Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

The panelists at the CIVICUS press briefing on the 2025 People Power Under Attack Report. Credit: Oritro Karim/IPS

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 11 2025 (IPS)

Over the course of 2025, global civic space conditions have deteriorated sharply, with most countries experiencing some degree of obstructed civil liberties. As authoritarian governments strengthen their hold and have even escalated the use of military force to suppress public dissent, civilians report facing increasing limitations of freedoms of association, peaceful assembly, petition and religion, as well as notable crackdowns on press freedoms.

On December 9, CIVICUS Global Alliance published its 2025 People Power Under Attack report, which details the current conditions of civic space worldwide. The findings show that residents of 83 countries and territories now live with routinely denied freedoms—a stark contrast from the 67 countries recorded in 2020. Additionally, 15 countries have recorded considerable downgrades in civic freedoms, including the United States, France, and Germany, which were once seen as global models of democracy.

“We see a continued trend of attacks on people’s right to speak up, come together as a collective, and protest for their rights around the world,” said CIVICUS Secretary General Mandeep Tiwana ahead of the report’s launch. “In a context of rising authoritarianism and populism, no country seems immune from this deeply worrying trend.”

Only an estimated seven percent of the global population now live in countries with free or relatively free civic space—a staggering 50 percent decline from last year’s figures. This has raised alarm among humanitarian organizations, which stress the urgent need to safeguard civic freedoms as a foundation for accountable governance and inclusive democratic participation. CIVICUS highlighted three primary areas of concern: the detention of protestors, journalists, and human rights defenders. These trends underscore the accelerating breakdown of accountability for government corruption and human rights violations.

The report notes that governments detained protestors at more than 200 peaceful demonstrations across 82 countries, with authorities also disrupting protests in 70 countries, with 67 instances involving the use of excessive force. These operations targeted protests calling for action on issues such as government corruption, inadequate access to basic services, rising living costs, the climate crisis, and allegations of electoral fraud.

“We see protests as a crucial space where people can challenge injustice and can hold power to account but we are also watching that space shrink at a rate that should alarm us all,” said Joyce Bukuru, the Representative to the United Nations at Amnesty International.

Amnesty International has recorded the increasing frequency in which authorities suppress public dissent through three key trends. The first of which is that the legal environment for protest is “tightening very fast”. “Across the region, governments are adopting overly broad and outright punitive laws that make it harder for people to protest easily,” Bukuru said.

The organization also reported the widespread use of excessive force. Unlawful and violent policing tactics are routinely used by the government to silence dissent, with instances of arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and the use of weapons such as rubber bullets and stun grenades.

Protestors have increasingly been subjected to increased levels of surveillance, digital repression, and tech-facilitated abuse. Bukuru noted that AI-generated abuse is routinely used against activists, with some stating that they feel like “intimidation follows them everywhere”.

In Uganda and Thailand, Amnesty International recorded the use of tech-facilitated gender-based violence, in which female activists experienced smear campaigns, sexualized doctored images, and threats. “These tactics fundamentally change the risk calculus for anyone considering to engage in activism,” said Bukuru.

In the report, CIVICUS noted that repression of journalists remains pervasive globally. Arrests and detentions of journalists have been documented across 73 countries, with attacks being recorded in 54. Additionally, CIVICUS noted the rise of violations surrounding online freedoms, with roughly 11 percent of all violations occurring online. This includes internet and social media shutdowns, online censorship, coordinated disinformation and misinformation campaigns, and online threats.

The detention of human rights defenders is especially common in Africa south of the Sahara, the Americas, the Asia-Pacific, and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Female and LGBTQI+ activists are routinely subjected to threats of violence, attacks, and increased rates of detention.

“When human rights are not part of the conversation, that sends a message to the rest of the world,” said Widad Franco, the UN Advocacy Officer at Human Rights Watch (HRW). “When you see some kind of excessive response [from governments], the lack of human rights makes it much harder to protect people on the ground.”

CIVICUS emphasized the urgent need for stronger protections of civic space within the United States, with Tiwana warning of the significant global ripple effects that the current administration’s actions could trigger. Efforts by the current administration to suppress dissent, undermine freedom of association, and slash funding for foreign assistance risk setting a dangerous precedent for other governments to follow.

