Africa

Gampaha, a district on Colombo's outskirts, has been among the areas hardest hit by flooding after Cyclone Ditwah. Credit: UNICEF/InceptChange

By Asoka Bandarage
WASHINGTON DC, Dec 9 2025 (IPS)

Tropical Cyclone Ditwah, which made landfall in Sri Lanka on 28 November 2025, is considered the country’s worst natural disaster since the deadly 2004 tsunami. It intensified the northeast monsoon, bringing torrential rainfall, massive flooding, and 215 severe landslides across seven districts.

The cyclone left a trail of destruction, killing nearly 500 people, displacing over a million, destroying homes, roads, and railway lines, and disabling critical infrastructure including 4,000 transmission towers. Total economic losses are estimated at USD 6–7 billion—exceeding the country’s foreign reserves.

The Sri Lankan Armed Forces have led the relief efforts, aided by international partners including India and Pakistan. A Sri Lanka Air Force helicopter crashed in Wennappuwa, killing the pilot and injuring four others, while five Sri Lanka Navy personnel died in Chundikkulam in the north while widening waterways to mitigate flooding.

The bravery and sacrifice of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces during this disaster—as in past disasters—continue to be held in high esteem by grateful Sri Lankans.

The government, however, is facing intense criticism for its handling of Cyclone Ditwah, including failure to heed early warnings available since November 12, a slow and poorly coordinated response, and inadequate communication with the public.

Floodwaters entered several hospitals across Sri Lanka, further straining the health system. Credit: UNICEF/ InceptChange

Systemic issues—underinvestment in disaster management, failure to activate protocols, bureaucratic neglect, and a lack of coordination among state institutions—are also blamed for avoidable deaths and destruction.

The causes of climate disasters such as Cyclone Ditwah go far beyond disaster preparedness. Faulty policymaking, mismanagement, and decades of unregulated economic development have eroded the island’s natural defenses. As climate scientist Dr. Thasun Amarasinghe notes:
“Sri Lankan wetlands—the nation’s most effective natural flood-control mechanism—have been bulldozed, filled, encroached upon, and sold.

Many of these developments were approved despite warnings from environmental scientists, hydrologists, and even state institutions.”

Sri Lanka’s current vulnerabilities also stem from historical deforestation and plantation agriculture associated with colonial-era export development. Forest cover declined from 82% in 1881 to 70% in 1900, and to 54–50% by 1948, when British rule ended. It fell further to 44% in 1954 and to 16.5% by 2019.

Deforestation contributes an estimated 10–12% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond removing a vital carbon sink, it damages water resources, increases runoff and erosion, and heightens flood and landslide risk. Soil-depleting monocrop agriculture further undermines traditional multi-crop systems that regenerate soil fertility, organic matter, and biodiversity.

In Sri Lanka’s Central Highlands, which were battered by Cyclone Ditwah, deforestation and unregulated construction had destabilized mountain slopes. Although high-risk zones prone to floods and landslides had long been identified, residents were not relocated, and construction and urbanization continued unchecked.

Sri Lanka was the first country in Asia to adopt neoliberal economic policies. With the “Open Economy” reforms of 1977, a capitalist ideology equating human well-being with quantitative growth and material consumption became widespread. Development efforts were rushed, poorly supervised, and frequently approved without proper environmental assessment.

Privatization and corporate deregulation weakened state oversight. The recent economic crisis and shrinking budgets further eroded environmental and social protections, including the maintenance of drainage networks, reservoirs, and early-warning systems. These forces have converged to make Sri Lanka a victim of a dual climate threat: gradual environmental collapse and sudden-onset disasters.

Sri Lanka: A Climate Victim

Sri Lanka’s carbon emissions remain relatively small but are rising. The impact of climate change on the island, however, is immense. Annual mean air temperature has increased significantly in recent decades (by 0.016 °C annually between 1961 and 1990). Sea-level rise has caused severe coastal erosion—0.30–0.35 meters per year—affecting nearly 55% of the shoreline. The 2004 tsunami demonstrated the extreme vulnerability of low-lying coastal plains to rising seas.

The Cyclone Ditwah catastrophe was neither wholly new nor surprising. In 2015, the Geneva-based Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) identified Sri Lanka as the South Asian country with the highest relative risk of disaster-related displacement: “For every million inhabitants, 15,000 are at risk of being displaced every year.”

IDMC also noted that in 2017 the country experienced seven disaster events—mainly floods and landslides—resulting in 135,000 new displacements and that Sri Lanka “is also at risk for slow-onset impacts such as soil degradation, saltwater intrusion, water scarcity, and crop failure”.

Sri Lanka ranked sixth among countries most affected by extreme weather events in 2018 (Germanwatch) and second in 2019 (Global Climate Risk Index). Given these warnings, Cyclone Ditwah should not have been a surprise. Scientists have repeatedly cautioned that warmer oceans fuel stronger cyclones and warmer air hold more moisture, leading to extreme rainfall.

As the Ceylon Today editorial of December 1, 2025 also observed: “…our monsoons are no longer predictable. Cyclones form faster, hit harder, and linger longer. Rainfall becomes erratic, intense, and destructive. This is not a coincidence; it is a pattern.”

Without urgent action, even more extreme weather events will threaten Sri Lanka’s habitability and physical survival.

A Global Crisis

Extreme weather events—droughts, wildfires, cyclones, and floods—are becoming the global norm. Up to 1.2 billion people could become “climate refugees” by 2050. Global warming is disrupting weather patterns, destabilizing ecosystems, and posing severe risks to life on Earth. Indonesia and Thailand were struck by the rare and devastating Tropical Cyclone Senyar in late November 2025, occurring simultaneously with Cyclone Ditwah’s landfall in Sri Lanka.

