Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

A photograph of the 1971 Licorne nuclear test, which was conducted in French Polynesia in the Pacific Ocean. Credit: CTBTO

By John Burroughs
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Feb 12 2026 (IPS)

The most recent agreement limiting U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals, New START, expired on February 5, and prospects for any kind of follow-on agreement are very uncertain.

Progress over several decades in halting the growth of nuclear arsenals and then in reducing them is in acute danger of being undone. That is despite the fact that the objective of “cessation of the nuclear arms race” is embedded in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a keystone multilateral global security agreement.

In a U.S. statement delivered February 6 in the Conference on Disarmament, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Thomas DiNanno said that a “new architecture” is needed, one that takes “into account all Russian nuclear weapons, both novel and existing strategic systems, and address[es] the breakout growth of Chinese nuclear weapons stockpiles.”

That is a challenging project. An informal arrangement between the United States and Russia for transparently abiding by New START limits for at least a short period of time seems within the realm of possibility.

But obstacles to successful negotiation of a new treaty or treaties involving the United States, Russia, and China are major.

The Chinese have shown no interest in discussing limits on their arsenal, which remains much smaller than the U.S. and Russian arsenals. Russia wants negotiations to address U.S. missile defense plans and non-nuclear strategic strike capabilities.

The United States wants Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons and novel systems like a long-range nuclear-armed torpedo, both not limited by New START, to be addressed. More broadly, the ascendance of authoritarian nationalism and acute geopolitical tensions are not conducive to progress.

Nonetheless, especially with the next five-year Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference coming up this spring, it must be emphasized that the United States, Russia, and China are bound by the NPT Article VI obligation to pursue in good faith negotiations on “cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date” and on nuclear disarmament.

When the negotiations on the NPT were completed in 1968, cessation of the nuclear arms race was understood to centrally involve a cap on strategic arsenals held by the U.S. and the Soviet Union, a ban on nuclear explosive testing, and a ban on producing fissile materials for nuclear weapons.

Ending nuclear arms racing was seen as setting the stage for negotiations on nuclear disarmament, meaning the elimination of nuclear arms.

After the NPT entered into force in 1970, the United States and Russia expeditiously moved to cut back on arms racing by negotiating bilateral treaties limiting delivery systems and missile defenses.

The size of the Soviet stockpile of nuclear warheads, however, continued to climb until the mid-1980s. Then a series of treaties, above all the 1991 START I agreement, dramatically reduced the two arsenals while still leaving in place civilization destroying numbers of warheads.

With the demise of New START, there is no treaty regulating the arsenals of the United States, Russia, China, and other nuclear-armed states. China is expanding its arsenal and the United States and Russia are poised to follow suit. The three countries also in differing ways are diversifying their arsenals and increasing the capabilities of delivery systems.

Increasing, diversifying, and modernizing nuclear arsenals as now underway or planned amounts to a repudiation of the NPT objective of cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and fails to meet the legal requirement of good faith in pursuing that objective.

The NPT Review Conference would be an appropriate setting for launching an initiative to reverse this dangerous and unlawful trend. It must also be stressed that arms control among the three powers does not and should not exclude multilateral negotiations for establishment of the “architecture” of a world free of nuclear weapons.

John Burroughs is Senior Analyst, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy

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');  

US President Barack Obama delivers his first major speech, stating a commitment to seek peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, in front of thousands in Prague, Czech Republic, April 5, 2009. Credit: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 12 2026 (IPS)

When the nuclear Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between the US and Russia expired last week, it ended a historic era— but triggered widespread speculation about the future.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said “February 5 was a grave moment for international peace and security”.

For the first time in more than half a century, he pointed out, “we face a world without any binding limits on the strategic nuclear arsenals of the Russian Federation and the United States of America – the two States that possess the overwhelming majority of the global stockpile of nuclear weapons.”

US President Donald Trump dismissed the termination of the treaty rather sarcastically when he told the New York Times last month: “if it expires, it expires”—and denounced the expiring treaty as “a badly negotiated deal”.

“We will do a better agreement”, he promised, adding that China, which has one of the world’s fastest growing nuclear arsenals, “and other parties” should be part of any future treaty.

The Chinese, according to the Times, “have made clear they are not interested”.

Currently, the world’s nine nuclear powers are the US, UK, Russia, France and China—all permanent members of the Security Council—plus India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.

Collectively, they possess an estimated 12,100 to 12,500 nuclear warheads, with Russia and the US owning nearly 90% of the total eve while all nine are actively modernizing their arsenals.

Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute told IPS the START Treaty should be extended at least a year by formal or informal means. Is that as good as obtaining a new treaty that would include China as the US administration wants? No.

“Is it as good as fulfilling legally required steps such as adherence to the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) unanimous ruling to negotiate the universal elimination of nuclear weapons or the fulfillment of the promise of nuclear disarmament embodied in Article 6 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)? No”.

However, argued Granoff, doing nothing is asserting that a modest threat reducing easily obtained step now should not be taken because there are better ways forward. A modest positive step is no impediment to moving in other desired manners.

Fully terminating START communicates to the entire world that the US and Russia are so diplomatically inept that they cannot be trusted to continue to hold the entire world hostage to annihilation by holding thousands of first-use-ready nuclear weapons over everyone’s heads without adequate reasonable restraint, said Granoff.

The arguments being put forth as to why nothing can be done are inadequate.

First, the US argues that a new arrangement, a new treaty, is needed to bring China into the fold of restraint, he said.

“A modest step of extending START for a year by mutual presidential decrees while new negotiations take place does not negate creating a new treaty that would include China.”

Second, the arguments used to rationalize the new arms race fail to consider the folly of producing more accurate, usable, and powerful nuclear weapons”, declared Granoff.

Guterres pointed out the dissolution of decades of achievement could not come at a worse time – the risk of a nuclear weapon being used is the highest in decades.

“Yet even in this moment of uncertainty, we must search for hope. This is an opportunity to reset and create an arms control regime fit for a rapidly evolving context.”

“I welcome that the Presidents of both States have made clear that they appreciate the destabilizing impact of a nuclear arms race and the need to prevent the return to a world of unchecked nuclear proliferation.

“The world now looks to the Russian Federation and the United States to translate words into action. I urge both States to return to the negotiating table without delay and to agree upon a successor framework that restores verifiable limits, reduces risks, and strengthens our common security’, said Guterres.

In a statement released last week, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (PNND), a global network of legislators working to achieve a nuclear weapons-free world, said the importance of the New START treaty is hard to overstate.

“As other nuclear treaties have been abrogated in recent years, this was the only deal left with notification, inspection, verification and treaty compliance mechanisms between Russia and the US. Between them, they possess 87% of the world’s nuclear weapons.”

The demise of the treaty will bring a definitive and alarming end to nuclear restraint between the two powers. It may very well accelerate the global nuclear arms race, PNND warned.

This was one of the key reasons that on January 27, 2026, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists reset the Doomsday Clock to 85 Seconds to Midnight.

Last year, PNND Co-President Senator Markey introduced draft legislation into the US Senate urging the government to negotiate new post-START agreements with Russia and China. The legislation is supported by a number of other Senators and by a companion bill in the House of Representatives. But this seems to have fallen on deaf ears in the Trump Administration.

Granoff, providing a deeper analysis, told IPS the scientific data makes clear that a full-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia would annihilate humanity and that a limited nuclear exchange of less than 2% of the world’s arsenals would put around 5 million tons of soot into the stratosphere leading billions of deaths and the devastation of modern civilization everywhere.

“Realism reveals that the alleged need to duplicate the arsenals of adversary nations is not needed for deterrence. Realism also reveals that there is actually little to no meaningful difference between a nation having 600 (as China does now) or over 1400 deployed nuclear weapons, mirroring the US and Russia, or 30,000 nuclear weapons as Russia and the US each had at the height of the last arms race”.

“The reality is that devastation globally of a small portion of the world’s nuclear arsenals would be unambiguously unacceptable to any sane person. We could say that realism informs us that we have moved from Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to Self-Assured Destruction (SAD). The fact is that if any of the 9 states with the weapons were to use several hundred nuclear weapons that nation itself would also be devastated. MAD today reveals a new acronym, SAD.”

Meanwhile, a posting in the US State Department website reads:

Treaty Structure: The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, also known as the New START Treaty, enhances U.S. national security by placing verifiable limits on all Russian deployed intercontinental-range nuclear weapons. The United States and the Russian Federation had agreed to extend the treaty through February 4, 2026.

Strategic Offensive Limits: The New START Treaty entered into force on February 5, 2011. Under the treaty, the United States and the Russian Federation had seven years to meet the treaty’s central limits on strategic offensive arms (by February 5, 2018) and are then obligated to maintain those limits for as long as the treaty remains in force.

Aggregate Limits

Both the United States and the Russian Federation met the central limits of the New START Treaty by February 5, 2018, and have stayed at or below them ever since. Those limits are:

• 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments;
• 1,550 nuclear warheads on deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments (each such heavy bomber is counted as one warhead toward this limit);
• 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

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');  

Africa’s challenge lies not in a lack of ambition, but in ensuring that governance and accountability mechanisms are strong enough to turn commitments into results. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

By Françoise Uwumukiza
Feb 11 2026 (IPS)

Africa has never lacked agricultural strategies. Since the launch of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) in 2003, governments have pledged repeatedly to spend at least 10 per cent of public budgets on agriculture and to raise productivity through better investment and coordination. The African Union reaffirmed this target in subsequent declarations, such as Malabo in 2014 and the Kampala CAADP Strategy (2026-2035).

Yet, two decades on, one in five Africans still faces hunger, and few countries have met the budget commitment. With the upcoming African Union Summit around the corner, it is time to reflect on whether the continent’s food systems are finally on a path to lasting transformation. The lesson is clear: Africa’s challenge lies not in a lack of ambition, but in ensuring that governance and accountability mechanisms are strong enough to turn commitments into results.

The Kampala Correction

Adopted in 2025, the Kampala Declaration and Action Plan signalled a quiet but significant shift in Africa’s food and agricultural governance — recognising that transformation depends as much on political accountability as on policy and investment.

With the upcoming African Union Summit around the corner, it is time to reflect on whether the continent's food systems are finally on a path to lasting transformation
For the first time, parliaments are at the centre of the CAADP process. Legislators are now tasked with aligning national laws to continental targets, ensuring that agriculture, nutrition, climate and trade policies work in concert, and subjecting executive commitments to real oversight.

This correction matters. The Kampala Declaration recognises that accountability must extend beyond governments alone. It calls for stronger legislative scrutiny, transparent budget processes, and active participation by civil society and local authorities to ensure commitments translate into results. Without such checks and coordination, implementation will continue to drift.

The African Food Systems Parliamentary Network (AFSPaN) has translated this broader governance mandate into a Ten-Year Parliamentary Call to Action (2026–2035). It urges legislatures to:

• Align and update laws governing food, trade, climate and health;
• Scrutinise agricultural budgets and track spending efficiency;
• Institutionalise partnerships with civil society and local authorities;
• Guarantee gender- and youth-responsive policies; and
• Build data and analytical capacity to support evidence-based debate.

The Political Economy of Food

This is also a question of priorities. In many countries across Africa, debt-service costs often exceed agricultural budget. The continent cannot rely indefinitely on external aid while under-investing domestically in food and nutrition security. Parliamentarians have the constitutional authority to decide how money is allocated and to hold governments accountable for how it is spent. They should use this authority to ensure that fiscal policy — including debt management and investment decisions — directly supports long-term food and nutrition security.

Strong oversight is not an obstacle to executive action; it is the precondition for efficiency. Countries that have embedded accountability — such as Rwanda, where performance contracts and results-based budgeting are standard — demonstrate that governance can accelerate progress more effectively than any single financing instrument.

Accountability as the Missing Infrastructure

As the heads of state gather at the AU summit, the Kampala Declaration offers a timely reminder that Africa’s food crisis is as much a governance challenge as a production one. Infrastructure, markets and agricultural inputs remain vital, but the missing infrastructure deficit is institutional. Without transparent laws, credible budgets and measurable outcomes, even a well financed investment cannot deliver a lasting transformation.

