged participants to take an active role in shaping the discussions. They were able to ask questions about the experts’ professional trajectories, experiences, and career decisions, while also discussing some of the challenges and opportunities associated with developing a career in and beyond academia. The conversations provided practical insights into different career paths, as well as an opportunity for participants to learn from experiences that may not always be visible through more formal conferences or training sessions.

An important outcome of the activity was the opportunity for participants to expand their professional networks. The small-group format made it easier to establish direct contacts with experts and with other participants attending the session. Beyond exchanging advice and experiences, the activity therefore helped create connections that participants could potentially continue developing during the UACES Annual Conference and thereafter. The diversity of the experts’ backgrounds, who hailed from institutions across Europe, also meant that participants were exposed to different approaches to research careers, leadership, publishing, and creating more inclusive academic environments.

Feedback from participants was very positive. The informal nature of the activity was particularly valuable in creating an open atmosphere in which participants felt comfortable asking questions and discussing their own experiences and concerns. The experts also contributed to this atmosphere through their willingness to share personal experiences and engage openly with participants.

The setting contributed significantly to the success of the session. As the conversations developed, most of the groups moved to the courtyard of the Hollar Building at Charles University. This provided a relaxed and pleasant environment for continued discussion and networking, and reinforced the informal character of the activity. The courtyard ultimately became a natural space for participants and experts to continue their conversations beyond the initial structure of the rotations. For us, this was probably the best sign that our format had worked: once the structure and the rigid format of the rotations had faded into the background, people simply kept the conversations going. What started as a planned, and very structured, networking activity gradually evolved into something more natural, with conversations going beyond not only the allotted time, but also the event itself, continuing throughout the Annual Conference and possibly even beyond that.

Overall, the session achieved its main objectives of facilitating peer learning, professional exchange and networking. By combining structured rotations with informal conversation, it created space for participants to gain practical insights, make new contacts, and reflect on their own potential career paths. The positive feedback and continued conversations in the courtyard demonstrated the value of creating informal, accessible spaces for connection within the wider UACES Doctoral Training Academy. We would also like to extend our sincere thanks to all the experts who participated in the session and generously shared their time, experiences, and insights with our participants. Their openness and willingness to engage in conversation were an essential part of what made the session so valuable and helped create the welcoming and informal atmosphere that allowed the discussions to continue well beyond the planned format. 

The post From Structured Networking to Meaningful Conversations appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

A group of UN Staffers outside the Secretariat. Credit: United Nations

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 13 2026 (IPS)

The United Nations has once again revived a longstanding problem that has been left lingering behind closed doors for decades – racism and racial discrimination at the UN Secretariat.

A message sent to UN staffers last week reads: “The United Nations is founded on the bedrock principle that all people are equal in rights and dignity. Racism has no place in our Organization, and we are committed to fighting it on every front”.

“But racism often hides within systems, becoming entrenched through policies and practices that may appear neutral, but in fact reinforce biases and deepen inequities. Bringing these patterns to light is crucial, and for that we need data.”

“That is why, on 17 October, we will be launching a voluntary race data collection initiative. This exercise invites all Secretariat staff to provide information about their race, to help the Organization better identify and address discrimination. It is optional. It is anonymous. And it is one of the best tools we have to discover where action is needed.”

Approximately 3,600 to 4,800 Secretariat staff members, including UN agencies, are based in New York.

Meanwhile, the UN Secretariat in New York, faltered ingloriously last year, as it withdrew its own online survey on racism, in which it asked staffers to identify themselves either as “black, brown, white, mixed/multi-racial, and any other”.

But the most offensive of the categories listed in the survey was “yellow” – a longstanding Western racist description of Asians, including Japanese, Chinese and Koreans.

Subsequently, a non-apologetic message emailed to staffers read: “The United Nations Survey on Racism has been taken offline and will be revised and reissued, taking into account the legitimate concerns expressed by staff.”

Dr Palitha Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section in the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) told Inter Press Service (IPS) racism today is not overly evident at the United Nations which was founded on ideals that were very much ahead of their times, but an undercurrent of racial superiority and racial bias exists among certain elements of the Organization. This is evident in certain appointments and deep-seated attitudes, even among some delegates.