“The U.S. plays an outsized role around the world. When the U.S. signals that it no longer cares about democracy or human rights, it sends a strong message to [authoritarian governments] that they can do whatever they like,” said Tiwana. “Secondly, the U.S.’s own dismantling of USAID has triggered a reduction of funding by other wealthy democracies that are now repurposing the resources they give to civil society or democracy support programs towards their own economic interests.”

Tiwana noted that the United States’ current approach increasingly mirrors China’s model of transactional diplomacy, a shift that risks deepening global economic inequalities. This approach enables the wealthy to exert a disproportionate grasp over governance, while marginalized and lower-income groups continue to struggle for access to essential services and remain considerably underrepresented.

“It is unfortunate that the U.S. is following China’s cue and disregarding its long history of ensuring that human rights are a pillar of foreign policy,” said Tiwana. “Wealthy individuals are basically gaming the system and that is what is leading us into 19th century levels of inequality. People are being denied the agency to call out high-level corruption and to call out the denial of basic services.”

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');  

Human rights are positive, essential and attainable.
 
Photo: from left to right: UN/Harandane Dicko, © NurPhoto, © Betul Simsek, OHCHR Moldova Credit: United Nations

By Volker Türk
GENEVA, Dec 11 2025 (IPS)

Human rights are underfunded, undermined and under attack. And yet. Powerful. Undeterred. Mobilizing.

This year no doubt has been a difficult one. And one full of dangerous contradictions. Funding for human rights has been slashed, while anti-rights movements are increasingly well-funded.

Profits for the arms industry are soaring, while funding for humanitarian aid and grassroots civil society plummets. Those defending rights and justice are attacked, sanctioned and hauled before courts, even as those ordering the commission of atrocity crimes continue to enjoy impunity.

Diversity, equity and inclusion policies that were adopted to address historical and structural injustices are being vilified as unjust. The prognosis would be incredibly dire if these were the only trends. But the pushback on human rights is facing pushback from a groundswell of human rights activism.

In Nepal, Serbia, Madagascar, Kenya, Bangladesh, Ecuador, Paraguay, the Philippines, Indonesia, Tanzania, Morocco, Peru and beyond, mostly young people have taken to the streets and to social media against inequalities, against corruption or repression, in favour of freedom of expression, and for their everyday essential rights.

People across the world have also been protesting against war and injustice, and demanding climate action, in places far from home, expressing solidarity and pressuring their governments to take action.

I urge governments around the world to harness the energy of these social movements into opportunities for broader transformational reforms rather than rushing to suppress them or label them as extremist threats to national security. They are, in fact, the exact opposite of threats to national security.

On the challenges I had set out earlier, here is some data:

Funding: Our resources have been slashed, along with funding for human rights organisations – including at the grassroots level – around the world. We are in survival mode.

My Office has had about USD 90 million less than we needed this year, which means around 300 jobs have been lost, and essential work has had to be cut, including on Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Tunisia and other countries at a time when the needs are rising.

Special Rapporteur country visits and investigative missions by fact-finding bodies have also been reduced, sometimes drastically. Crucial dialogues with States on their compliance with UN human rights treaties have had to be postponed – last year there were 145 State party reviews, we are down to 103 this year.

We see that all this has extensive ripple effects on international and national efforts to protect human rights.

Meanwhile, anti-rights and anti-gender movements are increasingly coordinated and well-funded, operating across borders. According to the European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights, for example, almost USD 1.2 billion was mobilized by anti-rights groups in Europe between 2019 and 2023.

There is significant money flowing into the anti-rights agenda from funders based in Europe, Russia and the United States of America. Such massive funding, coupled with media capture and disinformation strategies have made the anti-rights agenda a powerful cross-regional force.

Another distressing dataset is that from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). It says that arms and military services revenues for the 100 largest arms companies reached a record USD 679 billion in 2024. SIPRI has said demand was boosted by wars in Ukraine and Gaza, by global and regional geopolitical tensions, and ever-higher military expenditure.