The next decade under CAADP must therefore prioritise governance. The Kampala Declaration makes clear that success will be determined by technical agencies and political institutions. Its real test will be whether parliaments exercise the courage to challenge under-performance and to legislate for long-term resilience.

Parliamentarians have finally been given the mandate to connect these dots. They must now use it.

 

Hon. Françoise Uwumukiza, Deputy Secretary-General, African Food Systems Parliamentary Network (AFSPaN)

Excerpt:

Hon. Françoise Uwumukiza is Deputy Secretary-General, African Food Systems Parliamentary Network (AFSPaN)

UN Secretary-General António Guterres addresses the 426th meeting of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP). Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 11 2026 (IPS)

Since the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas in October of last year, humanitarian conditions in Gaza have notably improved — but aid agencies warn that progress is extremely fragile. Acute shortages of lifesaving medical care and psychosocial support persist, hunger remains widespread, with conditional cash assistance as the primary barrier preventing full-scale food insecurity, while Israeli attacks continue to undermine stability and humanitarian efforts.

Addressing the 2026 Opening Session of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres warned of the urgency of the current situation in Gaza.

“We enter 2026 with the clock ticking louder than ever. Will the year ahead bend towards peace–or slip into the abyss of despair?” Guterres said.

Guterres urged all parties to fully implement the ceasefire agreement, exercise maximum restraint, and comply with international law and UN resolutions, while calling for the rapid and unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid, particularly through the Rafah crossing, where aid personnel face the most severe restrictions. He also condemned the suspension of international NGOs, explaining that it “defies humanitarian principles, undermines fragile progress, and worsens the suffering of civilians,” adding that shelter, food, education materials, and other basic necessities must reach those in need.

In recent months, food security conditions in Gaza have shown notable, though uneven, improvement. Since the ceasefire went into effect, the World Food Programme (WFP) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) have brought over 10,000 trucks of aid into Gaza, representing roughly 80 percent of all humanitarian cargo. With this, the enclave was able to narrowly avoid the onset of famine.

WFP’s deputy executive director Carl Skau noted that most families he met were “eating at least once a day”, with some even managing two meals. Commercial goods such as vegetables, fruit, chicken, and eggs have gradually returned to local markets, while the distribution of recreational kits has helped children cope with the psychological toll of over two years of conflict.

However, progress remains fragile. The latest Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) assessment estimates that approximately 77 percent of Gaza’s population continues to face crisis-level food insecurity (IPC Phase 3), with around 100,000 people facing catastrophic conditions (IPC Phase 5). Moreover, most nutritious foods available in markets remain financially out of reach for civilians, leaving the vast majority of households heavily dependent on humanitarian food assistance.

For Gaza’s most vulnerable families, conditional cash assistance remains essential to accessing food. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), more than 3,200 agricultural households are currently supported through FAO cash programs, which also enable over 1,200 farmers to continue crop production and help more than 2,000 herders protect their livestock.

As markets gradually stabilize, humanitarian actors are seeking to shift their approach in favor of one that prioritizes building self-sufficiency. WFP has indicated its goal to transition to cash assistance as market conditions improve, shifting emergency relief efforts to restoring local food production and economic systems to allow for vulnerable families to be able to afford food. However, these efforts would require a significant upscale in funding, coordinated efforts between the international community, and the free flow of aid.

Meanwhile, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) reports that Palestinians continue to face widespread insecurity, driven by routine attacks on civilians and critical infrastructures. On February 5, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) released a humanitarian situation report documenting a sharp increase in airstrikes, shelling, gunfire, and fatalities between January 30 and February 5 compared to previous weeks. According to Gaza’s Ministry of Health, at least 82 Palestinians were killed and 162 injured during that period, including children and a health worker, alongside extensive damage to civilian infrastructure.

Further underscoring the risks faced by aid workers, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies reported on February 4 that a paramedic was killed while providing assistance in the Mawasi area. That same day, OCHA reiterated that civilians and humanitarian personnel “must never be targeted or used to shield military activities,” stressing that children and aid workers are afforded special protections under international humanitarian law.

The UN has also stressed that living conditions remain especially dire for displaced communities across Gaza. On February 3, heavy insecurity in the Al Mahatta and Sanafour areas of Gaza City forced approximately 40 families to flee their homes, with only 10 families able to return by the following morning. UN figures indicate that “capacity and funding constraints” have limited humanitarian support to only roughly 40 percent of the remaining functional 970 displacement sites across Gaza.

Healthcare needs are similarly overwhelming, as a steady influx of injuries and disease is compounded by the near-total collapse of Gaza’s health system. According to Jonathan Fowler, Senior Communications Manager of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the agency previously operated 22 clinics operating across the Gaza strip before the war, which has now fallen to just six.

“That makes it incredibly difficult to do our work and so many of our locations have been heavily damaged or indeed completely destroyed,” Fowler said. “On top of that, we remain banned by the Israeli authorities from bringing in any of our own supplies.” Despite numerous access and security constraints, UNRWA aims to assist approximately 15,000 patients each day, underscoring the scale of unmet medical needs across the most vulnerable areas.

Furthermore, OHCHR has documented a sharp rise in cases of mistreatment and abuse against displaced Palestinians by Israeli military forces, particularly along the newly reopened Rafah border crossing. As of February 5, Palestinians returning through the crossing for three consecutive days have reported consistent patterns of “ill-treatment, abuse, and humiliation”.

According to testimonies collected by the agency, returnees were escorted from the crossing to military checkpoints, where some were handcuffed, blindfolded, threatened, and intimidated. Others reported being subjected to invasive body searches, having personal belongings and money confiscated, and facing physical violence and degrading interrogations. Several individuals were also denied access to medical care and bathroom facilities, with some forced to urinate in public.

OHCHR also documented allegations that returnees were offered money to return to Egypt permanently or pressured to act as informants for the Israeli military.

“The international community has a responsibility to ensure that all measures affecting Gaza strictly comply with international law and fully respect Palestinians’ human rights,” said Ajith Sunghay, head of the UN Human Rights Office in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. “After two years of utter devastation, being able to return to their families and what remains of their homes in safety and dignity is the bare minimum.”

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');  

A young female domestic worker was doing housework for her employer in Manila, the Philippines. Credit: ILO Asia and the Pacific/J. Aliling

By the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)
BANGKOK, Thailand, Feb 11 2026 (IPS)

The COVID-19 pandemic reminded everyone how important care work is to daily life. When schools closed and hospitals filled up, often it was women and girls who stepped up at home. Their contributions made a big difference, yet these responsibilities often go unseen and unrewarded.

“For me, care work is the heart of humanity,” says Leah Payud, a resilience portfolio manager at Oxfam Pilipinas. “It anchors societies, families… and keeps them running. Without someone investing time, effort and resources in essential care tasks like cooking, cleaning, childcare, nursing the elderly and sick at home, nothing else would be possible.”

Strong social norms persist in the region where care tasks are automatically handed over to women and girls. On average, women and girls across the Asia-Pacific region spend two to five times more time doing unpaid care and domestic work (UCDW) than men.

In Viet Nam, women spend close to 19 hours a week on unpaid care, while men spend about 8 hours. In Malaysia and the Philippines, the gap is also clear. Women’s UCDW labour was valued at 1.6 times that of men. Despite working similar hours in paid jobs, women still take on most of the care responsibilities at home.

These care demands limit women and girls’ time, energy and ability to receive a full education or join the workforce. In 2023, fewer than half of working-age women in the Asia-Pacific region were employed, compared to nearly three-quarters of men. Many cited caregiving as the reason.

Meanwhile, paid care services remain underinvested in and undervalued. Those from marginalized or disadvantaged communities particularly bear the brunt due to low wages and relatively poor working conditions.

Experts further agree that supporting care work is good for families and the economy. A study by the International Labour Organization found that investing in care services like childcare and elder care could create up to 280 million jobs around the world by 2030. Most of these jobs would go to women. In Asia and the Pacific, recognizing unpaid care work could potentially add $3.8 trillion to the economy.

For those women in formal jobs and women entrepreneurs, the lack of care services can contribute to women dropping out of the workforce and being unable to grow and scale their businesses respectively. They face additional challenges, including the ‘motherhood employment penalty,’ ‘motherhood wage penalty,’ and ‘motherhood leadership challenge.’

Post-pandemic, ASEAN leaders have been paying more attention to this issue. In 2021, ASEAN introduced the ASEAN Comprehensive Framework on the Care Economy. It encouraged countries to invest in better care services and recognize the value of both paid and unpaid care work.

This Framework called for concrete steps to expand care services and support care workers, reflecting ASEAN’s broader goal of building inclusive communities.

The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and ASEAN also have been working together to strengthen care systems across the region. Through joint research, policy dialogue and technical support, the partnership helps turn data into action.

Together, ESCAP and ASEAN bring expert analysis to highlight the value of care work and support Member States to translate these insights into national policies. In 2023, ESCAP co-hosted a regional forum on care work with ASEAN.

The event brought together policymakers, community leaders and experts from across the region to share ideas on what support caregivers need most, while also delving into gender-responsive and care-sensitive policies and programs.

The topic gained further momentum when Lao PDR hosted the Third ASEAN Women Leader’s Summit in 2024, backed by capacity building and knowledge support from ESCAP and various development partners.

The Summit led to a new Declaration on Strengthening the Care Economy adopted by ASEAN leaders later that year, which recognizes the disproportionate presence of women in both the formal and informal care sectors, and identifies a range of gender-responsive priority actions.

“To create lasting change, we must prioritize transformative policies that recognize and redistribute the care burden equitably, without reinforcing traditional gender roles and norms. By promoting shared responsibility for caregiving among all members of society, we can pave the way for more meaningful opportunities for women to realize their full potential and empower women and girls to dream big and reach far,” says Cai Cai, Chief of the Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Section at ESCAP.

Many ASEAN countries are already taking action. Indonesia has launched a Care Economy Roadmap and National Action Plan (2025-2045). Cambodia is close to finalizing its own national action plan. Malaysia is developing a strategy to grow its care industry.

In the Philippines, care services are being strengthened through provincial and national care ordinances. Lao PDR is integrating care into both the Laos Women’s Development Plan 2026-2030 and the 10th Five-Year National Socio-Economic Development Plan. Timor-Leste is working on a new Domestic Workers Law and has set up a national Working Group on Care.

Together, these efforts reflect a shared regional commitment to making care more visible, accessible and valued.

Looking ahead, ASEAN’s next community vision presents an opportunity to make care and gender equality a stronger part of the region’s development story. Mainstreaming them across all three ASEAN community pillars will ensure ASEAN can harness all of its vast resources to accelerate progress towards achieving the global Sustainable Development Goals, in particular SDG 5 on gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls, with Target 5.4 aiming to recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work.

Care touches every part of life. Supporting care is not just about new policies. It is about recognizing the needs of real people from every background and building systems that respond to them. When we recognize and invest in care, we create more chances for women to work, for families to thrive and for communities to grow stronger.

The article was prepared with substantive input contributed by Channe Lindstrom Oguzhan, Social Development Division.

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');  

Women make up more than half of IFAD’s project participants, while over 60 percent of its active project portfolio is youth-sensitive, reaching more than 12 million young people globally. Photo: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

By Joyce Chimbi
NAIROBI, Feb 11 2026 (IPS)

The global aid system is crumbling amidst chronic underinvestment in rural areas, posing a systemic threat to food systems everywhere.

With 1.3 billion young people in the world today – the largest generation in history, and nearly half of them living in rural areas – investing in their entrepreneurial potential is key.

Speaking during a press briefing on February 10, 2026, at the International Fund for Agricultural Development‘s (IFAD) 49th Governing Council, the president, Alvaro Lario, said investing in young entrepreneurs and women farmers unlocks new pathways for employment and ensures that rural areas become thriving engines of stability, prosperity and sustainable growth.

The overarching theme of the ongoing session of the Governing Council is “From Farm to Market: Investing with Young Entrepreneurs” and is being held at a pivotal moment when the global aid system is in urgent need of reinvention.