More than 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions—and nearly 90% of carbon emissions—come from burning coal, oil, and gas, which supply about 80% of the world’s energy. Countries in the Global South, like Sri Lanka, which contribute least to greenhouse gas emissions, are among the most vulnerable to climate devastation.

Yet wealthy nations and multilateral institutions, including the World Bank, continue to subsidize fossil fuel exploration and production. Global climate policymaking—including COP 30 in Belém, Brazil, in 2025—has been criticized as ineffectual and dominated by fossil fuel interests.

If the climate is not stabilized, long-term planetary forces beyond human control may be unleashed. Technology and markets are not inherently the problem; rather, the issue lies in the intentions guiding them. The techno-market worldview, which promotes the belief that well-being increases through limitless growth and consumption, has contributed to severe economic inequality and more frequent extreme weather events.

The climate crisis, in turn, reflects a profound mismatch between the exponential expansion of a profit-driven global economy and the far slower evolution of human consciousness needed to uphold morality, compassion, generosity and wisdom.

Sri Lanka’s 2025–26 budget, adopted on November 14, 2025—just as Cyclone Ditwah loomed—promised subsidized land and electricity for companies establishing AI data centers in the country. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake told Parliament: “Don’t come questioning us on why we are giving land this cheap; we have to make these sacrifices.”

Yet Sri Lanka is a highly water-stressed nation, and a growing body of international research shows that AI data centers consume massive amounts of water and electricity, contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.

The failure of the narrow, competitive techno-market approach underscores the need for an ecological and collective framework capable of addressing the deeper roots of this existential crisis—both for Sri Lanka and the world.

Ecological and Human Protection

Ecological consciousness demands recognition that humanity is part of the Earth, not separate from it. Policies to address climate change must be grounded in this understanding, rather than in worldviews that prize infinite growth and technological dominance.

Nature has primacy over human-created systems: the natural world does not depend on humanity, while humanity cannot survive without soil, water, air, sunlight, and the Earth’s essential life-support systems.

Although a climate victim today, Sri Lanka is also home to an ancient ecological civilization dating back to the arrival of the Buddhist monk Mahinda Thera in the 3rd century BCE. Upon meeting King Devanampiyatissa, who was out hunting in Mihintale, Mahinda Thera delivered one of the earliest recorded teachings on ecological interdependence and the duty of rulers to protect nature:

“O great King, the birds of the air and the beasts of the forest have as much right to live and move about in any part of this land as thou. The land belongs to the people and all living beings; thou art only its guardian.”

A stone inscription at Mihintale records that the king forbade the killing of animals and the destruction of trees. The Mihintale Wildlife Sanctuary is believed to be the world’s first.

Sri Lanka’s ancient dry-zone irrigation system—maintained over more than a millennium—stands as a marvel of sustainable development. Its network of interconnected reservoirs, canals, and sluices captured monsoon waters, irrigated fields, controlled floods, and even served as a defensive barrier.

Floods occurred, but historical records show no disasters comparable in scale, severity, or frequency to those of today. Ancient rulers, including the legendary reservoir-builder King Parākramabāhu, and generations of rice farmers managed their environment with remarkable discipline and ecological wisdom.

The primacy of nature became especially evident when widespread power outages and the collapse of communication networks during Cyclone Ditwah forced people to rely on one another for survival. The disaster ignited spontaneous acts of compassion and solidarity across all communities—men and women, rich and poor, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus.

Local and international efforts mobilized to rescue, shelter, feed, and emotionally support those affected. These actions demonstrated a profound human instinct for care and cooperation, often filling vacuums left by formal emergency systems.

Yet spontaneous solidarity alone is insufficient. Sri Lanka urgently needs policies on sustainable development, environmental protection, and climate resilience. These include strict, science-based regulation of construction; protection of forests and wetlands; proper maintenance of reservoirs; and climate-resilient infrastructure.

Schools should teach environmental literacy that builds unity and solidarity, rather than controversial and divisive curriculum changes like the planned removal of history and introduction of contested modules on gender and sexuality.

If the IMF and international creditors—especially BlackRock, Sri Lanka’s largest sovereign bondholder, valued at USD 13 trillion—are genuinely concerned about the country’s suffering, could they not cancel at least some of Sri Lanka’s sovereign debt and support its rebuilding efforts?

Addressing the climate emergency and the broader existential crisis facing Sri Lanka and the world ultimately requires an evolution in human consciousness guided by morality, compassion, generosity and wisdom.

Dr Asoka Bandarage is the author of Colonialism in Sri Lanka: The Political Economy of the Kandyan Highlands, 1833-1886 (Mouton) Women, Population and Global Crisis: A Politico-Economic Analysis (Zed Books), The Separatist Conflict in Sri Lanka: Terrorism, Ethnicity, Political Economy, ( Routledge), Sustainability and Well-Being: The Middle Path to Environment, Society and the Economy (Palgrave MacMillan) Crisis in Sri Lanka and the World: Colonial and Neoliberal Origins, Ecological and Collective Alternatives (De Gruyter) and numerous other publications. She serves on the Advisory Boards of the Interfaith Moral Action on Climate and Critical Asian Studies.

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 detailed study highlights the military's aerial campaign and how civilians have been its victims.

A detailed study highlights the military's aerial campaign and how civilians have been its victims.

Meera Gopal joins host Tushar Shetty to examine the outcomes of COP30 in Belém, Brazil and the implications for South Asia.

Caroline Awuor tends to tree seedlings on her farm in Siaya County, Western Kenya. She is a beneficiary of the My Farm Trees Project. Credit: Jackson Okata/IPS

By Jackson Okata
SIAYA, Kenya , Dec 8 2025 (IPS)

For years, Morris Onyango had been trying to reforest his degraded land on the shores of River Nzoia, in Siaya county, 430 kilometers from Kenya’s Capital, Nairobi. But every time he planted trees on his farm, his efforts bore little fruit, as floodwaters would not only wash away his tree seedlings but also fertile topsoil on his land.