There have been efforts this year to secure ceasefires and peace deals, which are certainly welcome. However, for peace to be sustainable, human rights must play a central role. There From prevention to negotiating to monitoring to accountability, recovery and peacebuilding.

And we need to do a reality check.

As we have seen in Gaza and in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, agreements have yet to translate into effective protection of civilians on the ground.

Gaza remains a place of unimaginable suffering, loss and fear. While the bloodshed has reduced, it has not stopped. Attacks by Israel continue, including on individuals approaching the so-called “yellow line”, residential buildings, and IDP tents and shelters as well as other civilian objects.

Access to essential services and goods remain severely inadequate. In the West Bank, we are seeing unprecedent levels of attacks by Israeli forces and settlers against Palestinians, forcing them from their land. This is a time to intensify pressure and advocacy – not to sink into complacency – for Palestinians across the occupied territory.

Clashes between the DRC armed forces and the Rwandan-backed M23 armed group continue, alongside serious human rights violations and abuses. Civilians, again, are bearing the brunt. Overnight, you’ll have seen, there have been reports of thousands fleeing the densely populated South Kivu city of Uvira amid escalating clashes between the M23 and DRC armed forces, backed by Wazalendo militia.

This comes just days after the DRC and Rwanda reaffirmed their commitment to implement the June 2025 Washington Peace Agreement. Over the years, we have documented outrageous violations against civilians in Uvira, including rape and sexual and gender-based violence. The risk of a broader regional confrontation appears to be increasing.

In Sudan, the brutal conflict between the army and the Rapid Support Forces continues unabated. From Darfur and the Kordofans to Khartoum and Omdurman and beyond, no Sudanese civilian has been left untouched by the cruel and senseless violence. I am extremely that we might see a repeat of the atrocities committed in El Fasher in Kordofan.

In Ukraine, civilian harm has risen sharply. Civilian casualties so far this year are 24 per cent higher than the same period last year, largely due to Russia’s increased use of powerful long-range weapons in large numbers and its continuing efforts across broad front to capture further Ukrainian territory by armed force.

Large-scale attacks on Ukraine’s energy system have caused emergency outages and prolonged daily electricity cuts, disruptions to water and heating services in many areas. Urgent steps need to be taken to alleviate suffering, including the return of transferred children, the exchange of all prisoners of war, and the unconditional release of civilian detainees held by Russian authorities.

For any sustainable peace to be negotiated, it is important that confidence-building measures are taken, grounded in human rights, including steps to alleviate civilian suffering, promote accountability and preserve a basis for future dialogue. And, importantly, women need to be a part of this process.

It is imperative that peace deals and ceasefires are secured and implemented in good faith. And with full respect for international law, which can never be set aside for political convenience.

It is also critical to counter the demonization of and hatemongering rhetoric against migrants and refugees. In various countries, worryingly, we are seeing violent pushbacks, large-scale raids, arrest and returns without due process, criminalization of migrants and refugees and those who support them, as well as the outsourcing of responsibilities under international law.

I urge States to embark on an evidence-based policy debate on migration and refugee issues, anchored in international human rights and refugee law.

In the course of many electoral campaigns this year, we have also seen a pattern of democratic backsliding, restrictive civic space and electoral violence.

Myanmar’s upcoming military-imposed “election”, is accompanied by new waves of acute insecurity and violence, continued arrests and detentions of opponents, voter coercion, the use of extensive electronic surveillance tools and systemic discrimination. I fear this process will only further deepen insecurity, fear and polarization throughout the country.

There is, unfortunately, never a shortage of human rights challenges to face, issues to resolve, and values to defend. What is heartening is that there are so many of us, around the world, attached to the same universal human rights values – no matter the noise, the gaslighting, and the persistent injustices.

I am energized by the social movements – particularly those led by young people. They are writing the latest chapters in the time-honoured struggle for our collective humanity and dignity. Journalists, activists, and human rights defenders have been at the forefront of the global movement for freedom, equality and justice.

Such perseverance has achieved landmark victories for the rights of women, migrants, people discriminated against on the basis of descent, minorities, our environment, and so much more.

And we will continue to persevere.