“Racism in international bodies could be traced even to the founding of the League of Nations where President Woodrow Wilson strenuously opposed the Japanese proposal to incorporate the principle of racial equality in the constitution of the Organization. His vision of international order was hierarchical and implicitly based on a racial hierarchy that placed white, Western nations at the top”.

While the United Nations is staffed by many enlightened individuals, some bias based on race still prevails at the highest levels, he pointed out, despite the organization itself having been headed by two Asians and an African in recent times.

“Curiously certain positions have been held only by Europeans. For example, the position of the UN Legal Counsel has been held only by white Europeans. There are other positions apparently reserved for European countries”.

Some delegates are also still affected by racial prejudices of an unenlightened past.

In a well reported incident, the not-so-white chairman of the WEOGs ( a Western European group) from a Southern European country once told the recently-arrived Australian delegate (an Australian citizen of Asian ancestry) that the developing countries of the Group of 77 were meeting in an adjoining room—(implying he was an Asian at the wrong meeting).

In an Organization created on the high ideals of equality and merit there is no logical reason for reserving certain positions on the basis of race, even sub consciously.

“Having gone a long way in minimizing gender bias, it is time to ensure that all vestiges of racial bias are also eliminated. One way to ensure equality and equity in appointments might be to subject all appointments to an open application process with selections being made by racially and gender mixed panels,” declared Dr Kohona, a one-time Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN, and until recently, Ambassador to China.

Ian Richards, President of the UN Geneva Staff Union told IPS: “We are concerned this is being tackled very much from a North American perspective.”

“Race is only a useful indicator if it is combined with where you grew up, which indicates opportunities or disadvantages in formative years, and where you work now. Each region has its own history and attitudes. We don’t feel this has been taken on board,” he said.

Meanwhile, the circular to staffers also points out that by understanding how colleagues identify their race, we can:

•     Pinpoint areas where racial bias or disparities may exist;

•     Examine institutional factors that may contribute to racist misconduct, underreporting of incidents, or barriers to racial justice; and

•     Develop remedial measures to build a workplace free from racial discrimination.

Staff will be invited to participate by selecting a race category on Inspira. To ensure data protection and maintain privacy, your data will be anonymized and aggregated. It will not be used in connection with any individual human resources management processes, such as recruitment or promotions. It will not be visible to recruiters or hiring managers.

The collection of race data will be managed strictly in line with the parameters outlined in General Assembly resolutions A/RES/80/238 and A/RES/80/243 B, as well as the provisions set out in ST/SGB/2024/3.

The racial categories listed echo the language used in past United Nations staff engagement surveys. An additional question will ask staff if they consider themselves to be a member of a racialized community.

Speaking on condition of anonymity. a former UN staff member expressed concerns about the UN Secretariat Administration’s proposed race data collection initiative, particularly regarding its methodology, suitability for the UN’s diverse global workforce, and safeguards for sensitive personal information.

It was pointed out that a fundamental question remains unanswered: Is the lack of race-disaggregated data genuinely preventing the Organization from addressing racism, or does the real problem lie in the implementation of existing policies, the enforcement of accountability, and the failure to translate commitments into effective action?

This distinction must be established before sensitive personal data are collected on such a scale.

“Any approach to addressing racism and racial discrimination within the UN should also recognize the experiences of affinity groups and other minority and underrepresented communities, whose experiences of exclusion may not be adequately captured by standardized racial classifications”.

The absence of meaningful consultation with staff representatives, together with insufficient clarity regarding the conceptual or empirical basis for the selected racial categories, data protection measures, future use of the data, and independent oversight, further undermines confidence in the initiative.

The United Nations must demonstrate its commitment to equality through action, transparency, and accountability. Collecting sensitive racial data must not become a substitute for enforcing existing protections, addressing substantiated concerns, and correcting discriminatory institutional practices, the former staff member said.

“The ultimate measure of success is not how much data the Organization collects, but whether it can demonstrate that racism has been reduced, accountability strengthened, and the working environment made fairer for all staff”.

IPS UN Bureau Report