“The land became unproductive and bare. I tried reclaiming the land through reforestation, but the trees’ survival rate was too low,” Onyango said.

Siaya County has a 5.23 percent forest cover and is ranked 44th out of Kenya’s 47 counties. Judy Ogeche, a scientist from the Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), says that the compromised forest and tree cover in the county and the lack of any gazetted forests have discouraged the integration of tree and crop farming.

“Communities here do not see tree growing as a lucrative venture. Some myths and beliefs discourage tree growing. For example, some people believe that growing the Terminalia mentalis (often known as the Panga Uzazi) tree attracts death,” says Ogeche.

According to Ogeche, another challenge is gender inequality in land ownership, with men owning most available land and making decisions on what should be planted.

“We have many women interested in restoring tree cover, but their husbands would not allow it,” Ogeche said.

Across Africa, reforestation projects struggle to survive beyond the seedling stage. However, in parts of Kenya, a groundbreaking digital innovation is transforming the landscape by empowering rural farmers to earn a living while restoring degraded lands with native trees.

Tech and Reforestation

In a bid to restore lost biodiversity and enhance tree cover in Kenya, Alliance Bioversity International and CIAT, in partnership with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), launched the My Farm Trees project, a blockchain-based platform that offers guidance to subsistence farmers on seed selection, planting, and post-plant care, ensuring that seedlings survive and thrive in harsh conditions.

Implemented in the counties of Siaya, Turkana and Laikipia, MFT emphasizes genetically robust native species that support biodiversity, improve soil health, and provide long-term ecological and economic benefits.

Ogeche observes that the My Farm Trees project has motivated communities in Siaya to grow trees.

“They are given free seedlings and taught how to plant and take care of them, and when the trees grow, they are paid,” she said.

To provide the right seedlings, the project is partnering with the Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), the Kenya Forest Services (KFS) and private tree nursery operators in the respective counties.

For farmers like Onyango, the My Farm Trees Project gave them the much-needed solution to their degraded lands and soils

“The project gifted me 175 seedlings of various trees, which I planted along the riverbank. The trees have helped me reclaim my land, prevent erosion and get paid for taking care of my own trees,” Onyango says.

How it Works

In the My Farm Trees project, participating farmers are registered on the MyGeo Farm App, which allows them to monitor seedlings from planting to growing. Through the app, farmers can track and report progress.

Francis Oduor, the National Project Coordinator, says since its rollout, the project has seen over 1,300 farmers registered on the MyGeo Tree App, and over 100,000 seedlings have been planted across the three counties.

“The project is especially interested in using indigenous trees for landscape restoration, which are native to specific areas, and to enhance genetic diversity,” says Oduor.

Oduor explains that My Farm Trees uses monitoring, verification, and incentives to empower local communities to become leaders and stewards of tree-planting projects that provide immediate short-term benefits.

“The project does not just focus on payment to farmers but the long-term benefits of restored landscapes for improved agricultural productivity, water regulation, and climate resilience,” said Oduor.

To ensure the use of native varieties and guarantee the production of quality tree seedlings, the project team collaborates with KEFRI to provide technical assistance to local tree nursery operators.

Lawrence Ogoda, a tree nursery operator, is among the project beneficiaries. He has been trained on seed collection, raising seedlings and record keeping.

“Through the MyGeo Tree and MyGeo Nursery Apps, I can collect data and track progress on seed collection, propagation and development at the nurseries.”

Before joining the My Farm Trees project, Caroline Awuor had not given much attention to growing trees. She received 110 seedlings, 104 of which have successfully survived and are earning her cash incentives.

“Most of them are fruit trees, including mangoes, avocado and jackfruit, while there are also some timber trees. In addition to the incentives from the project, I also earn money by selling the fruit,” she says.

Caroline intends to plant an additional 1,000 tree seedlings on her land, strategically located near the River Nzoia.

According to Joshua Schneck, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) Portfolio Manager for Global Programs at IUCN, My Farm Trees is an innovative project driven towards sustainable transformation.

The Impact

In Kenya, My Farm Tree has supported 3,404 farmers, 56 percent of whom are women. A total of 210,520 trees have been planted, with a survival rate of over 60 percent beyond the first year, with 1,250 hectares of land being restored across Siaya, Turkana, and Laikipia counties.

The program has released KES 26 million (approximately USD 200,000) in digital payments, directly benefiting 1,517 farmers. Additionally, 13 local nurseries have been strengthened in partnership with the Kenya Forestry Research Institute.

Also implemented in Cameroon, the project has seen the restoration of 1,403 hectares of forest land with over 145,000 seedlings being planted and 2,200 farmers registered on the platform. The project has also seen the restoration of 423 community lands and 315 sacred forests, with USD 130,000 in incentives distributed to farmers.

Oduor noted that the My Farm Trees project offers a scalable blueprint for  forest restoration by combining science and Blockchain technology in tree selection, post-planting support, and farmer incentives, which gives it  global relevance.

“MFT is a scalable model that aligns with climate action, poverty reduction, and ecosystem recovery. This approach supports the goals of the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, and the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration,” Oduor 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');  

BBC Sport Africa provides all the information on the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations ahead of the 35th edition of the continent's biggest sporting event.

Residents of the main city express shock after soldiers tried to overthrow the president.

Credit: Roman023_photography / shutterstock.com

By Jordan Ryan
Dec 8 2025 (IPS)

 
Established democracies are exhibiting governance stresses that were once associated primarily with fragile and conflict-affected states. Polarisation is weakening institutional trust, fragmenting civic norms, and reducing societies’ ability to solve problems collectively. This is the new fragility. At the same time, governments and civil society organisations are adopting digital tools to support public participation. These deliberative technologies hold real promise, but in polarised environments they also carry risks. Their success depends on the same principles that have guided peacebuilding efforts for decades.