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');  

Excerpt:

Volker Türk is UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

The Security Council in session. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 11 2025 (IPS)

When there was widespread speculation that a UN Under-Secretary-General (USG), a product of two prestigious universities– Oxford and Cambridge– was planning to run for the post of Secretary-General back in the 1980s, I pointedly asked him to confirm or deny the rumor during an interview in the UN delegate’s lounge.

“I don’t think”, he declared, “anyone in his right mind will ever want that job”.

Fast forward to 2026.

As a financially-stricken UN is looking for a new Secretary-General, who will take office beginning January 2027, the USG’s remark in a bygone era was a reflection of a disaster waiting to happen.

The current Secretary-General is facing a daunting task battling for the very survival of the UN, with a hostile White House forcing the world body to sharply reduce its staff, slash funding and relocate several UN agencies moving them out of New York.

The bottom line: the incoming Secretary-General will inherit a virtually devastated United Nations.

Addressing the General Assembly last September, President Trump remarked: “What is the purpose of the United Nations? It’s not even coming close to living up to [its] potential.”

Dismissing the U.N. as an outdated, ineffective organization, he boasted: “I ended seven wars, dealt with the leaders of each and every one of these countries, and never a phone call from the United Nations offering to help in finalizing the deal.”

Whoever is elected, the new UN chief will have to faithfully abide by the ground rules of the Trump administration virtually abandoning what the UN stands for, including racial equality and gender empowerment (DEI)

“Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies that were adopted to address historical and structural injustices are being vilified as unjust”, says Volker Turk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

In his 345-page book titled “Unvanquished: A US-UN Saga,” released in 1999, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, a former Secretary-General, points out that although he was accused by Washington of being “too independent” of the US, he eventually did everything in his power to please the Americans.

But when he ran for a second term, the US, which preaches the Western concept of majority rule, exercised its veto even though Boutros-Ghali received 14 of the 15 votes in the Security Council including the votes of the other four permanent members of the Council, namely the UK, France, Russia and China.

In such circumstances, tradition would demand the dissenting US abstain on the vote and respect the wishes of the overwhelming majority in the Security Council. But the US did not.

Unlike most of his predecessors and successors, Boutros-Ghali refused to blindly play ball with the US despite the fact that he occasionally caved into US pressure at a time when Washington had gained a notoriety for trying to manipulate the world body to protect its own national interests.

Jesselina Rana, UN Advisor at CIVICUS’ UN Hub in New York and the steering committee of the 1 for 8 Billion campaign, told IPS when key international norms are being openly flouted by certain member states and the veto is used to undermine the very principles the UN was built on, will structural reforms alone be enough to restore trust in the institution?

Can the UN80 process genuinely rebuild trust in multilateralism, she asked, when the process itself has been opaque and has lacked meaningful civil society participation?

“An accountable and transparent Secretary-General selection process requires stronger and more explicit support from member states”.

A process that is open and inclusive of civil society and grounded in feminist leadership will strengthen the UN’s ability to navigate today’s difficult geopolitical conditions and help rebuild trust in multilateralism, she argued.

After 80 years of male leadership, the next Secretary-General should be a woman with a proven record on gender equality, human rights, peace, sustainable development, and multilateralism, declared Rana.

Felix Dodds, Adjunct Professor at the Water Institute, University of North Carolina and Associate Fellow, Tellus Institute, Boston, who has written extensively on the UN, told IPS the UN is experiencing challenging times, living through what are probably the most difficult times since the Cold War.

It may not be a bad idea to move some UN bodies. UNDP did a lot of that under Helen Clarke – being closer to the people you are working to help, maybe it is a cost-cutting issue, but it may also be something that should have been considered before.

“The new SG will need to be someone Trump allows, as he has a veto,” he pointed out.

“If the candidates we looked at before, the only one that is realistic is Rebeca Grynspan from UNCTAD. She has shown herself to be a good bureaucrat and has led UNCTAD well, as she did for Costa Rica when she was the Deputy President, said Dodds, City of Bonn International Ambassador.

“We may be looking at a man again,” he said.

Clearly, the new secretary-general taking over in 2027 has a daunting task ahead. Whoever it is will have had to make concessions to the P5 on the size and reach of the UN. The present cuts may be just the first set to come down.