“We are at a very complex time of geopolitical fragmentation and constrained budgets for many countries. Food systems are going through various regular shocks that include climate shocks. So, rural transformation means economic growth, creating jobs and building stability,” Lario stated.

Lario advocated for public-private partnerships that connect farmers with private companies, which invest directly in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) through blended finance, guarantees, and various forms of debt or equity, ultimately increasing access to rural finance. Public finance alone cannot deliver the transformation of food systems, raise rural incomes, or create decent jobs.

IFAD’s president, Alvaro Lario, with Tony Elumelu, chairman of UBA, and Heirs Holdings and founder of the Tony Elumelu Foundation. Credit: IFAD/Hannah Kathryn Valles

SME-driven value chains are critical to rural development. IFAD’s assessments show that SME-focused value chain projects are more likely to deliver transformational impacts – in other words, where incomes increase by more than 50 per cent because of the project. The Project for Rural Income through Exports in Rwanda (PRICE) increased returns to farmers through the development of export-driven value chains for coffee, tea, silk farming and horticulture.

In brief, he said the private sector accounts for more than 90 per cent of global food systems’ activity and that it complements public sector financing in a critical way by providing technology, market access, and logistics. Emphasising that these are the elements that allow small farms, pastoralists, fishers, rural entrepreneurs and other agri-food enterprises to grow and prosper.

Overall, at the Governing Council, Lario underscored the immense strategic and business value of investing in rural economies, presented new impact data and priorities for 2028-2030 and outlined the most effective models for scaling up productive investments. He was joined by Tony Elumelu, Chair of United Bank for Africa and Heirs Holdings, and founder of the Tony Elumelu Foundation, in outlining a new deal for rural economies.

They spoke at length about how to accelerate the shift to channel more private investments to rural economies. On young African entrepreneurs and facilitating their access to financing, he said as currently constituted, a bank cannot lend without collateral and consideration of social repayment.

“Since the regulatory environment does not permit banks to lend without taking these issues into consideration, countries create development financing institutions that can take some of the risks. And, also, having development financing institutions and global financing that help to de-risk transactions so that banks can come in and provide the capital,” Elumelu said.

“One of the reasons my wife and I established the Tony Elumelu Foundation is to support young African entrepreneurs. Access to capital is critical for entrepreneurship development. But oftentimes, people lack what it takes to access it. The Foundation has provided USD100 million. And every year, we identify young African entrepreneurs who have business ideas and train them on how to actualise these ideas.”

Further emphasising that access to capital, “while important, is not the only condition that will make you succeed. Business education is important. So we train them, appoint mentors for them, create a networking platform for them, and then provide them with the knowledge they need to receive capital. To date, in Africa, we have funded over 24,000 young African entrepreneurs. And the good news is that about half of these people are females.”

Elumelu said youth-centred interventions significantly boost agro-entrepreneurship as a key driver for economic growth, job creation, and stability while addressing the youth opportunity deficit.

“Nearly 21 percent of those who are funded in Africa are in agriculture and agribusinesses.  And out of these 21 percent, which is about 5,600 beneficiaries, 55 percent of them are females. So in a way, we are trying to help bridge that capital gap, finance gap. But that is not enough. It’s just a tiny drop of water in the ocean. So we need even more partnerships.”

Elumelu further drew on his Africapitalism philosophy, which is a call to action for businesses to move beyond short-term profit-seeking and instead make investments that generate socio-economic benefits for the communities in which they operate. And his foundation’s decade-long experience building Africa’s largest entrepreneurship ecosystem speaks to how entrepreneurship, private capital, and market-driven solutions can transform rural economies, expand food systems, and close the youth opportunity gap.

IFAD is an international financial institution and a United Nations-specific agency that invests in rural communities, empowering them to reduce poverty, increase food security, improve nutrition, and strengthen resilience. It has thus far provided more than USD 25 billion in grants and low-interest loans to fund projects in developing countries.

The Governing Council is IFAD’s highest decision-making body that, among other things, provides a forum for Governors to share their insights on priority areas for strategic action to lift the livelihoods of rural people.

This session also takes place at the beginning of the International Year of the Woman Farmer, declared in recognition of the key role that women farmers around the world play in agrifood systems and their contributions to food security, nutrition and poverty eradication.

Empowering youth and women entrepreneurs to initiate and expand agribusinesses serves as a vital catalyst for economic development and creates lasting positive impacts. Women make up more than half of IFAD’s project participants, while over 60 per cent of the active project portfolio is youth-sensitive, reaching more than 12 million young people globally.

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');  

Every morning before sunrise, 10-year-old Amina Adan walks away from school and toward a shrinking water pan on the outskirts of Rhamu, Mandera County. By the time her classmates would be opening exercise books, Amina was already balancing a yellow jerrycan almost half her size. Her mother, Fatuma Adan, says the choice is no longer […]

Millions of children are at risk of facing exploitation and abuse through exposure to and having their images being manipulated through generative AI tools. Credit: Ludovic Toinel/Unsplash

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 10 2026 (IPS)

New findings from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reveal that millions of children are having their images manipulated into sexualized content through the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI), fueling a fast-growing and deeply harmful form of online abuse. The agency warns that without strong regulatory frameworks and meaningful cooperation between governments and tech platforms, this escalating threat could have devastating consequences for the next generation.

A 2025 report from The Childlight Global Child Safety Institute—an independent organization that tracks child sexual exploitation and abuse—shows a staggering rise in technology-facilitated child abuse in recent years, growing from 4,700 cases in the United States in 2023 to over 67,000 in 2024. A significant share of these incidents involved deepfakes: AI-generated images, videos, and audio engineered to appear realistic and often used to create sexualized content. This includes widespread “nudification”, where AI tools strip or alter clothing in photos to produce fabricated nude images.

A joint study from UNICEF, Interpol, and End Child Prostitution in Asian Tourism (ECPAT) International examined the rates of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) circulated online across 11 countries found that at least 1.2 million children had their images manipulated into sexually explicit deepfakes in the past year alone. This means roughly one in every 25 children—or one child in every classroom—has already been victimized by this emerging form of digital abuse.

“When a child’s image or identity is used, that child is directly victimised,” a UNICEF representative said. “Even without an identifiable victim, AI-generated child sexual abuse material normalises the sexual exploitation of children, fuels demand for abusive content and presents significant challenges for law enforcement in identifying and protecting children that need help. Deepfake abuse is abuse, and there is nothing fake about the harm it causes.”

A 2025 survey from National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) studied the public’s attitudes toward deepfake abuse, finding that deepfake abuse had surged by 1,780 percent between 2019 and 2024. In a UK-wide representative survey conducted by Crest Advisory, nearly three in five respondents reported feeling worried about becoming victims of deepfake abuse.

Additionally, 34 percent admitted to creating a sexual or intimate deepfake of someone they knew, while 14 percent had created deepfakes of someone they did not know. The research also found that women and girls are disproportionately targeted, with social media identified as the most common place where these deepfakes are spread.

The study also presented respondents with a scenario in which a person creates an intimate deepfake of their partner, discloses it to them, and later distributes it to others following an argument. Alarmingly, 13 percent of respondents said this behavior should be both morally and legally acceptable, while an additional 9 percent expressed neutrality. NPCC also reported that those who considered this behavior to be acceptable were more likely to be younger men who actively consume pornography and agree with beliefs that would “commonly be regarded as misogynistic”.

“We live in very worrying times, the futures of our daughters (and sons) are at stake if we don’t start to take decisive action in the digital space soon,” award-winning activist and internet personality Cally-Jane Beech told NPCC. “We are looking at a whole generation of kids who grew up with no safeguards, laws or rules in place about this, and now seeing the dark ripple effect of that freedom.”

Deepfake abuse can have severe and lasting psychological and social consequences for children, often triggering intense shame, anxiety, depression, and fear. In a new report, UNICEF notes that a child’s “body, identity, and reputation can be violated remotely, invisibly, and permanently” through deepfake abuse, alongside risks of threats, blackmailing, and extortion from perpetrators. Feelings of violation – paired with the permanence and viral spread of digital content – can leave victims with long-term trauma, mistrust, and disrupted social development.

“Many experience acute distress and fear upon discovering that their image has been manipulated into sexualised content,” Afrooz Kaviani Johnson, a Child Protection Specialist at UNICEF told IPS. “Children report feelings of shame and stigma, compounded by the loss of control over their own identity. These harms are real and lasting: being depicted in sexualised deepfakes can severely impact a child’s wellbeing, erode their trust in digital spaces, and leave them feeling unsafe even in their everyday ‘offline’ lives.”

Cosmas Zavazava, Director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau at the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), added that online abuse can also translate to physical harm.

In a joint statement on Artificial Intelligence and the Rights of the Child, key UN entities, including UNICEF, ITU, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the UN Commission of the Rights of the Child (CRC) warned that among children, parents, caregivers and teachers, there was a widespread lack of AI literacy. This refers to the basic ability to understand how AI systems work and how to engage with them critically and effectively. This knowledge gap leaves young people especially vulnerable, making it harder for victims and their support systems to recognize when a child is being targeted, to report abuse, or to access adequate protections and support services.

The UN also emphasized that a substantial share of responsibility lies with tech platforms, noting that most generative AI tools lack meaningful safeguards to prevent digital child exploitation.

“From UNICEF’s perspective, deepfake abuse thrives in part because legal and regulatory frameworks have not kept pace with technology. In many countries, laws do not explicitly recognise AI‑generated sexualised images of children as child sexual abuse material (CSAM),” Johnson said.

UNICEF is urging governments to ensure that definitions of CSAM are updated to include AI-generated content and “explicitly criminalise both its creation and distribution”. According to Johnson, technology companies should be required to adopt what she called “safety-by-design measures” and “child-rights impact assessments”.

She stressed however that while essential, laws and regulations alone would not be enough. “Social norms that tolerate or minimise sexual abuse and exploitation must also change. Protecting children effectively will require not only better laws, but real shifts in attitudes, enforcement, and support for those who are harmed.”

Commercial incentives further compound the problem, with platforms benefitting from increased user engagement, subscriptions, and publicity generated by AI image tools, creating little motivation to adopt stricter protection measures.

As a result, tech companies often introduce guardrails only after major public controversies — long after children have already been affected. One such example is Grok, the AI chatbot for X (formerly Twitter), which was found generating large volumes of nonconsensual, sexualized deepfake images in response to user prompts. Facing widespread, international backlash, X announced in January that Grok’s image generator tool would only be limited to X’s paid subscribers.

Investigations into Grok are ongoing, however. The United Kingdom and the European Union have opened investigations since January, and on February 3, prosecutors in France raided X’s offices as part of its investigation into the platform’s alleged role in circulating CSAM and deepfakes. X’s owner Elon Musk was summoned for questioning.

UN officials have stressed the need for regulatory frameworks that protect children online while still allowing AI systems to grow and generate revenue. “Initially, we got the feeling that they were concerned about stifling innovation, but our message is very clear: with responsible deployment of AI, you can still make a profit, you can still do business, you can still get market share,” said a senior UN official. “The private sector is a partner, but we have to raise a red flag when we see something that is going to lead to unwanted outcomes.”

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');  

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva at the World Government Summit, Dubai, UAE 3-5 February 2026. Credit: International Monetary Fund (IMF)

By Kristalina Georgieva
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Feb 10 2026 (IPS)

It is a pleasure for me to join His Excellency, Minister Al Hussaini in welcoming you to this important dialogue here in the United Arab Emirates—a fast-growing global AI hub. A recent Microsoft study reports that 64 percent of the UAE’s working age population uses AI, which is the highest rate globally.

This illustrates the dynamism we see in the region—and the major investments and partnerships that some of the world’s biggest tech companies are making here.

Why such a huge commitment to this region? Because the UAE and the members of the GCC all understand just how transformative AI can be. They have made systemically significant investments in human capital over the last decades. IMF estimates show that, with the right measures in place, AI could fuel a boost to global productivity of up to 0.8 percentage points per year. This could raise global growth to levels exceeding those of the pre-pandemic period.