Across regions, the political landscape has shifted in ways that mirror dynamics familiar from post-conflict settings. Deepening identity rifts, distrust of institutions, and competing factual narratives are reshaping public life in countries long regarded as stable. Polarisation is no longer a peripheral concern; it has become a structural condition of governance. When institutions lose legitimacy and fear becomes a central organising force, formal capacity alone is insufficient to maintain stability.

In this environment, deliberative technologies are being introduced with the expectation that they can expand participation and strengthen decision-making. These systems are designed for structured listening and collaborative problem-solving. Yet many are deployed in contexts marked by distrust, grievance, and political contestation. Digital participation cannot succeed if it is layered onto institutions already viewed as partisan or unresponsive. Without the operating disciplines of peacebuilding, these tools risk amplifying the very divisions they aim to mitigate.

The dynamics of polarisation shape this new fragility in three interconnected ways. First, political allegiance is increasingly tied to perceived identity threat. Affective polarisation has become a defining feature of public life, narrowing the space for compromise. Second, fragmented information ecosystems reward outrage and accelerate the spread of misinformation, leaving citizens with incompatible understandings of basic facts. Third, institutions responsible for moderating conflict—courts, election bodies, public administrators, and independent media—are being reframed as partisan actors. When these bodies lose legitimacy, societies fall into conflict-habituated patterns in which escalation becomes predictable and attempts at compromise appear suspect.

Recent developments in the United States illustrate how these pressures unfold in a consolidated democracy. Executive actions that centralised administrative power, weakened professional civil service structures, and transformed technical governance issues into cultural battlegrounds created conditions more familiar from fragile states than from established democracies. Large-scale civil service layoffs reduced institutional memory and policy capacity. Oversight mechanisms were politicised. Rules governing public sector technology, including artificial intelligence, became instruments of ideological conflict rather than public stewardship. Similar patterns are emerging elsewhere, revealing how fragile the foundations of democratic governance can become when institutions are systematically undermined.

To address this new fragility, deliberative technology must be regarded as a governance challenge, not a technical solution. A peacebuilding-informed framework offers practical guidance built on three essential foundations. First, governance must take precedence over gadgets. Deliberative platforms are never neutral; their design, oversight, and data management all structure power and influence. Democratic systems require transparent decision rules and independent oversight. Mechanisms such as multi-stakeholder oversight bodies or community data trusts can institutionalise accountability and ensure that deliberation remains a civic rather than commercial function.

Second, impact measurement must replace engagement metrics. Participation numbers do not reflect democratic value. What matters is whether public input shapes institutional decisions in clear and traceable ways. Demonstrating this link is essential for rebuilding trust. Without it, digital participation becomes symbolic and can deepen cynicism.

Third, the peacebuilding lens must serve as an essential safeguard. Peacebuilding offers practical disciplines vital in polarised environments. Conflict sensitivity demands careful assessment of power dynamics before platform deployment. Trauma awareness helps ensure emotional safety. Inclusion requires active, not passive, measures to bring marginalised voices into decision-making. Sequencing recognises that facilitated dialogue may be needed before deliberation in highly polarised contexts.

Translating these principles into practice requires several concrete priorities. Public agencies should adopt procurement standards that require open-source platforms, transparent algorithms, and independent oversight of deliberation data. Funders should assess deliberative initiatives based on democratic impact rather than uptake or engagement metrics, using accountability scorecards to track the link between public input and institutional action. Professionalising the role of digital facilitators—through training in conflict sensitivity, power analysis, and trauma-aware engagement—would strengthen the quality and safety of online deliberation.

The boundary between “fragile” and “stable” democracies is no longer clear. Polarisation acts as a form of systemic fragility that erodes institutions from within. If this is the defining governance challenge of the current moment, then peacebuilding must become a central democratic skillset. The question isn’t whether to embrace digital participation tools, but how to ground them in governance practices that enable societies to manage conflict constructively.

Looking ahead, the test cases are already emerging. From citizen assemblies addressing climate policy to AI-powered platforms promising to revolutionise public consultation, each new deployment offers an opportunity to apply these lessons. The Toda Peace Institute’s forthcoming Barcelona workshop on deliberative technology and democratic governance exemplifies how practitioners are beginning to integrate these approaches. By focusing on governance rather than gadgets, on impact rather than engagement, and on peacebuilding principles as essential safeguards, digital participation can contribute to a more resilient democratic future. The alternative—continued techno-solutionism without the wisdom of conflict management—risks accelerating the very fragmentation these tools promise to heal.

Other articles by this author:
The Empire Has No Clothes: America’s Democratic Sermons and the Authoritarian Boomerang
Weaponisation of Law: Assault on Democracy
A Vicious Spiral: Political Violence in Fragile Democracies
Reluctant Truth-Tellers and Institutional Fragility

Jordan Ryan is a member of the Toda International Research Advisory Council (TIRAC) at the Toda Peace Institute, a Senior Consultant at the Folke Bernadotte Academy and former UN Assistant Secretary-General with extensive experience in international peacebuilding, human rights, and development policy. His work focuses on strengthening democratic institutions and international cooperation for peace and security. Ryan has led numerous initiatives to support civil society organisations and promote sustainable development across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. He regularly advises international organisations and governments on crisis prevention and democratic governance.

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');  

With collective commitment, Africa can shift from potential to powerhouse—and reshape global industrial landscapes. Two former students of the Zambian Industrial Training Academy, established with the support of UNIDO and other partners, work at an engineering company. Credit: UNIDO
 
When the world marked Africa Industrialization Day in November, UNIDO Director General, Gerd Müller reflected on the continent’s progress and the urgent investments needed to drive sustainable, competitive industrial growth. In this op-ed, he outlines why Africa stands at a defining moment—and what must happen next to unlock its full industrial potential.