“A UN with a clearer mandate on what it will do may be a result. Stakeholders need to of course defend the UN as a critical body for multilateral affairs BUT they must at the same time be putting forward reforms that are simple and strengthen the area they are working on”.

There is no way we can get security reform through – it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be proposed, but what is realistic in the areas being reformed that stakeholders and governments can work together on.

Ultimately, the driving forces should be a more effective UN delivering on the ground. Do reform proposals do that? he asked.

“The organization has always worked in a world of political pressures. I agree the body should be a place for dialogue and protection of the most vulnerable. UN80 offers an opportunity for dialogue on realistic proposals. The question is what are they in the different areas?” he said.

Dr. Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, where he serves as coordinator of the program in Middle Eastern Studies, told IPS following the Napoleonic Wars, the Council of Europe largely kept the peace until the Central Powers decided it no longer worked for them. The result was World War I.

The League of Nations then set up a framework to keep the peace until the Axis powers decided it no longer worked for them. The result of World War II, he said.

“We are now at a similar crossroads, where the United Nations system is being challenged by both Russia and the United States which–as demonstrated through the invasions of Iraq and Ukraine–no longer feel constrained by the prohibition against aggressive war.”

“The more recent U.S. assaults on the UN are particularly damaging, given the importance of U.S. financial contributions to the UN’s functioning and Washington’s ability in recent weeks to push through resolutions in the UN Security Council seemingly legitimizing illegal Israeli and Moroccan military occupations of their neighbors.”

UN members must be willing to risk the wrath of the Trump administration by standing up for the UN Charter and basic principles of international law. Nothing less than the future of the world body and international peace and security is at stake, declared Dr Zunes.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

By External Source
Dec 10 2025 (IPS-Partners)

In a world of turbulence and doubt, one promise remains.

In 1948, nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It named dignity, freedom and equality as rights for everyone, everywhere.

Yet too often, power, profit and prejudice push those rights aside.

Civilian deaths in conflict rose sharply again in 2024.

Every 12 minutes, a civilian is killed in war.

Every 14 hours, a human rights defender, journalist or trade unionist is killed or disappears.

One in five people say they experienced discrimination in just one year.

By the end of 2024, over 120 million people were forcibly displaced from their homes.

Almost three quarters of humanity now live where civic freedoms are tightly restricted.

From Gaza to Haiti, Sudan to Myanmar, civilians pay the highest price.

736 million women—almost one in three—have suffered physical or sexual violence.

Each year, 16 days of activism link violence against women to Human Rights Day.

Young people are demanding futures free from addiction, climate chaos and hate.

Their marches, open letters and strikes keep the promise of rights alive.

Against this backdrop, human rights are not abstract ideals.

They are our everyday essentials.

In the food we eat, the air we breathe, the homes that shelter us.

In fair work and equal pay, safe schools and free, independent media.

Human rights are POSITIVE, ESSENTIAL and ATTAINABLE—when we act together.

On 10 December 2025, we mark Human Rights Day Human Rights: Our Everyday Essentials

 

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');  

New report finds that current international financial flows remain billions of dollars short of what is required to protect and conserve at least 30 percent of the world’s land and ocean by 2030. Photo: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

By Joyce Chimbi
NAIROBI, Dec 10 2025 (IPS)

A new study and interactive dashboard released today in Nairobi at the seventh session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) finds that current international financial flows remain billions of dollars short of what is required to achieve the global biodiversity target of protecting and conserving at least 30 percent of the world’s land and ocean by 2030 (30×30).

A global commitment known as ’30×30′  was formalized under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). In brief, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is an ambitious pathway to reach the global vision of a world living in harmony with nature by 2050 through four goals to be reached by 2050, and 23 targets to be reached by 2030.

Target 3 is often referred to as 30×30. This new report is the first comprehensive overview of the international finance flows since world leaders adopted the GBF in December 2022 with damning results. Michael Owen, study author, Indufor North America LLC, said that to date, “there has been limited public analysis of international funding flows for protected and conserved areas.”