Here in the Gulf region, AI could boost non-oil GDP in Gulf countries by up to 2.8 percent. For economies that have long been dependent on hydrocarbon exports, this presents an enormous opportunity to diversify and build new sources of growth.

Now, major technology changes often bring disruption. And sure enough, we can expect disruption from AI. Especially to labor markets. On average, 40 percent of jobs globally will be impacted by AI—either upgraded or eliminated or transformed. For advanced economies, 60 percent of jobs will be affected. This is like a tsunami hitting the labor market.

We are already seeing the evidence: about one in 10 job postings in advanced economies now require at least one new skill. Workers with in-demand skills will likely see productivity and wage gains. This will create more demand for services, and increase employment and wages among low-skilled workers. But middle-skilled jobs will be squeezed.

That means that young people and the middle class will be hit hardest.

We can expect to see a similar divergence between countries. Those with an economic structure conducive to AI adoption—that is, strong digital infrastructure, more skilled labor forces, and robust regulatory frameworks—are likely to experience the largest and fastest benefits. Countries that don’t may get left behind. This is why we gathered here today. AI looks unstoppable.

But whether or not countries can successfully capitalize on AI’s enormous promise is yet to be determined. And this will largely depend on the policy regimes they put in place. So then, what must be done to ensure AI translates into broad-based prosperity for this region?

First, macro policies. Investment and innovation in AI will boost growth. Fiscal policies can support this by strengthening tax systems and by funding research, reskilling, or sector-based training programs. However, tax systems should not encourage automation at the expense of people. Likewise, effective financial regulation will be essential to ensure financial market efficiency and improved risk management.

Second, guardrails. AI needs to be regulated to ensure it’s safe, fair, and trustworthy—but without stifling innovation. Different countries are taking different approaches, ranging from risk-based frameworks to high-level principles. Whatever approach they take, it’s critical that countries coordinate.

That brings me to my third point: cooperation and partnerships. Scale is a big advantage in AI. But you can’t get scale without cooperation among governments, AI researchers and developers, including when it comes to data sharing and knowledge transfer.

Let me conclude. AI will transform our economies. It will present immense opportunities and pose significant risks. And it falls to you, the world’s policymakers, to ensure that the opportunities are maximized for your countries and the risks controlled.

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 Jomo Kwame Sundaram
ZAMBOANGA, Philippines, Feb 10 2026 (IPS)

Despite lacking both evidence and theory, many economists claim trade liberalisation accelerates development. But only a few economies have gained many jobs from external market access.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Instead, most economies have experienced greater deindustrialisation and food insecurity, besides deepening their vulnerability to recent tariff threats.

Multilateral trade liberalisation
In conventional trade theory, gains from trade liberalisation are mainly one-time increases in output and exports due to static comparative advantage.

Post-World War Two (WWII) US foreign policy transformed multilateral relations and transnational institutions, including international economic governance.

With the growing power of transnational corporations, many multilateral institutions, including the United Nations system, have been reconfigured or marginalised.

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was a ‘second-best’ compromise after the US Congress vetoed the creation of the International Trade Organisation, despite widespread international enthusiasm for the 1948 Havana Charter.

Almost half a century later, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was established in 1995, following the 1994 Marrakesh Declaration concluding the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations.

Trade mahaguru Jagdish Bhagwati argued that multilateral trade has been undermined by plurilateral and bilateral arrangements favouring dominant partners.

With the era of trade liberalisation essentially over since the 2008-09 global financial crisis (GFC), free trade advocacy has received a new lease of life from mythmaking about the ‘pre-Trump’ era.

Uneven, mixed effects
Mainstream trade theory does not entertain the possibility of ‘unequal exchange’, however defined.

Nor does it even incorporate Bhagwati’s notion of ‘immiserising growth’ when productivity gains reduce prices for consumers, rather than increase producers’ earnings.

The three decades of trade liberalisation from the 1980s saw slower, but more volatile growth than the post-WWII quarter-century termed the ‘Golden Age’. More recently, stagnationist tendencies have dominated since the GFC.

With trade liberalisation, many developing countries have experienced greater food insecurity and deindustrialisation, as the manufacturing shares of their national income shrank.

Much import-substituting industrialisation after WWII or independence has since collapsed. Besides resource processing, very few new industries have emerged in Africa.

‘Aid for Trade’ for poorer developing countries implicitly acknowledges trade liberalisation’s adverse effects by mitigating some of them. Why then should they abandon protectionism if they need to be compensated for doing so?

Wealthy nations have also insisted that developing countries end manufacturing tariffs. But as Dani Rodrik has quipped, why rich nations “need to be bribed by poor countries to do what is good for them is an enduring mystery”.

African nations and Caribbean and Pacific small island developing states enjoyed preferential access to European markets, which full multilateral trade liberalisation would eliminate.

Such preferences for Sub-Saharan Africa have pitted African against Asian least developed countries, undermining the collective negotiating strengths of both.

Many countries had expected the current Doha Round to eliminate rich nations’ producer subsidies, tariffs, and non-tariff barriers, but that has not happened.

Cutting farm support in the North could make food agriculture in developing countries more viable, but would also raise food import prices in the interim.

World Bank ‘structural adjustment’ programmes and IMF fiscal discipline requirements have undermined rural infrastructure and productivity, setting back smallholder agriculture in most developing countries.

Setbacks, not gains
Trade liberalisation also reduces tariff revenue. Such losses have hurt developing nations, especially the poorest, for whom tariffs often accounted for up to half of all tax revenue.

Such revenue cuts severely undermined the fiscal means of developing nations, crucial for government spending and investment, including for development and welfare.

Most governments are unable to replace lost tariff revenue with new or higher taxes. Meanwhile, more borrowing to offset lost tariff revenue has worsened indebtedness.

Trade liberalisation advocates are typically vague about how it is supposed to raise exports, incomes, and tax revenue, besides compensating for lost tariff revenue.

Instead, tax burdens typically become more regressive as overall tax revenue declines. Real consumption is supposed to rise as import prices fall with lower tariffs, but could also decline due to increasing consumption taxes.

Less policy space
Trade liberalisation has also reduced available development policy tools, especially those relating to trade, investment, and industrialisation.

The constraints imposed by trade liberalisation and investment agreements have generally limited the scope for and potential of development policy initiatives.

The actual role and impact of trade policy for growth and employment remain moot. But there are no analytical reasons or robust empirical evidence that trade liberalisation per se ensures sustainable development.

World Bank and most other studies acknowledged modest, if not negative, net gains for most developing countries from any realistically achievable outcome.

It is often ignored that realistic expectations of gains from trade liberalisation rely crucially on a strong positive export supply response.

However, such a response is unlikely when internationally competitive, productive and export capacities do not already exist, as in most developing countries, especially the poorest.

Hence, most of the Global South has not been able to overcome the worst consequences of trade liberalisation to achieve sustainable development.

In any case, the WTO Doha Round talks were ended by rich nations in 2015.

With the increasingly blatant self-interested contravention of WTO rules by the US, European and other wealthy nations, developing countries may best enhance their development prospects by reverting to GATT rules.

This would allow them to opt in, as appropriate, rather than resign themselves to the uniform ‘one size fits all’ WTO rules and regulations, regardless of context, circumstances, capacities and capabilities.

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');   Related Articles

• No African Development from Western Trade Policies
• Trump Undresses Rival Trade Myths
• Trump’s ‘Shock and Awe’ Tariffs
• Trade Liberalisation Kicked Away African Development Ladder
• Trade Deception Returns in Pan-Africanist Guise
• Weaponizing Free Trade Agreements
• Trade Liberalization for Development?
• Agricultural Trade Liberalization Undermined Food Security

Credit: Port Vila Market, Vanuatu – Kevin Hellon / shutterstock.com

By Tobias Ide
Feb 9 2026 (IPS)

 
The Pacific Island countries are at the frontline of climate change. Their territories mostly consist of small, low-lying islands, with long coastlines and vast ocean spaces between them. Many livelihoods are based on agriculture or fishing, and importing water or food is often infeasible or expensive. This makes those large ocean nations highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such as storms, droughts, and rising sea levels. Analysts have expressed concerns that this can result in various forms of socio-political conflict.

However, the Pacific Island countries have received scarce attention in research on climate change and conflict. This is surprising given the Pacific Island countries’ high climate vulnerability and increasing geopolitical relevance. A few years back, a Nature article did not find a single peer-reviewed study on the climate-conflict nexus in the Pacific. And while recent work added important insights on potential pathways between climate and conflict in the Pacific Island countries, the region remains understudied.

A new study tackles this knowledge gap by systematically collecting data on conflict events (such as protests, riots, and communal violence) in Fiji, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu. It then determines statistical associations between the occurrence of such conflicts—protests, riots, communal violence etc.—and climate extremes like storms, heatwaves, and floods. The results are surprising.

Climate extremes do not drive conflict risks

The researchers found that climate disasters are not a significant predictor of conflict events. This is true for both cities and rural areas. In cities, high values of (and competition for) land, immigration after disasters, and opportunities for political mobilisation have long been considered to make climate-related conflicts more likely, yet no such statistical signal was detected. Even when looking only at conflicts around natural resources like water or forests, climate extremes are not a good predictor.

These findings could nuance common wisdom about climate change and conflict. Experts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have concluded that climate change increases conflict risks, even though other conflict drivers are more important. Such a linkage is particularly likely in climate vulnerable regions with a history of political instability, and it is also more applicable to low-intensity conflicts like protests (as compared to large-scale violence like civil wars). Yet, the study focuses on such smaller-scale conflict. Fiji, Solomon Island, and Vanuatu are also highly vulnerable to climate change and suffered through political instability (coups, civil war, and unrest) in the past.

How to make sense of the absence of conflict

As a starting point, it is important to clarify three things. First, the absence of conflict does not necessarily imply peace, particularly if those least responsible for climate change suffer most from its consequences. Second, the study focuses on visible and collective forms of conflict. Disasters, but also competition for disaster-related support schemes, might well result in lower-level, less visible forms of conflict, such as household and intimate partner violence or lower social cohesion within communities. Studying these forms of conflict is certainly a key task for future work. Third, evidence is not perfect. The new study, for instance, covers only the period 2012 to 2020, studies just three Pacific Island countries, and could not include rainfall anomalies due to a lack of data.

That said, the absence of a correlation between climate extremes and socio-political conflict events is still noteworthy. It indicates the Pacific Islands have significant levels of agency and resilience. This is not to romanticise local communities and national governments—as everywhere in the world, they have their share of tensions and shortcomings. But the Pacific Island countries possess well-established traditional institutions and, at least in some areas, strong community and civil society networks. Given their remote location, tropical climate, and oceanic geography, they have plenty of knowledge and experience in dealing with climate extremes like droughts, floods, and storms as well. These are important assets for coping peacefully with the impacts of climate change.

Consider the example of Vanuatu after cyclone Pam in 2015. Despite being one of the most intense storms to ever hit the South Pacific, the death toll was relatively low, and the country recovered rather quickly from its impacts. This was the case because local community structures and NGO-led Community Climate Change Committees coordinated well, and they thus played a key role in preparing for the storm and in delivering disaster relief and recovery. These activities did not just utilise but also strengthened traditional social networks. Furthermore, state institutions effectively utilised the inflow of international aid to deal with the cyclone’s impacts, thereby increasing trust in the government. Consequentially, no major conflicts erupted in the aftermath of Pam.

Avoid doomsday thinking – and provide tailored support

Which insights can decision makers draw from these findings?

It is important to avoid doomsday scenarios when thinking about climate change in the Pacific. For sure, the respective countries are highly exposed to and quite vulnerable to climate change. But if policy makers and media portray the Pacific Island countries as helpless victims of climate change and prone to conflict, the consequences are problematic: a lack of economic investment, external support mostly focussed on relocation, and an ignorance of local capacities.

By contrast, emphasising how Pacific communities successfully deal with and maintain peace in the context of climate change provides different perspectives. It highlights how local communities and state institutions (despite not being perfect) have significant capacities for climate change adaptation and bottom-up peacebuilding. National governments and international donors should utilise those capacities by providing tailored support, responding to the needs and priorities of those on the frontline of climate change. Rather than preliminary resignation or relocation, this can support the building of climate-resilient peace.