By Gerd Müller
VIENNA, Austria, Dec 8 2025 (IPS)

Africa enters 2025 at a pivotal moment in its development. The ambition to transform the continent’s economies through sustainable industrialization, regional integration, and innovation is clearer than ever, and is picking up pace. The foundations are being laid. Industrial strategies are expanding, regional integration is progressing, infrastructure projects are advancing, and a young, dynamic private sector powers local economies.

Africa’s GDP growth remains among the highest globally, with more than 20 countries expected to have exceeded 5% growth in 2025. Manufacturing value added has increased in several sub-regions, and new investments in green energy, digital connectivity, and agro-industrial value chains are taking root.

Gerd Müller

We need to capture this moment.

What is slowing us is that this progress is fragmented and uneven. Manufacturing accounts for just over 10% of GDP across the continent. More than 60% of industrial output comes from low-value sectors. Trade costs remain roughly 50% higher than global averages and reliable electricity access still reaches only 48% of Africa’s population.

Although Africa is responsible for less than 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions, it is among the hardest hit by the impacts of climate change. Meanwhile, commitments to climate finance and fairer credit conditions have not been fully met.

Borrowing costs remain high for African economies, which limits their capacity to invest in the infrastructure, energy systems, and industrial ecosystems needed to compete fairly in global markets.

The truth is that Africa has all the ingredients for industrial transformation. The continent holds abundant mineral reserves, including more than 30% of global cobalt, yet captures less than 1% of global battery production.

Africa added 2.4 gigawatts of new solar capacity in 2024 and renewable energy now accounts for nearly 15% of total installed capacity. The digital economy is expanding rapidly, with internet penetration reaching 44% and with 12% of manufacturing firms adopting digital tools.

Africa’s population, with a median age under 20 years in many countries, is one of the strongest assets for future industrial development. Fertile land, expanding urban centers, and growing innovation ecosystems point to a future in which Africa could become one of the world’s most competitive industrial regions.

What remains missing is not ambition or potential but investment on time and at scale to unlock this transformation. Infrastructure gaps continue to impede value chain development. Industrial parks, logistics systems, ports, and energy corridors need sustained and coordinated financing.

Regional integration through the African Continental Free Trade Area offers a historic opportunity to expand intra-African trade and strengthen continental value chains, yet this requires harmonized standards, lower logistics costs, and the full operationalization of continental instruments.

Development assistance can help build regulatory capacity and institutional capabilities, but it cannot substitute for the long-term investment needed to build industries that create jobs and drive structural transformation.

This is where the upcoming Fourth Industrial Development Decade for Africa (IDDA IV, 2026-2035) provides a renewed strategic framework to accelerate and transform the continent’s industrialization efforts, in line with Agenda 2063 and the 2030 Agenda.

Championed by the African Union Commission, the UN Economic Commission for Africa, UNIDO and other partners, IDDA IV aims to leverage innovation, investment and integration to transform Africa into a global production base, one that is competitive, green, and digitally enabled.

At a national level, UNIDO’s Programmes for Country Partnership (PCPs) offer a compelling vehicle for industrial rise. PCPs support governments and the private sector in identifying priority value chains, mobilizing domestic and international investors, strengthening policy and institutional frameworks, and developing the skills needed to build strong and sustainable institutions.

They bring together government, development partners, the private sector, and financial institutions around a shared industrial vision. They help create the enabling conditions that lower investment risks and accelerate the expansion of competitive industries.

Under the strength of this approach, governments and partners mobilized both public and private investment, to develop agro-industrial parks and agro-poles. PCPs have also helped deepen support for agro-processing clusters, creating jobs for youth and women, and have raised the competitiveness of the private sector.

The PCP approach shows that when industrial priorities, investment promotion, skills development, and infrastructure are advanced together, the results can be transformative and durable.

Africa’s industrial future is within reach. The frameworks are in place. The continental vision is clear. What is needed now is intentional investment that matches Africa’s potential. Fairer credit conditions, stronger climate finance delivery, and deeper regional cooperation will be essential to move from plans to large-scale implementation.

The private sector, responsible for the vast majority of jobs and investment, will continue to be a critical driver of job creation and innovation if it is supported with the right infrastructure, policies, and market opportunities.

Africa will not be transformed by speeches. It will be transformed by coherent action and long-term investment. The continent has the resources, talent, and vision required to stand among the world’s leading industrial regions. What is needed now is a collective commitment to scale what works and support Africa’s ambition to industrialize sustainably and competitively.

Source: Africa Renewal, United Nations

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');  

Mohamed Salah is destroying his legacy and should not be involved in Liverpool's next two games before he goes off to the Africa Cup of Nations, says Wayne Rooney.

Donald Trump says white South Africans are being persecuted and so qualify for asylum but black farmers are also being killed.

Kenyan families whose sons have been duped into fighting for Russia demand they be brought home.

Esther says she faced sexual violence on her journey to Europe after fleeing abuse in Nigeria.

J. D. 'Okhai Ojeikere has photographed over 2000 uniqie Nigerian hairstyles.

South Africa extend head coach Rassie Erasmus' contract until the end of the 2031 Rugby World Cup.

The UN General Assembly in session. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elias

By Anwarul Chowdhury
NEW YORK, Dec 5 2025 (IPS)

From its inception, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) has been engaged in improving its working methods, mindful of, as early as in 1949, “… the increasing length of General Assembly sessions, and of the growing tendency towards protracted debates.”