Michael Owen (left), study author, Indufor North America LLC, said that to date, there has been limited public analysis of international funding flows for protected and conserved areas. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

He stressed that transparency is uneven among donors and that the data needed to understand 30×30 funding are fragmented across various sources, often lacking the resolution required to track real progress.

“Our goal for the 30×30 Funding Dashboard is to centralize these data, enable users to view funding at the project level, and provide a clear view of top-line trends in the accompanying report. We hope this analysis encourages more donors to strengthen transparency and accountability as we move toward the deadline for target 3,” he said.

The new assessment by Indufor, funded by Campaign for Nature, The Pew Charitable Trusts, and Rainforest Foundation Norway, finds that, though international funding designed to help developing countries fund nature protection has risen by 150 percent over the past decade, reaching just over USD 1 billion in 2024, it also concludes developed nations are USD 4 billion short of meeting funding targets intended to make 30×30 possible.

Brian O’Donnell, director of the Campaign for Nature, said the analysis shows more funding is needed.

“Despite some recent progress, funding is projected to fall billions short of what is needed to meet the 30×30 target. There is a clear need to ramp up marine conservation finance, especially to Small Island Developing States, which receive only a small fraction of the funding dedicated to other regions,” he said.

He emphasized that meeting the 30×30 target is essential to prevent extinctions, achieve climate goals, and ensure the services that nature provides endure, including storm protection and clean air and water. Meanwhile, funding needs are such that, for nations to protect at least 30 percent of the planet’s land and ocean by 2030, expanding and managing protected areas alone likely requires USD 103 billion to 178 billion per year globally, far above the USD 24 billion currently spent.

Anders Haug Larsen, advocacy director at Rainforest Foundation Norway, called for increased international support, saying, “We are currently far off track, both in mobilizing resources and protecting nature.”

“We now have a short window of opportunity, where governments, donors, and actors on the ground, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities, need to work together to enhance finance and actions for rights-based nature protection.”   

During the launch, delegates at UNEA, the world’s highest-level decision-making body on the environment with universal membership of all 193 UN Members States, heard that since 2014, international funding for protected and conserved areas in developing countries has risen by 150 percent, growing from around USD 396 million to over USD 1.1 billion in 2024.

Furthermore, funding totals have grown particularly quickly since the signing of the GBF as the average annual totals increased 61 percent from 2022 through 2024 compared to the previous three-year period.

However, despite recent growth, funding for international protected and conserved areas remains significantly below the financial requirements outlined in GBF target 19. Target 19 is about increasing financial resources for biodiversity and seeks to mobilize USD 200 billion per year from all sources, including USD 30 billion through international finance.

The world’s unprotected, most biodiverse areas are located in countries with constrained public budgets and competing development needs, making these funds essential, as international finance will be pivotal to delivering 30×30 fairly and effectively.

The funds will pay for activities such as establishing new protected areas, providing capacity to rangers who protect existing protected and conserved areas, and supporting Indigenous groups and local communities who live on or near protected areas.

In this regard, existing global costing studies suggest that protected areas will require an estimated 20 percent of total biodiversity financing by 2030. Roughly USD 4 billion per year is needed by 2025 and USD 6 billion per year is needed by 2030, for Target 3 alone, in line with Target 19a.

Against this backdrop, the report finds that to realize the 2030 GBF vision from today’s base, “international protected and conserved areas funding would need to grow at about 33 percent per year—more than three times the 11 percent annual growth observed from 2020 to 2024.”

Between 2022 and 2024, average annual funding increased by 70 percent compared to the previous four-year period, while the philanthropic sector raised funding by 89 percent; however, if the current trajectory continues, international funding specifically for protected and conserved areas will fall short of the implied 2030 need by approximately USD 4 billion.

Only five bilateral donors and multilateral mechanisms, including Germany, The World Bank, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the European Union, and the United States, have provided 54 percent of all tracked protected and conserved areas disbursements for 30×30 since 2022. The downside is that this small donor pool makes funding vulnerable to political shifts and changing priorities among key actors.

Lower-income countries receive funding, but international flows severely underfund small island developing states and other oceanic regions. Overall, international protected and conserved areas’ funding has grown fastest in Africa, which by 2024 will receive nearly half, or 48 percent, of all tracked flows.