Related articles:
There Is No Security Without Development, Anything Else Is a Distraction
Do We Need a Pacific Peace Index?
The Trump Presidency and Climate Security in the Indo-Pacific Region

Tobias Ide is Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations at Murdoch University Perth. Until recently, he was also Adjunct Associate Professor of International Relations at the Brunswick University of Technology. He has published widely on the intersections of the environment, climate change, peace, conflict and security, including in Global Environmental Change, International Affairs, Journal of Peace Research, Nature Climate Change, and World Development. He is also a director of the Environmental Peacebuilding Association.

This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.

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');  

Nature-positive business operations can contribute to both business success and the environment, according to IPBES’ Business Biodiversity Assessment. Credit: iStock/IPBES

By Busani Bafana
BULAWAYO, Zimbabwe & MANCHESTER, United Kingdom, Feb 9 2026 (IPS)

Business can still remain profitable while protecting the environment but invest in nature-positive operations, says a landmark report by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which finds that global companies have contributed to the escalating loss of biodiversity.

The IPBES Methodological Assessment Report on the Impact and Dependence of Business on Biodiversity and Nature’s Contributions to People, known as the Business and Biodiversity Report, says global business has benefited from nature but has immensely contributed to the decline in biodiversity. It is time it changes how it does business because biodiversity decline is a “critical systemic risk threatening the economy, financial stability, and human well-being.”

The global economy, driven by business, is dependent on healthy biodiversity and nature for materials, climate regulation, clean water, and pollination. However, the current economic system treats nature as free and infinite, creating perverse incentives for its exploitation. Businesses are largely rewarded for short-term profit, even when their activities degrade the natural systems they rely on, creating a huge risk to the economy and society, the report said.

The cover of the Business and Biodiversity Report. Credit: IPBES

It Must Be Business Unusual Now

Approved at the recent 12th session of the IPBES Plenary, held in Manchester, United Kingdom, the report calls for the end of business as usual. Global businesses, heavily dependent on nature and impacted by nature, must quickly change their operations or face collapse.

“Businesses and other key actors can either lead the way towards a more sustainable global economy or ultimately risk extinction… both of species in nature but potentially also their own,” noted the report.

Based on thousands of sources and prepared over three years by 79 leading experts from 35 countries from all regions of the world, the report is the first assessment of the impacts and dependencies of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.

Current conditions perpetuate business as usual and do not support the transformative change necessary to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, said the report, pointing out that large subsidies that drive biodiversity losses are directed to business activities with the support of businesses and trade associations.

For example, in 2023, global public and private finance flows with directly negative impacts on nature were estimated at USD 7.3 trillion. Of this amount, private finance accounted for USD 4.9 trillion, with public spending on environmentally harmful subsidies at about USD 2.4 trillion, the report said.

In contrast, USD 220 billion in public and private finance flows were directed to activities contributing to the conservation and restoration of biodiversity, representing just 3 percent of the public funds and incentives that encourage harmful business behaviour or prevent behaviour beneficial to biodiversity.

The new report shows that business as usual is not inevitable – with the right policies, as well as financial and cultural shifts, what is good for nature is also what is best for profitability, said Prof. Stephen Polasky, co-chair of the assessment, who highlighted that the loss of biodiversity was among the most serious threats to business.

“Business as usual may once have seemed profitable in the short term, but impacts across multiple businesses can have cumulative effects, aggregating to global impacts, which can cross ecological tipping points,” Polasky said.

Polasky said during a press briefing today (February 9, 2026) that business can immediately act without waiting for governments to create an enabling environment. They can measure their impact and dependencies by increasing the efficiencies of their operation, reducing waste and understanding new business opportunities and products.

A 2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by IPBES warned that one million species face extinction in the next few years as a result of overexploitation of resources, development, and other human activities, posing serious consequences for people and the planet.

Global business, which turns profits from nature, has contributed to the loss of biodiversity as a result of poor production practices that have poisoned river systems, emitted dangerous high greenhouse gases and led to land degradation. This is despite business being affected by natural disasters, from extreme weather floods and droughts to climate change.

The report is the latest assessment by IPBES, an independent intergovernmental body comprising more than 150 member governments. IPBES, often described as the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) for biodiversity, provides policymakers with objective scientific assessments about the state of knowledge regarding the planet’s biodiversity, ecosystems and the contributions they make to people.

IPBES Chair, David Oburo,  said the assessments done by IPBES are balanced by the knowledge systems needed to integrate information business and its impacts and dependencies on biodiversity.

He said there is a need to move away from the scientific language often used in talking about impacts and dependencies of businesses to simplifying it to be about risks and opportunities “so that the messaging that comes out from our assessments is really accessible to the audience that needs to access that information.”

The IPBES methodological assessment report warned that the current system was broken because what is profitable for businesses often results in loss of biodiversity.

A Peruvian indigenous Quechua woman weaving a textile with the traditional techniques in Cusco, Peru. The IPBES Business and Biodiversity Report suggests business should integrate Indigenous knowledge into their operations. Credit: iStock/IPBES

IPBES Executive Secretary, Luthando Dziba, said nature was everybody’s business. The conservation and restorative use of biodiversity is central to business success. Although businesses have contributed to innovations that have driven improvement of living standards, that same success had come at the cost of biodiversity.

An Enabling Environment Is Good for Biodiversity

The report offers a key solution of creating a new “enabling environment” where what is profitable for business aligns with what is good for biodiversity and society. Current conditions — laws, financial systems, corporate reporting rules, and cultural norms — do not reward businesses for protecting nature.

There are many barriers to protecting nature, such as the focus on short-term profits versus long-term ecological cycles. In addition, there is a lack of mandatory disclosure and accountability for environmental impacts, inadequate data, metrics, and capacity within the business community, as well as the failure to integrate Indigenous and local knowledge in biodiversity protection.

The creation of an enabling environment needs coordinated action policy and legal frameworks where governments should integrate biodiversity into all trade and sectoral policies. Besides, there is a need to redirect the USD 7.3 trillion in harmful flows using taxes, green bonds, and sustainability-linked loans to reward positive action.

Businesses must engage with Indigenous Peoples and local communities with Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), while access to and sharing of location-specific data on business activities and biodiversity should be improved.  Leverage technology such as remote sensing and artificial intelligence for better monitoring and traceability across business supply chains.

Measure It to Manage It

Another key finding of the report is that business could improve the measurement and management of its impacts and dependencies on nature through appropriate engagement with science and Indigenous and local knowledge.

Assessment co-chair Prof. Ximena Rueda noted that data and knowledge are often siloed, as scientific literature was not written for businesses. Besides, a lack of translation and attention to the needs of business has slowed uptake of scientific findings.

“Among business there is also often limited understanding and recognition of Indigenous Peoples and local communities as stewards of biodiversity and, therefore, holders of knowledge on its conservation, restoration and sustainable use,” said Rueda in a statement.

Industrial development threatens 60 percent of Indigenous lands around the world, and a quarter of all Indigenous territories are under high pressure from resource exploitation. However, Indigenous Peoples and local communities often find themselves inadequately represented in business research and decision-making, said the report.

Commenting on the report, Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), noted that while all businesses depend on nature, some were more exposed to risks stemming from resource depletion and environmental degradation. She said companies need a deeper understanding of the breadth of their dependencies and impacts on biodiversity to act better.

“In too many boardrooms and offices around the world, there is still a dearth of awareness of biodiversity protection as a business investment,” said Schomaker in a statement. “Too often, public policy still incentivises behaviour that drives biodiversity loss.”

While Alexander De Croo, Administrator, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), said too often biodiversity is an invisible and expendable asset on a balance sheet of global companies, but that was changing.

“Awareness is now accelerating of the risks to development if biodiversity fails—and of the economic opportunities and future prosperity that emerge where it thrives,” De Croo said.

The report underscored that we cannot business-as-usual our way out of the biodiversity crisis. Governments need to stop incentivising the destruction of biodiversity and start rewarding environmental stewardship. Besides, business leaders should now integrate natural capital accounting into their business strategy to disclose their environmental footprint while contributing to a positive global economy.

The evidence is clear: our economic prosperity is inextricably linked to nature’s health, and we are severing that vital link at our peril.

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');   Related Articles

• Support Science in Halting Global Biodiversity Crisis—King Charles
• Explainer: Why Nature Is Everyone’s Business

By CIVICUS
Feb 9 2026 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses the genocide case against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with Mohammed Nowkhim of the Arakan Rohingya Society for Peace & Human Rights (ARSPHR), a civil society organisation led by Rohingya people born out of refugee camps in Bangladesh to document atrocities, preserve survivor testimony and advocate for accountability and justice.

Mohammed Nowkhim

On 12 January, the ICJ began hearings in the genocide case brought by The Gambia against Myanmar over the military’s treatment of the Rohingya Muslim minority. The Gambia, representing the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s 57 members, accuses Myanmar of breaching the Genocide Convention. The Gambia’s justice minister presented evidence of mass killings, sexual violence and village destruction during a government crackdown in 2017 that forced over 700,000 Rohingya people to flee to Bangladesh. Rohingya survivors testified in closed sessions. Myanmar denies genocidal intent, characterising its actions as counterterrorism. A final judgment is expected before the end of the year.

What atrocities were committed against Rohingya people and what is being examined in court?

During what were called ‘clearance operations’ in 2017, Myanmar security forces burned entire villages, raped women, killed children and threw them into fires and wells. According to documented reports, over 10,000 people were killed and around 700,000, including me, were forced to flee Myanmar. These were not random acts of violence; they were systematic and targeted attacks aimed at erasing our community.

In 2019, The Gambia, supported by 11 other states, filed a case against Myanmar at the ICJ, accusing it of genocide. Judges are now examining evidence of mass killings, sexual violence, village destruction and forced displacement. They are also reviewing official policies and actions that show intent to destroy Rohingya people as a group, including patterns of violence, coordination by state forces and the systematic denial of basic rights.

This case shows that genocide claims can be examined through law rather than dismissed for political convenience. But for the Rohingya, this is not just a legal process. It represents acknowledgment and a source of hope for present and future generations. After decades of denial and silence, our suffering is being heard at the world’s highest court and recognised in a legal space where truth matters. The hearings can’t erase our wounds, but they can offer some solace and a path towards justice.

What evidence supports the case against Myanmar?

The case was built on years of evidence-gathering. The Gambia relied on extensive material from the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar and United Nations (UN) fact-finding missions, as well as documentation collected over many years by human rights organisations, including Fortify Rights, Human Rights Watch and Rohingya-led groups.

Civil society played a key role when states failed to act. Even when the world looked away, organisations continued to document the truth and refused to let these crimes be erased or rewritten. Long before any court agreed to listen, groups including the ARSPHR were collecting survivor testimonies, documenting violations and carefully preserving evidence, knowing it might one day be used in court. Without that work, much of what happened would have been lost and perpetrators couldn’t have been challenged.

In a way, civil society became the memory of the Rohingya people. Today, this evidence forms part of the case before the ICJ.

Why is accountability so difficult?

Politics often protects perpetrators. Those with power choose stability over justice and shield those responsible for crimes. Myanmar’s authorities continue to deny wrongdoing and refuse to cooperate, which delays justice.

International law also has its limits. Justice moves slowly because ICJ rulings do not automatically lead to consequences. International courts can establish the truth, but they can’t force states to act. Enforcement depends on political will, often through the UN Security Council, where countries such as China and Russia can block action, even when crimes are clear and well documented.

What must happen to ensure justice?

There must be real action. Perpetrators must be held accountable, Rohingya citizenship must be restored and discriminatory laws that enabled genocide must be removed. Any return of refugees must be voluntary, safe and dignified. It can’t happen without international monitoring and guarantees of protection. People can’t be sent back to the same conditions that forced them to flee.