Since the leadership of legendary Ambassador Samir Shihabi of Saudi Arabia as President of the General Assembly (PGA) during the 46th session in 1991 and thereafter, the Assembly’s agenda has included a dedicated item on the revitalization of the work of the Assembly and its Main Committees.

Since the 60th session in 2005, under the guidance of its articulate and forward-looking President, Ambassador Jan Eliasson of Sweden, the Assembly has established the Ad Hoc Working Group on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly. Its mandate was “to identify ways to further enhance the role, authority, effectiveness and efficiency of the General Assembly.”

Until now, more than 200 outcomes have been recorded in 30 different areas. The incumbent President of the landmark 80th session, Annalena Baerbock of Germany, has now taken the initiative to move forward substantively on this perennial exercise of the world’s most universal multilateral body.

Election of a Woman as the Next Secretary-General

I would strongly suggest that her forward-looking leadership would restore the operational credibility of the United Nations by including in its revitalization exercise the role of the Secretary-General, facilitating the election of a woman as the next Secretary-General, transparency of the UN’s budgetary processes, addressing the current and future liquidity crises, and meaningful inclusivity of civil society in the Assembly’s work.

The role, functions and leadership of the Secretary-General need special attention from the Assembly as the appointing authority. The 75th PGA in 2020 Volkan Bozkir rightly identified that “the Secretary-General is the engine and the transmission system.”

It is unfortunate that questions have been raised about the reticence of the Secretary-General in getting his hands dirty and in getting more proactively involved in and in mobilizing his senior management team towards ending the ongoing global conflicts and wars and promoting peace and reconciliation.

In a recent op-ed, a former UNICEF Deputy Executive Director and a longtime UN watcher, Kul Chandra Gautam, even exhorted the SG “not to hide behind the glasshouse at Turtle Bay and go beyond invisible subtle diplomacy to more visible shuttle diplomacy.”

After choosing nine men successively to be the world’s topmost diplomat, I strongly believe that the United Nations should have the sanity and sagacity of electing a woman as its next Secretary-General.

In its resolution A/79/372 adopted as recently as on 5 September this year, the Assembly, in its paragraph 42(c), says that “ Noting with regret that no woman has ever held the position of Secretary-General, [it] encourages Member States to strongly consider nominating women as candidates,” and it also asserted in its paragraph 42(k) that “The Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council, in accordance with Article 97 of the Charter.”

The same resolution (79/327) committed the UNGA “ … to the continued implementation of … its resolution 76/262 of 26 April 2022 on the veto initiative, to enhance the work of the General Assembly, taking into account its role on matters related to the maintenance of international peace and security ….” In the current exercise, this area, of course, needs further attention and elaboration.

Transparency and accountability are essential in the budget processes of the UN.

Two other areas that need more scrutiny are extra budgetary resources received from Member States and consultancy practices, including budgetary allocations for that by the Organization. Special attention in these areas is needed to restore the UN’s credibility and thereby effectiveness and efficiency for the benefit of humanity as a whole.

Future financial and Liquidity crises

Tough decisions needed to avoid future financial and liquidity crises needed genuine engagement by all sides, yes, ALL sides, in particular the major “assessed” contributors.

Peacekeeping operations also face increasing liquidity pressure as the outstanding contributions for that area are reported to be $3.16 billion. These accumulations have been building up for some years. Why was no extra effort made by all sides well ahead of time to avoid the recurrent panic about the Organization’s liquidity crises?

Today’s financial and liquidity crisis is not caused by the recent withholding of payments by a few major contributors for political reasons. Outstanding contributions for the UN’s regular budget reached $2.27 billion last month.

At the UN, though the “process is an intergovernmental one and thereby Member States-driven,” the absence of civil society involvement would seriously undermine the role and contribution of “We the Peoples ….” PGA Bozkir asserted that “civil society is the pillar of democracy, and we must, after some time, find a way that civil society is (re)presented here.”

Enhancing the UN’s credibility

Also, I am of the opinion that a formalized and mandated involvement of and genuine consultation with the civil society would enhance the UN’s credibility. The UN leadership and Member States should work diligently on that without fail for a decision by the ongoing 80th session of the General Assembly.

Under the bold, upbeat and clear-sighted leadership of the incumbent PGA Annalena Baerbock whose proactive and forward-looking role has already drawn wide appreciative attention, the international community needs to wish her the best of luck in this very important endeavor to revitalize the apex body of the most universal multilateral entity – the UN General Assembly – in a positive way.

For that, now is the time to discuss and to decide on the urgent, focused and meaningful areas of action. The UN’s long-drawn revitalization efforts, in reality, should not end again in the repetitive regularity of an omnibus of redundancy.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury is former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the United Nations, Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the UN, Initiator of the UNSCR 1325 as the President of the UN Security Council in March 2000, Chairman of the UN General Assembly’s Main Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Matters and Founder of the Global Movement for The Cultural of Peace (GMCoP).

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: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Stephanie Hodge
NEW YORK, Dec 5 2025 (IPS)

Let’s just say the quiet part out loud: the UN is not reforming because it suddenly woke up one morning inspired by efficiency. It’s reforming because the Organization is broke. Not metaphorically broke. Not diplomatically broke. Actually broke. The kind of broke where arrears sit at $1.586 billion and everyone pretends that’s just an unfortunate bookkeeping hiccup instead of the fact that the lights are flickering.

So, the Secretary-General stands before the Fifth Committee and announces a slimmed-down 2026 budget, thousands of posts vanished, a payroll moved across continents, and a brave new era of administrative consolidation.

And everyone nods because what else can you do when you’re trying to keep a 1945 institution upright on a 2025 income stream? But the truth is far simpler than the polished speech: this is not bold reform. This is the UN tightening its belt to the last notch and pretending it’s a fashion choice.

The real solution is embarrassingly practical.