Meanwhile, small island developing states overall receive just USD 48 million or just 4.5 percent per year, in international 30×30 funding, despite being explicitly prioritized in the GBF under target 19a. Overall, the majority of international funding, 82 percent, is going towards strengthening existing protected areas and relatively little is going to the expansion of protected areas.

Marine ecosystems received just 14 percent of international funding despite representing 71 percent of the planet. In all, much of the funding goes to conventional protected areas—versus those, for example, under the stewardship of Indigenous Peoples or other local communities.

Overall, the report aims to demonstrate the urgency for deeper commitments from all stakeholders—governments, philanthropies, multilateral institutions, and the private sector—to dramatically scale up investments before 2030 to protect people, their biodiversity, and economies.

The new dashboard helps translate financial commitments into the strategic actions needed to reach the regions and activities where they’re most needed to achieve progress toward the 30×30 target.

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');  

In many villages, people may not have smartphones or internet, but they always have a radio. When forecasts are delivered in the local language, through voices they know, communities understand faster and act immediately. —John Mbise, a senior TMA climatologist

The United Nations Headquarters as seen from First Avenue in New York City. Credit: UN News/Vibhu Mishra

By Kul C Gautam
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Dec 10 2025 (IPS)

The election of the next Secretary-General of the United Nations comes at a highly inopportune moment in 2026, when the UN is being bypassed, and multilateralism—with the UN at its core—is under increasing challenge from some of the world’s most powerful states and leaders.

The new Secretary-General, taking office in 2027, will inherit an unprecedented financial crisis and a pressing need for major institutional reorganization simply to keep the UN afloat. At first glance, this hardly seems like the right moment for a new SG to advance a bold vision—one capable of winning over powerful leaders who appear lukewarm toward strengthening genuine multilateralism and instead prefer a multipolar order where each can guard its own sphere of influence.

Yet history reminds us that some of the boldest ideas have emerged during periods of great upheaval—wars, revolutions, and global crises. It is therefore conceivable that a visionary new UN leader could break new ground, introduce innovative ideas, and help plant the seeds for a rejuvenated, rules-based world order.

Kul Gautam

While many of today’s most powerful leaders may be ambivalent about multilateralism, the world’s general public—especially the digitally savvy younger generation—has a strong sense of global interdependence.

They increasingly identify as global citizens, eager to thrive in a borderless world, and are more likely to embrace visionary proposals for UN reform that meet the realities of the 21st century.

A promising starting point would be the election of the first-ever female Secretary-General of the UN. Another essential reform would be restructuring the UN’s financing system to make it more broad-based and less dependent on the whims of a few wealthy, powerful states.

Some consolidation of the UN’s sprawling architecture—much of it underfunded—is already underway through the current SG’s UN80 Initiative. A new SG could accelerate this effort, earning the support of both critics and cynics.

Still, even a dynamic and visionary new SG will require the backing of Member States. At present, leaders of the most powerful states, particularly the veto-wielding P5, seem disinclined to empower the world’s top diplomat as a true global leader.

While many enlightened global citizens—especially Gen Z—hope for a bold, inspiring figure at the helm, the major powers may prefer a more compliant “Secretary” rather than a strong, strategic “General.”

With the rise of the Global South and groupings such as BRICS+ and the G20, the balance of power—especially soft power—is shifting away from the states that founded the UN 80 years ago.

One hopes this evolving landscape will help strengthen the UN and reinvigorate multilateralism, which remains the only viable way to confront such transcendental issues as climate change, war and peace, pandemics, widening inequalities, and the profound opportunities and risks of the AI revolution.

The world urgently needs a more effective UN to address these pressing global challenges—none of which any nation, however rich or powerful, can tackle alone. It is to be hoped that world leaders, attuned to their peoples’ aspirations, will choose a highly capable new Secretary-General and empower her to help build a more peaceful and prosperous world for present and future generations.