Ultimately, justice is not only about the past, but also about ensuring that future generations of Rohingya can live with rights, safety and dignity. This case is only the beginning. What happens after the judgment will decide whether justice is real or only symbolic.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Threads
Twitter
Mohammed Nowkhim/Facebook
Mohammed Nowkhim/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Myanmar’s junta tightens its grip CIVICUS Lens 12.Dec.2025
International Court of Justice offers hope of rules-based order CIVICUS Lens 19.May.2025
Myanmar at a crossroads CIVICUS Lens 28.Oct.2024

 

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 the SDG Report
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 9 2026 (IPS)

Eradicating extreme poverty for all people everywhere by 2030 is a pivotal aim of the Sustainable Development Goals. Extreme poverty, defined as surviving on less than US$3.00 per person per day at 2021 purchasing power parity, has witnessed remarkable declines over recent decades.

However, in 2025, 808 million people – or 1 in 10 people worldwide – were living in extreme poverty, an upward revision from earlier estimates because of the updated poverty line. If current trends continue, 8.9 per cent of the world’s population will still live in extreme poverty by 2030.

A shocking revelation is the resurgence of hunger levels to those last observed in 2005. Equally concerning is the persistent increase in food prices across a larger number of countries compared to the period from 2015 to 2019. This dual challenge of poverty and food security poses a critical global concern.

Credit: UN

Why is there so much poverty

Poverty has many dimensions, but its causes include unemployment, social exclusion, and high vulnerability of certain populations to disasters, diseases and other phenomena which prevent them from being productive.

Why should I care about other people’s economic situation?

There are many reasons, but in short, because as human beings, our well- being is linked to each other. Growing inequality is detrimental to economic growth and undermines social cohesion, increasing political and social tensions and, in some circumstances, driving instability and conflicts.

Why is social protection so important?

Strong social protection systems are essential for mitigating the effects and preventing many people from falling into poverty. The COVID-19 pandemic had both immediate and long-term economic consequences for people across the globe – and despite the expansion of social protection during the COVID-19 crisis, 47.6 per cent of the world’s population – about 3.8 billion people – are entirely unprotected, including 1.4 billion children in 2023.

In response to the cost-of-living crisis, 105 countries and territories announced almost 350 social protection measures between February 2022 and February 2023. Yet 80 per cent of these were short-term in nature, and to achieve the Goals, countries will need to implement nationally appropriate universal and sustainable social protection systems for all.

What can I do about it?

Your active engagement in policymaking can make a difference in addressing poverty. It ensures that your rights are promoted and that your voice is heard, that inter-generational knowledge is shared, and that innovation and critical thinking are encouraged at all ages to support transformational change in people’s lives and communities.

Governments can help create an enabling environment to generate pro- productive employment and job opportunities for the poor and the marginalized.

The private sector has a major role to play in determining whether the growth it creates is inclusive and contributes to poverty reduction. It can promote economic opportunities for the poor.

The contribution of science to end poverty has been significant. For example, it has enabled access to safe drinking water, reduced deaths caused by water-borne diseases, and improved hygiene to reduce health risks related to unsafe drinking water and lack of sanitation.

The updated international poverty line of $3.00 resulted in a revision in the number of people living in extreme poverty from 713 to 838 million in 2022. (World Bank)

• If current trends continue, 8.9 per cent of the world’s population may still be living in extreme poverty by 2030 and only one in five countries will have halved their national poverty levels.
• For the first time on record, over half of the world’s population now receives at least one form of social protection benefit. Despite this milestone, 3.8 billion people remain uncovered.
• The share of government spending on essential services, such as education, health and social protection, is significantly higher in advanced economies than in emerging and developing economies.
• Guaranteeing basic social security floors in low- and middle-income countries requires an additional $1.4 trillion annually, or 3.3 per cent of their aggregate GDP in 2024.
• A surge in action and investment to enhance economic opportunities, improve education and extend social protection to all, particularly the most excluded, is crucial to delivering on the central commitment to end poverty and leave no one behind.

Source: The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2025

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');  

A woman in a remote hamlet in Kashmir, India, migrates to a safer location with her child as floodwater inundates her hometown. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINAGAR & NEW DELHI, Feb 9 2026 (IPS)

When the rain begins in Kashmir’s capital Srinagar, Ghulam Nabi Bhat does not watch the clouds with relief anymore. He watches them with calculation. How much can the gutters take? How fast will the river rise? Which corner of the house will leak first? Where should the children sleep if the floor turns damp?

“Earlier, rain meant comfort,” said Bhat, a resident of a low-lying neighbourhood close to the city’s waterways. “Now it feels like a warning.”

On many days, the rain does not need to become a flood to change life. Streets fill up within hours. Shops shut early. The school van turns back. A phone call spreads across families, asking the same question, “How is your area?”

For millions across India and the wider region of emerging Asia (a group of rapidly developing countries in the region, including China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam), this is the new normal. Disasters no longer arrive as rare, once-in-a-generation ruptures. They come as repeated shocks, each one leaving behind repair bills, lost wages, and a deeper sense that recovery has become a permanent routine.

A recent analysis from the OECD Development Centre shows that emerging Asia has been facing an average of around 100 disasters a year over the past decade, affecting roughly 80 million people annually. The rising trend is powered by floods, storms, and droughts. The report estimates that natural disasters have cost India an average of 0.4 percent of GDP every year between 1990 and 2024.

Behind the national figure lies a quieter, more poignant story. It is the story of how repeated climate and weather shocks get absorbed by households and not just spreadsheets. By the savings a family built for a daughter’s education. By a shopkeeper’s stock bought on credit. By a farmer’s seed money saved from the last season.

In the north Indian state of Bihar’s flood-prone belt, Sunita Devi, a mother of three, says she has stopped storing anything valuable on the floor. Clothes sit on higher shelves. The grain container has moved to a safer corner. The family’s documents stay wrapped in plastic.

Local residents in Kashmir’s capital, Srinagar, stack sandbags to safeguard their homes from floods in 2025. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS

“When water comes, you run with children,” she said. “The rest is left to fate. You can rebuild a wall. You cannot bring back the days you lost.”

Her village has lived with floods for decades, but she says what has changed is frequency, uncertainty, and cost. It is not only about big river floods that make headlines. It is also about sudden waterlogging, damaged roads, broken embankments, and illnesses that rise after the water recedes.

“Earlier we could predict. Now we cannot. Sometimes the water comes fast. Sometimes it stays. Sometimes it leaves and then comes again,” Devi told IPS.

Professor Kaveh Madani, director of the United Nations University’s Institute for Water, Environment, and Health, told IPS that water bankruptcy in Asia should be treated as a national security issue, not a sector issue.

“The priority is shifting from crisis response to bankruptcy management: honest accounting, enforceable limits, protection of natural capital, and a just transition that protects farmers and vulnerable communities,” said Madani.

Across emerging Asia, floods have emerged as one of the strongest rising trends since the early 2000s, the OECD Development Centre report notes. The reasons vary from place to place, but the result looks familiar: disrupted lives, damaged homes, and a cycle of repair that drains communities.

In Kashmir’s capital Srinagar, small shop owner Bashir Ahmad keeps an old wooden rack near the entrance. It is not for display. It is for emergencies. When rain intensifies, he quickly moves cartons of goods off the floor.

“My shop is small; my margin is smaller. One day of water is enough to destroy many things. Customers do not come. Deliveries stop. You just wait and watch,” Ahmad said.

He says the biggest loss is not always the damaged stock. It is the days without work. For families that live week to week, even a short shutdown becomes a long crisis. Rent does not pause. School fees do not pause. Loans do not pause.

The OECD analysis, while regional in scope, points to a hard truth that communities already know. It claims that disasters have economic aftershocks that last long after television cameras leave. When repeated losses occur every year, they reduce growth and reshape choices. Families postpone building stronger houses. They avoid investing in small businesses. They spend more time recovering than progressing.

“Disasters are no longer exceptional events. They have become recurring economic shocks. The problem is not only the immediate damage. It is the repetition. Repetition breaks household resilience,” Dr Ritu Sharma, a climate risk researcher based in Delhi, said.

Sharma says India’s disaster losses should not be viewed as a headline percentage alone.

They should be viewed as accumulated pressure on ordinary life.

“A flood does not only damage a bridge. It delays healthcare visits. It interrupts immunisation drives. It breaks supply chains for food and medicines. It can push vulnerable families into debt traps. What looks like a climate event becomes a social event. It becomes a health event. It becomes an education event.”

In the report’s regional comparisons, the burden is uneven. Some countries face higher average annual losses as a share of GDP, especially those exposed to cyclones and floods. India’s size allows it to absorb shocks on paper, but that size also means more people remain exposed. From Himalayan slopes vulnerable to landslides to coastal districts bracing for cyclones to plains dealing with floods and heat, risk is spread across geography and across livelihoods.

Prof. Nasar Ali, an economist who studies climate impacts, says the real damage is often hidden in the informal economy.

“A formal sector company can claim insurance, borrow on better terms, and restart faster. A vegetable vendor cannot. A small grocery shop cannot. A family with a single daily wage earner cannot. Their loss is immediate and personal. They also take the longest to recover,” Ali said.

He believes disaster impacts also deepen inequality because the poorest households lose what they cannot replace.

“A damaged roof for a rich family is a renovation problem. A damaged roof for a poor family can mean sleeping in damp rooms for weeks, infections, missed work and children dropping out temporarily.”

The report also turns attention toward a policy question that has become urgent across Asia: how should governments pay for disasters in a way that does not repeatedly divert development funds?

The analysis highlights disaster risk finance, tools that help governments prepare money in advance rather than relying mainly on post-disaster relief. This includes dedicated disaster funds, insurance mechanisms, and rapid financing that can be triggered quickly after a shock.

For communities, the debate may sound distant. But the outcomes are visible in the speed of recovery and the dignity of response.

“When a disaster happens, help should come fast,” said Meena Devi, who runs a small grocery shop in Jammu’s RS Pura area and has seen repeated waterlogging during intense rains. “We close our shop. Milk spoils. People cannot buy things. Then we borrow money to restart. If support is slow, we fall behind.”

She said her biggest fear is not a single disaster but the feeling that another one is always near.

“If it happens once, you survive. If it happens again and again, you get tired from inside,” she said.

For Sharma, preparedness must be more than emergency drills. It must include planning that reduces exposure in the first place.

“Some risks are unavoidable, but many are amplified by where and how we build,” she said. “If cities expand without drainage capacity, or if construction spreads into floodplains, then disasters become predictable. That is not nature alone. That is policy.”

In Srinagar, Bhat says residents often feel they fight the same battle every year. Cleaning drains. Stacking sandbags. Moving belongings. Calling relatives. Watching the river level updates. The work looks small, but it is exhausting because it never ends.

He pointed to marks on a wall that show where water once reached.

“We always think, maybe this year it will be better,” he said. “Then rain comes, and your heart starts beating faster.”

Asked what would make him feel safe, he did not talk about big promises. He spoke about basics. A drain that works. A road that does not collapse. A warning that comes early. Help that comes on time.

For Sunita Devi in Bihar, the dream is even simpler: a season where the family can plan without fear.

“We want to live like normal people. We want to save money, not spend it on repairing what the water broke,” she said.

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');   Related Articles

• Big Nature-Based Finance Turnaround Needed to Restore, Protect Ecosystems
• World Living Beyond Its Means: Warns UN’s Global Water Bankruptcy Report
• Refugees Forced to Fill Gaps as Funding, Power and Legal Recognition Move Out of Reach

Excerpt:

A recent report reveals that Asia faces about 100 natural disasters every year, affecting 80 million people. Beyond the statistics are the disrupted lives, damaged homes, and a cycle of repair that drains communities.

Flooding is quickly emerging as a threat that is compromising and undermining food security, health, infrastructure, and economies both in the short- and long-term. Credit: Shutterstock

By Esther Ngumbi
URBANA, Illinois, US, Feb 6 2026 (IPS)

South Africa, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe are currently experiencing severe flooding. According to the World Health Organization, 1.3 million people have been affected. In addition, hundreds of people have died , infrastructure has been destroyed, access to health services has been disrupted, and the risks of water- and mosquito-borne diseases are rising.