First, Member States have to pay what they owe. That’s it. That’s the root. You cannot starve an institution of a billion and a half dollars and then evaluate it for underperformance. You can’t expect the UN to deliver peacekeeping, human rights, climate action, oceans, cyber governance, gender equality, humanitarian assistance, and the rest of the alphabet of global problems when its bank account is emptier than its inbox during August recess.

Second, Member States need to stop adding new mandates while ignoring the ones already sitting unfunded in the corner like neglected houseplants. You cannot keep handing the UN new global responsibilities and then act surprised that the staff who once ran these mandates are now buried in work or—more likely—gone.

Third, the UN needs to do what every other global institution did a decade ago: consolidate the administrative empires. Forty different HR units. Forty different procurement interpretations. Forty flavours of “policy exceptions.”

This is not a sign of diversity; it’s a sign of institutional sleepwalking. One payroll system. One procurement backbone. One HR servicing model. That is what real efficiency looks like, not cutting the travel budget until only three people can attend a conference on another continent.

Fourth, move the repetitive administrative work to lower-cost duty stations. Not because it’s trendy, but because it’s rational. Shift the paperwork, not the expertise.

Relocate the forms, the workflows, the endless approvals—not the chemists, the human rights lawyers, the peacebuilders, the environmental scientists, the country advisers. Protect the people who actually deliver.

And finally, digitize the system so staff aren’t drowning in PDFs like some tragic archive-themed Greek myth. Half the UN’s memory is lost every time someone retires because it lives in Outlook folders from 2011. If the UN is going to survive, it needs modern, automated systems, not heroic acts of manual labour disguised as institutional knowledge.

None of this is glamorous. None of this is the stuff of commemorative plaques. But it is real. It is possible. And it is necessary.

The SG insists these cuts will not affect mandate delivery. But let’s be honest: no institution on earth can do more with less indefinitely. At some point, it simply does less. The only question is whether we choose what gets dropped or whether it drops itself.

UN80 has been sold as a transformation, but it is really a house-keeping operation performed with the water already turned off. If Member States want a functioning UN—one that can actually deliver on the mandates they vote for—they need to pay their dues, stop loading the wagon, and let the Secretariat modernize without political micromanagement.

That is the rice and the beans. Everything else is garnish.

And What About All Those Agencies?”

Whenever the Secretary-General announces a grand reform — especially one involving massive cuts, relocations, and talk of agility — there’s always one unspoken question hanging in the air like incense in a cathedral: And what about all those agencies?

Because let’s be honest, the UN family is not a family so much as a complicated set of second cousins who share a last name but not a bank account. The SG can trim 18% of Secretariat posts, merge payroll, consolidate admin, and talk about efficiency until New York freezes over — but the agencies?

They watch from the balcony like disinterested aristocrats at an estate auction, whispering: “Poor Secretariat… hope they manage.”

In reality, UN80 puts every agency on notice — not officially, not publicly, but structurally.

Here is the quiet truth:
If the Secretariat collapses under arrears, the agencies feel it next.

They pretend they won’t. They talk about voluntary contributions, earmarked funding, trust funds, vertical funds, and country programmes as if that protects them. But the whole UN system is tied together like one of those old wooden chairs: take out the wrong leg and suddenly the “independent” agencies wobble.

UNDP will smile and say its revenue base is safe — but the second the Secretariat starts relocating services to Bangkok and Nairobi, guess who also taps those services? UNDP. And UNICEF. And UN Women. And UNEP.

Everyone wants the cheaper admin backbone, until it becomes overcrowded like a budget airline terminal in August.

UNESCO and FAO will make statements about their distinct governance structures, but they’re already stretched so thin that one more global conference could snap them like linguine. WHO will keep its aura of authority, but even they know that when the Secretariat starts consolidating payroll and procurement, the agencies follow sooner or later, kicking and screaming in their Geneva offices while quietly drafting transition plans.

WFP will insist it is different because it is operational. But operational agencies depend on global rules, global oversight, global HR, global justice systems — all housed in the Secretariat that just had 3,000 posts shaved off like a sheep at shearing season.

The Specialized Agencies always pretend they are immune until someone tries to harmonize systems, and then suddenly every executive head wakes up in a cold sweat muttering “gateway compliance” and “IPSAS alignment.”

What about UNHCR? They run on emergencies and adrenaline. They know exactly what this means: more work, fewer resources, and donor expectations rising faster than sea levels.

And the irony?

Every agency will publicly congratulate the SG on “courageous reform” while privately updating their risk registers with words like systemic, interdependency failure, and catastrophic liquidity contagion.

Because the truth is this:
If the Secretariat downsizes, everyone else eventually tightens their belt.

Not because they want to, but because global funding follows global politics, and global politics right now looks like a group of countries fighting over who forgot to pay the electricity bill.

So, what happens to all those agencies?

They watch the Secretariat shrink and hope the tide doesn’t reach their floor.

But the tide always reaches the next floor. Always.

UN80 is not just an internal reform. It’s the start of a system-wide reckoning.

A warning shot that the era of infinite mandates and shrinking wallets is over.

In the end, even the agencies know the rice-and-beans truth:

If Member States don’t fund the UN, the whole family — not just the Secretariat — goes hungry.

Stephanie Hodge, MPA Harvard (2006), is an international evaluator and former UN advisor who has worked across 140 countries. She is a former staffer of UNDP (1994-1996 & 1999- 2004) and UNICEF (2008-2014). She writes on governance, multilateral reform, and climate equity.

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');  

When going home after school, Monica Ben not only takes with her a pen and exercise books but also a lantern to light the dark room and completes her daily homework in Mashonaland East province. Known as the Chigubhu lantern, a Shona name for a bottle, this portable light was made using recycled materials by […]

A nuclear test is carried out on an island in French Polynesia in 1971. Credit: CTBTO

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 5 2025 (IPS)

President Donald Trump’s recent announcement to resume nuclear testing rekindles nightmares of a bygone era where military personnel and civilians were exposed to devastating radioactive fallouts.