Alarmingly, the devastating impacts of flooding on  crop production, an important source of livelihoods in Africa, and on agricultural crops relevant to meeting food security needs rarely receive coverage or make headlines. If they do, the coverage does not comprehensively capture the extent of the damage or the immediate and long-term consequences of flooding.

Time and again, research has shown that flooding affects  global crop production and has immediate and long-lasting consequences for agricultural production, food systems, national economies, and food security

Also disturbing is the lack of coverage of the devastating impacts of flooding on soils, soil quality, soil health, and the billions of beneficial soil microorganisms that support the production of healthy and nutritious crops.

This needs to change. Time and again, research has shown that flooding affects  global crop production and has immediate and long-lasting consequences for agricultural production, food systems, national economies, and food security.

For example, a 2022 study reported that flooding threatened food security for more than 5.6 million people across several African countries. The study also found that an estimated 12 percent of food-insecure households in several African countries, including Nigeria, Kenya, Mozambique, and Malawi, experienced food insecurity due to flooding, which compromised their ability to produce, access, and utilize food.

Notably, this comprehensive study revealed that flooding impacts emerge at different spatial and temporal scales. Damage to crops and displacement of families occur immediately following flooding, but secondary impacts persist, leaving soils unhealthy and unable to support the production of healthy crops in subsequent seasons. In addition, infrastructure destroyed by flooding and livelihoods disrupted take time to rebuild.

Current and future climate forecasts indicate that  flooding and other weather and climate extreme events will continue  flooding and other weather and climate extremes will continue, underscoring the need for countries across Africa and around the world to prioritize efforts to understand and mitigate flooding.

So, what can be done?

First, to develop sustainable and sufficient solutions, it is important to comprehensively map flooding and  the many dimensions through which flooding and other climate change-associated stressors can lead to food insecurity.

Certainly, flooding can lead to and affect food insecurity through several driving mechanisms , including crop losses that reduce agricultural production, infrastructure damage that disrupts supply chains while hindering people’s ability to access markets. For example, the recent flooding events in South Africa and Mozambique have reportedly resulted in losses of economically important crops such as avocados and citrus, disrupted food transportation corridors, slowed cross-border logistics networks, and isolated communities, disrupting food distribution networks. Additionally, studies in Burkina Faso , Malawi, and South-Eastern Nigeria demonstrated that flooding can lead to crop failures and affect food security.

Second, there is an urgent need to develop a comprehensive understanding and assessment of who is most affected by flooding, at what scale, and how the multidimensional impacts of flooding on food security evolve over time.

Developing this kind of understanding requires systems thinking and cross-disciplinary coordinated collaboration, bridging disciplines such as climate science, agronomy, plant science, entomology, economics, nutrition, hydrology, epidemiology, public health, social science, data science, machine learning and artificial intelligence, and infrastructure.

For example, agronomists can quantify crop losses from flooding, soil changes, and recovery timelines. Economists, on the other hand, can model the impacts of flooding on livelihoods, markets, and national economies.

Data scientists can track floods and map flood risk zones, and infrastructure specialists can assess the vulnerability of current infrastructure to flooding. When these disciplines converge, they can help governments and humanitarian agencies develop data-driven action plans to prepare for, prevent, and implement timely flood response solutions.

Third, there is a need to proactively invest in both short- and long-term solutions to mitigate the negative impacts of flooding on food security and enhance livelihoods resillience and food security . Some proactive measures include restoring wetlands, which naturally act as flood buffers to absorb excess rainfall; building climate-resilient infrastructure; sharing early warning information with communities about upcoming flooding events; making affordable insurance policies available to farmers to protect their farming enterprises; and strengthening agrifood systems.

Strengthening agrifood systems can take multiple forms, including ensuring that farmers have access to flood-resilient crop varieties and that they plant diversified crops and adopt climate-smart agricultural practices, all of which can help buffer farmers, communities, and citizens of countries from flooding-related impacts.

Flooding is quickly emerging as a threat that is compromising and undermining food security, health, infrastructure, and economies both in the short- and long-term.

We must normalize accounting for the multidimensional impacts of flooding events on agriculture, soil health and quality, and the infrastructure that supports agricultural food systems and ecosystems. In doing so, the worst outcomes of flooding could be prevented in agriculture and food security.

The 158th session of the Executive Board took place on 2-7 February 2026 at WHO headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. Pictured is Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. Credit: WHO / Christopher Black

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 6 2026 (IPS)

On February 3, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched its 2026 global appeal to help millions of people living in protracted conflicts and humanitarian crises access lifesaving healthcare. Following a trend of sharply declining international funding, the agency warns that it is becoming increasingly difficult to respond to emerging health threats, including pandemics and drug-resistant infections.

According to figures from the United Nations (UN), roughly a quarter of a billion people are currently living through humanitarian crises that threaten their access to healthcare and shelter, even as global defense spending has surpassed USD 2.5 trillion annually. Meanwhile, WHO estimates that approximately 4.6 billion people lack access to essential health services and 2.1 billion face significant financial strain from rising health costs.

These disparities are expected to worsen in the coming years, as the world is projected to face a shortage of 11 million healthcare workers by 2030—more than half of whom are nurses. Seeking nearly USD 1 billion to support civilians across 36 emergency settings—14 of which are classified as extremely severe—WHO aims to protect and support millions of people living in the world’s most fragile crisis settings.

“This appeal is a call to stand with people living through conflict, displacement and disaster – to give them not just services, but the confidence that the world has not turned its back on them,” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “It is not charity. It is a strategic investment in health and security. In fact, access to health care restores dignity, stabilizes communities and offers a pathway toward recovery.”

Since its founding in 1948, WHO has served as a critical lifeline for crisis-affected populations—promoting universal health coverage, coordinating international responses to health emergencies, and tracking emerging health threats and progress worldwide. In 2025 alone, WHO and its partners provided emergency health services to approximately 30 million people, delivering vaccinations to 5.3 million children, facilitating 53 million health consultations, supporting more than 8,000 health facilities, and deploying 1,370 mobile clinics.

“In today’s most complex emergencies, WHO remains indispensable – protecting health, upholding international humanitarian law, and ensuring life-saving care reaches people in places where few others can operate,” said Marita Sørheim-Rensvik, Deputy Permanent Representative of Norway to the UN Office at Geneva. “From safeguarding access to sexual and reproductive health and rights to supporting frontline health workers under immense strain, WHO’s role is vital.”

The 2026 appeal follows a year in which humanitarian financing fell below 2016 levels, forcing WHO and its partners to reach only one-third of the 81 million people originally targeted for health assistance. Additionally, this comes after the United States exit from WHO on January 22, which is estimated to reduce the agency’s budget for 2026 and 2027 from USD 5.3 billion to USD 4.2 billion.

Ghebreyesus addressed WHO’s Executive Board in Geneva on February 2, warning of the far-reaching consequences expected after last year’s steep funding cuts, describing 2025 as one of the organization’s “most difficult years” in its history. “Sudden and severe cuts to bilateral aid have also caused huge disruptions to health systems and services in many countries,” he said.

Ghebreyesus also noted that the agency narrowly avoided a far more severe financial collapse due to a host of member states agreeing to raise mandatory assessed contributions. This would reduce WHO’s dependence on voluntary designated funding. These reforms have enabled WHO to mobilize roughly 85 percent of its core budget for 2026-2027, though Ghebreyesus warned that the remaining gap will be “hard to mobilize” in today’s strained financial environment. He cautioned that “pockets of poverty” remain across critically underfunded areas, including emergency preparedness, antimicrobial resistance, and climate resilience.

Ghebreyesus also warned noted that the funding crisis has exposed deeper challenges for global health governance, especially among low and middle-income countries that struggle to maintain access to essential services. He stressed that the crisis presents a crucial opportunity for transformation, noting that a “leaner” WHO can become more focused on its core mission and mandate within the broader UN80 reform initiative. “This means sharpening our focus on our core mandate and comparative advantage, doing what we do best – supporting countries through our normative and technical work – and leaving to others what they do best,” he added.

As a result of shrinking global funding, WHO says that it and its partners have been “forced to make difficult choices” about which operations to sustain going forward. The agency stated its intentions to concentrate solely on the most critical, high-impact interventions–such as keeping essential health facilities running, delivering emergency medical supplies and trauma care, restoring immunization efforts, ensuring access to reproductive, maternal, and child health services, and preventing and responding to disease outbreaks.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is working with health authorities in South Sudan and partners to scale up cholera prevention efforts, including a vaccination campaign. Credit:WHO/South Sudan

“In 2026, WHO is adapting its emergency response again. We are applying the discipline of emergency medicine: focusing first on actions that save lives,” said Ghebreyesus. “We are placing greater emphasis on country leadership and local partnerships. We are concentrating on areas where WHO adds the greatest value and reducing duplication so that every dollar has maximum impact.”

In 2026, WHO will prioritize its emergency health response in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Afghanistan, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, South Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Ukraine, and Myanmar, while also addressing ongoing outbreaks of cholera and mpox. As the lead agency for health coordination in humanitarian crises, WHO works with more than 1,500 partners across 24 emergency settings worldwide to ensure that national authorities and local organizations remain at the center of emergency response efforts.

Additionally, WHO’s strategy going forward places strong emphasis on helping countries reduce reliance on external aid and build long-term financial self-sufficiency. A key element of this approach is domestic resource mobilization, including the introduction of higher health taxes on harmful products such as tobacco, sugary beverages, and alcohol.

In recent months, WHO has made important progress in strengthening global responses to emerging health threats, even as antimicrobial resistance continues to escalate—with one in six bacterial infections worldwide now resistant to antibiotics. The agency has also expanded its disease surveillance capabilities, relying on AI-powered epidemic intelligence tools to help countries detect and contain hundreds of outbreaks before they evolve into major crises. WHO’s work has also been reinforced by last year’s adoption of the Pandemic Agreement and amended International Health Regulations (IHR), which aim to bolster global preparedness in the post-COVID-19 era.

“The pandemic taught all of us many lessons – especially that global threats demand a global response,” said Ghebreyesus. “Solidarity is the best immunity.” He emphasized that the future effectiveness of WHO hinges on predictable, sustained funding:“This is your WHO. Its strength is your unity. Its future is your choice.”

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');  

An artist in Colombia draws an image of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Credit: UN Colombia/Jose Rios Source: UN News

By UN High Commission for Human Rights
GENEVA, Feb 6 2026 (IPS)

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk has launched a USD 400 million funding appeal for 2026 to address global human rights needs, warning that with mounting crises, the world cannot afford a human rights system in crisis.

“The cost of our work is low; the human cost of underinvestment is immeasurable,” Türk told States at the launch. “In times of conflict and in times of peace, we are a lifeline for the abused, a megaphone for the silenced, a steadfast ally to those who risk everything to defend the rights of others.”

In 2025, staff working for the UN Human Rights Office in 87 countries observed more than 1,300 trials, supported 67,000 survivors of torture, documented tens of thousands of human rights violations, and contributed to the release of more than 4,000 people from arbitrary detention.

Türk also stressed that addressing inequalities and respecting economic and social rights are vital to peace and stability. “Human rights make economies work for everyone, rather than deepening exclusion and breeding instability,” he said.

The Office in 2025 worked with more than 35 governments on the human rights economy, which aims to align all economic policies with human rights. For example, in Djibouti, it helped conduct a human rights analysis of the health budget, with a focus on people with disabilities. It provided critical human rights analysis to numerous UN Country Teams working on sustainable development.

Türk outlined several consequences of reduced funding in 2025. For instance, the Office conducted only 5,000 human rights monitoring missions, a decrease from 11,000 in 2024. The Office’s programme in Myanmar suffered cuts of more than 60 percent. In Honduras, support for demilitarisation of the prison system and for justice and security sector reforms was reduced. In Chad, advocacy and support for nearly 600 detainees held without legal basis had to be discontinued.

“Our reporting provides credible information on atrocities and human rights trends at a time when truth is being eroded by disinformation and censorship. It informs deliberations both in the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council, and is widely cited by international courts, providing critical evidence for accountability,” he said.