In the five decades between 1945 and the opening for the signature of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996, over 2,000 nuclear tests were carried out all over the world. The United States conducted 1,032 tests between 1945 and 1992.

According to published reports and surveys, it was primarily military personnel who participated in U.S. nuclear weapons testing. The U.S. government initially withheld information about the effects of radiation, leading to health problems for many veterans.

And it was not until 1996 that Congress repealed the Nuclear Radiation and Secrecy Agreements Act, which allowed veterans to discuss their experiences without fear of treason charges.

Although a 1998 compensation bill did not pass, the government has since issued an apology to the survivors and their families.

Some civilians were exposed to radioactive fallout from early nuclear tests, like the Trinity test in New Mexico. And like atomic veterans, these civilians also suffered from long-term health effects due to their exposure to radiation, the reports said.

Dr. M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security Director pro tem of the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS one doesn’t know exactly what kind of nuclear tests might be conducted.

Even though the United States has not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, in 1963, it did sign and ratify the “Treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water,” commonly known as the Partial Test Ban Treaty.

Since then, he pointed out, all of its nuclear tests have been conducted underground. There are two kinds of environmental dangers associated with underground nuclear tests. The first is that radioactive contamination may escape into the atmosphere, either at the time of the explosion or more gradually during routine post-test activities.

“More than half of all tests conducted at the Nevada Test site have led to radioactivity being released to the atmosphere. The second is that the radioactivity left underground makes its way over a long period of time into groundwater or to the surface.”

In 1999, he said, scientists detected plutonium 1.3 kilometers away from a 1968 nuclear weapons test in Nevada. In addition to these environmental dangers, the greater danger is that if the United States resumes nuclear weapon testing, then other countries would follow suit.

“Already, we have seen calls to prepare to resume testing from hawks in other countries, such as India.”

Decades ago, Ramana pointed out, when the US government planned to test nuclear weapons at Bikini atoll, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) said, “What should be vaporized is not an obsolete battleship but the whole process of the manufacture of the atomic bomb.”

“That statement is still relevant. We should be shutting down the capacity to build and use nuclear weapons, not refining the ability to carry out mass murder,” declared Dr. Ramana.

Meanwhile, in the five decades between 1945 and the opening for signature of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996, over 2,000 nuclear tests were carried out all over the world.

• • The United States conducted 1,032 tests between 1945 and 1992.

 

• • The Soviet Union carried out 715 tests between 1949 and 1990.

 

• • The United Kingdom carried out 45 tests between 1952 and 1991.

 

• • France carried out 210 tests between 1960 and 1996.

 

• • China carried out 45 tests between 1964 and 1996.

 

• India carried out 1 test in 1974.

Natalie Goldring, Acronym Institute’s representative at the United Nations, told IPS that President Trump’s threat to resume US nuclear testing is remarkably shortsighted and dangerous, even by his impulsive and reckless standards.

“President Trump seems to be making the incorrect assumption that the US government always gets the last move in foreign policy. He attempts to conduct foreign policy by issuing pronouncements, rather than engaging in the hard work of policymaking and diplomacy or even ensuring that his actions are legal.”

In this case, he is apparently assuming that the US government can unilaterally decide to resume nuclear testing without prompting the same actions from other countries, she said.

Proponents of permanent nuclear weapons development and nuclear weapons testing claim that testing preserves the reliability of the arsenal and sends a message of US strength to potential adversaries.

“But the United States already has a robust testing program to ensure the reliability of its nuclear weapons. Rather than demonstrating strength, a US return to nuclear weapons testing could be used as a justification to do the same by other current and prospective nuclear weapons states. In effect, it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

As William Broad recently reported in the New York Times, part of the challenge of interpreting President Trump’s pronouncement on nuclear testing is that it’s not clear what he means. Does he mean full-scale, supercritical testing, or is he talking about testing that produces an extremely small explosion, such as hydronuclear testing?

Either way, the US government would be breaking the testing moratorium that it has observed since 1992, she pointed out.

“Nuclear testing has ramifications and costs in many areas, including human, political, economic, environmental, military, and legal. States with nuclear weapons tend to focus on the perceived military and political aspects of these weapons.”

But they frequently ignore the profound human, economic, and environmental costs for those who were soldiers or civilians at or near test sites or in the areas surrounding those sites. Little attention or funding has been provided to survivors or to cleaning up the land poisoned by nuclear testing, said Goldring.

Rather than resuming nuclear testing, those funds could be used to help remedy the effects of past tests, including reducing some of the human and environmental costs.

Instead of threatening to resume nuclear tests and risking that other countries with nuclear weapons will follow our dangerous example, President Trump could take more constructive actions.

One immediate example is that the last nuclear arms control agreement between the US government and Russia, New START, expires early next year. This agreement limited the number of deployed nuclear weapons for both the United States and Russia and contained useful verification provisions that are unlikely to continue when the agreement expires.

It’s probably too late to negotiate even a simple follow-on agreement, but the US and Russia could still commit to maintaining New START’s limits, said Goldring.

If President Trump really wants to be the peacemaker he claims to be, he could commit the United States to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

The TPNW is a comprehensive renunciation of nuclear weapons programs; States commit themselves not to develop, test, produce, acquire, possess, stockpile, use, or threaten to use nuclear weapons.

“Rather than taking us backwards, as President Trump proposes to do, we need to move forward.”

In 1946, Albert Einstein wrote, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

The TPNW offers a way forward out of this predicament. Testing will perpetuate and exacerbate the human, environmental, and economic costs, among others, she said.

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');  

Somali-Americans tell of their heightened fear after the US president intensified his criticism of the community.