The liquidity crisis of the regular budget also significantly affected the work of the broader human rights ecosystem. For instance, 35 scheduled State party dialogues by UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies could not take place.

Four out of eight planned country visits by the Sub-Committee on Prevention of Torture had to be cancelled. UN Special Rapporteurs’ ability to carry out country visits was curtailed, and the Human Rights Council’s investigative bodies were unable to fulfil their mandates fully.

The UN Human Rights Chief also regretted that the Office lost approximately 300 staff out of a total of 2,000 and was forced to close or radically reduce its presence in 17 countries, erasing entire programmes critical for endangered, threatened, or marginalised communities, from Colombia and Guinea-Bissau to Tajikistan.

“All this is weakening our ‘Protection by Presence’ – a simple idea with powerful impact: that the physical presence of trained human rights officers on the ground deters violations and reduces harm,” Türk said.

In 2025, the Office’s approved regular budget was USD 246 million, but it received only USD 191.5 million, resulting in a USD 54.5 million shortfall. It had also requested USD 500 million in voluntary contributions and received only USD 257.8 million.

The UN Human Rights Chief thanked the 113 funding partners – Governments, multilateral donors, private entities, among others – who contributed to the 2025 budget and helped save and improve lives.

For 2026, the UN General Assembly has approved a regular budget of USD 224.3 million, which is based on assessed contributions from Member States. This amount is 10 per cent lower than in 2025, and further uncertainty remains about the actual amount the Office will receive due to the liquidity crisis the UN is facing.

Through its 2026 Appeal, the Office is requesting an additional USD 400 million in voluntary contributions.

“Historically, human rights account for an extremely small portion of all UN spending. We need to step up support for this low-cost, high-impact work that helps stabilise communities, builds trust in institutions, and supports lasting peace,” the High Commissioner said.

“And we need more unearmarked and timely contributions so we can respond quickly, as human rights cannot wait.”

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');  

Credit: Denis Balibouse/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Samuel King
BRUSSELS, Belgium, Feb 6 2026 (IPS)

In early January, an emergency UN Security Council meeting on Venezuela followed a familiar path of paralysis. Members clashed over the US government’s abduction of Nicolás Maduro, with many warning it set a dangerous precedent, but no resolution came.

This wasn’t exceptional. In 2024, permanent members cast eight vetoes, the highest since 1986. In 2025, the Council adopted only 44 resolutions, the lowest since 1991. Deep divisions prevented meaningful responses to Gaza and to conflicts in Myanmar, Sudan and Ukraine.

Designed in 1945, the Security Council is the UN’s most powerful body, tasked with maintaining international peace and security, but also crucially protecting the privileged position of the most powerful states following the Second World War. Of its 15 members, 10 are elected for two-year terms, but five – China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA – are permanent and have veto powers. A single veto can block any resolution, regardless of global support. The Council’s anachronistic structure reflects and reproduces outdated power dynamics.

Since launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has continually used its veto despite breaching the UN Charter. On Gaza, the USA vetoed four ceasefire proposals before the Council passed Resolution 2728 in March 2024, 171 days into Israel’s assault. By then over 10,000 people had been killed.

When the Council is gridlocked, it means more suffering on the ground. Civilian protection fails, peace processes stall and human rights crimes go unpunished.

The case for reform

Since the UN was established, the number of member states has quadrupled and the global population has grown from 2.5 to 8 billion. But former colonial powers that represent a minority of the world’s population still hold permanent seats while entire continents remain unrepresented.

Calls for reform have been made for decades, but they face a formidable challenge: reform requires amendment of the UN Charter, a process that needs a favourable two-thirds General Assembly vote, ratification by two-thirds of member states and approval from all five permanent Council members.

The African Union has advanced the clearest demand. Emphasising historical justice and equal power for the global south, it calls for the Council to be expanded to 26 members, with Africa holding two permanent seats with full veto rights and five non-permanent seats.

India has been particularly vocal in demanding a greater role on a reformed Council. The G4 – Brazil, Germany, India and Japan – has proposed expansion to 25 or 26 members with six new permanent seats: two for Africa, two for Asia and the Pacific, one for Latin America and the Caribbean and one for Western Europe. New permanent members would gain veto powers after a 10-to-15-year review period.

Uniting for Consensus, a group led by Italy that includes Argentina, Mexico, Pakistan and South Korea, opposes the creation of new permanent seats, arguing this would simply expand an existing oligarchy. Instead, they propose longer rotating terms and greater representation for underrepresented regions.

The five permanent members show varying degrees of openness to reform. France and the UK support expansion with veto powers, while the USA supports adding permanent African seats but without a veto. China backs new African seats, but virulently opposes Japan’s permanent membership, while Russia supports reform in principle but warns against making the Council ‘too broad’.

These positions reflect competition and a desire to prevent rivals gaining power. Current permanent members fear diluted influence, while states that see themselves as rising powers want the status and sway that comes with Council membership.

Adding new members could help redress the imbalance against the global south, but wouldn’t necessarily make the Council more effective, accountable and committed to protecting human lives and human rights, particularly if more states get veto powers.

A French-Mexican initiative from 2015 offers a more modest path: voluntary veto restraint in mass atrocity situations. The proposal asks permanent members to refrain from vetoes in cases of crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes. This complements efforts to increase the political costs of vetoes, including the Code of Conduct signed by 121 states and General Assembly Resolution 76/262, which requires debate whenever a veto is cast.

New challenges

Now a new challenge has emerged from the Trump administration, which recently launched the Board of Peace at the World Economic Forum in Davos. This has mutated from a temporary institution set up by a Security Council resolution to govern over Gaza into a seemingly permanent one that envisages a broader global role under Trump’s personal control. Its membership skews toward authoritarian regimes, and human rights don’t get a mention in its draft charter.

Instead of legitimising the Board of Peace, efforts should focus on Security Council reform to address the two fundamental flaws of representation and veto power. Accountability and transparency must also be enhanced. Civil society must have space to engage with the Council and urge states to prioritise the UN Charter over self-interest.

Some momentum exists. The September 2024 Pact for the Future committed leaders to developing a consolidated reform model. Since 2008, formal intergovernmental negotiations have addressed membership expansion, regional representation, veto reform and working methods. These became more transparent in 2023, with sessions recorded online, allowing civil society to track proceedings and challenge blocking states.

However, reform efforts faced entrenched interests, geopolitical rivalries and institutional inertia even before Trump started causing chaos. The UN faces a demanding 2026, forced to make funding cuts amid a liquidity crisis while choosing the next secretary-general. In such circumstances, it’s tempting to defer difficult decisions.

But the reform case is clear, as is the choice: act to make the Council fit for purpose or accept continuing paralysis and irrelevance, allowing it to be supplanted by Trump’s Board of Peace.

Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

 

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');  

Credit: United Nations

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 6 2026 (IPS)

The current UN financial crisis, described as the worst in the 80-year-old history of the world body, triggers the question: is the US using its financial clout defaulting in its arrears and its assessed contributions to precipitate the collapse of the UN?

If the crisis continues, the UN headquarters will be forced to shut down by August, ahead of the annual meeting of world leaders in September this year, according to a report in the New York Times last week, quoting unnamed senior UN officials.

But apparently there is still hope for survival —judging by a report coming out of the White House.

Asked about the current state of finances, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters February 5: “We’ve seen cuts by the United States. We’ve seen cuts by European countries over the last year. And every day, I talk to you about what happens when there’s no money, right?”

“Rations are being reduced, health care not being delivered. So, I mean it’s pretty clear. In terms of the Secretariat, should it come to pass, it will impact our ability to run meetings in this building, to do the political work we do, the peacekeeping work that we do”, he pointed out.

About hopes of a possible resolution, he said “I do also have to say that we saw the reports…earlier this week – of the President of the United States signing a budget bill, which includes funding for the United Nations”.

“We welcome that, and we will stay in contact with the US over the coming days and weeks to monitor the transfers of those monies,” said Dujarric.

Meanwhile, in an interview with IPS last week, Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, Founder/CEO, International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN), said the potential financial collapse of the UN is depressing and yet so indicative of these times, when leadership everywhere is devoid of any sense of responsibility and has no care for the future.

They are the antithesis of the UN’s founding fathers and mothers, who, having experienced the hell of war and destitution first hand, committed themselves to creating a global peace and security architecture with the goal of preventing such hell for us – the future generation – their descendants, she argued.

“We all know that the UN system has never been perfect. It has never lived up to its potential. Often this has been due to the shenanigans of the powerful states, who persist in manipulating the institution for their own interests”.

The UN Security Council has long been the insecurity Council, given how the P5 are all implicated in one or other of the worst wars and genocides of the past 25 years, she said.

“But they are not solely to blame. Within the system too, we have seen both leadership and staff with vested interests, benefitting from the inertia, and unwilling to uphold new practices and priorities that would have brought transformative impact”.

“But dysfunction should not lead to abandonment and the dismantling of the system. The UN cannot be stripped and have its key assets and functions sold to the lowest bidder”.

Already, she said, the dystopian (US-created) Board of Peace is akin to the corporate raiders and vulture funds of the finance world – trying to strip the UN of its key functions but with no accountability or guard rails pertaining to its actions.

As it stands, the U.S. currently owes about $2.196 billion to the U.N.’s regular budget, including $767 million for this year and for prior years, according to U.N. sources.

The U.S. also owes $1.8 billion for the separate budget for the U.N.’s peacekeeping operations overseas, and that also will rise.

As of February 5, only 51 countries had paid their dues in full for 2026—that’s 51 out of 193. A breakdown of the last four payments follows: Australia, $65,309,876, Austria, $20,041,168, Croatia, $2,801,889, and Cyprus $1,120,513.

Dr. Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, told IPS on the one hand, the United States has been in arrears in its payments to the United Nations quite a bit in recent years, but the UN has managed to get by.

However, the extent of the Trump administration’s cutbacks and the ways they are being targeted at particularly vulnerable programs has resulted in this unprecedented fiscal crisis.

“The hostility of the Trump administration to the United Nations is extreme. Trump has made clear he believes there should be no legal restraints on the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, so it is not surprising he would seek to undermine the world’s primary institution mandated with supporting international law and world order,” declared Dr Zunes.

Addressing the UN’s Administrative and Budgetary Committee last week Chandramouli Ramanathan, Assistant Secretary-General, Controller, Management Strategy, Policy said: “The UN staff is progressively losing confidence in the entire budget process,” referring to cash shortages that have led to severe spending and hiring restrictions. The United Nations needs to find a compromise that allows the Organization to function effectively, he added.

Anderlini, elaborating further, told IPS “now more than ever, the institution must be sustained and enabled to thrive and deliver on the promise of the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the body of conventions and policies that have been developed through painstaking work to meet the challenges of today’s world.”

When global military spending is topping $2.6 trillion, she said, the UN’s approved annual budget of $3.45 billion seems like pocket change.

“It is absurd for our governments to be borrowing billions to fund weapons, but nickel and diming the UN, governmental agencies and civil society organizations that work to prevent conflict, build peace and ensure human and environmental security.”

“We live in an era where one man’s assets may soon be valued at over one trillion dollars and the world’s billionaire class wealth increased by $2.5 trillion in just one year 2025. They are lauded and applauded even though their wealth is made on the backs, bodies and lands of “We the people of the United Nations” – whether through tax avoidance or investment in high climate impact sectors such as fossil fuels and mining.”

Perhaps they should be taxed and forced to foot the bill for their complicity in the disasters that the UN is forced to clean up.

Peace and development are good for business, she argued. “They are essential for any society to survive and thrive. The UN and the global ecosystem of institutions and people dedicated to caring for the world give us our humanity – far beyond anything that can be limited to monetary value. But in dollar terms they are a great investment with returns that benefit billions of people worldwide, not just a stockpile of deadly weapons or a handful of billionaires”.

Thanks to member states’ abrogation of responsibility to uphold human rights and prevent the scourge of war, violence cost the world $19.97 trillion in 2024, or 11.6% of global GDP. According the Institute of Economics and peace this represents $2,455 per person, includes military spending, internal security, and lost economic activity, declared Anderlini.

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');