Kul Gautam is a former UN Assistant Secretary-General, Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF and author of Global Citizen from Gulmi: My Journey from the Hills of Nepal to the Halls of the 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');  

H.E. Abdulla Shahid (left), former President of the UN General Assembly, and Collen Kelapile (center), former UN ambassador to Botswana and former vice-president of the UN Economic and Social Council, speak as panelists at the launch event of ICO's flagship report. Credit: John Okyo Nyaku/UN

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 9 2025 (IPS)

More than one year since its adoption, the UN Pact for the Future is held up as a critical framework for countries to address today’s issues through global cooperation. Its agenda for global governance and sustainable development is ambitious, and it is for this reason the Pact poses implementation challenges when it comes to the direct impact on local communities. It will require the joint efforts of governments, civil society and international organizations to achieve the goals laid out in the Pact.

The efforts of the International Communities Organisation (ICO), a UK-based international NGO, demonstrate what implementing the Pact would look like. Since 2016, ICO has worked to empower minority communities in conflict-affected areas through education and capacity-building opportunities. ICO focuses on directly supporting efforts to build up underrepresented groups’ involvement in community initiatives and diplomatic dialogue and address systemic, societal inequalities.

On December 3, ICO launched its flagship report, For Our Future: Best Practice for the Implementation of the UN Pact for the Future, at the UN Headquarters in New York, presenting a practical framework to support UN member states in advancing the objectives outlined in the Pact for the Future. Several Permanent Missions to the UN, including Bahrain, Guyana, Hungary, Kuwait, Samoa, Singapore, Tajikistan, and Uganda, co-sponsored the event.

The UN Pact for the Future represents a shared set of global commitments to sustainable development, peace and security, and redefining global governance for member states. While its adoption marks a decisive moment of global consensus, there remains the challenge of translating the Pact’s guiding principles into meaningful action at the national and regional levels.  Through its ‘Best Practices’ blueprint, the ICO report distills their findings into an adaptable methodology designed to equip policymakers with the tools they need to implement the Pact’s goals effectively.

James Holmes, ICO founder and Secretary General, said, “The Pact reminds us that the strength of nations is measured not only by the power of their armies or the size of their economies, but also by the inclusiveness of their societies and the recognition of all who live within.” “How we treat minority peoples, those who are few in number, vulnerable, or historically marginal, is the true test of our progress and the true test of whether the fact for the future is being successful.”

H.E. Abdulla Shahid, ICO International Ambassador and former President of the 76th United Nations General Assembly, said it was crucial for the world to unite.

“The UN Pact for the Future calls for renewed unity in tackling humanity’s greatest challenges. This report demonstrates that lasting peace is built not only at negotiation tables but also through empowering communities themselves, ensuring that no group is left behind.”

“As UN Secretary-General António Guterres noted at the opening of the ‘Summit of the Future’ in September 2024, ‘21st-century challenges require 21st-century solutions: frameworks that are networked and inclusive and that draw on the expertise of all humanity.’

He added that the ICO’s report embodies this principle, showing how global aspirations can intersect with local action.

Prominent UN diplomats and civil society members were present at the launch event, demonstrating and remarking on their commitment to the Pact for the Future, and specifically to ICO’s work on the ground. Current and former high-ranking UN officials were also in attendance.

“One year after the adoption of the Pact, this discussion is timely,” said Themba Kalua, the UN Director, Pact for the Future Implementation Kalua remarked during the event. “While the world has grown more complex since the adoption of the Pact for the Future, the Pact continues to be central in realizing multilateralism, navigating the current geopolitical complexities and shaping our collective action on the global agenda.”

Kalua noted the efforts made by the UN system towards the Pact, including global panels on the governance of artificial intelligence (AI) and the political declarations that emerged from UN conferences on social development in Qatar and financing for development in Spain. He expressed that the Pact was a “strategic priority” for the UN and its Secretary-General, António Guterres.

“From our side in the UN system and the Secretariat, we are committed to doing our part in supporting the implementation of the Pact,” Kalua told IPS.

Presenting the report, ICO’s UN Programme Manager Mia Sawjani broke down its findings and recommendations. She emphasized that countries would need to empower and promote the agency of local actors. This includes building up their capacity and skills to enact positive change in their communities. Countries must recognize adaptability in assessing situations on the ground, particularly in conflict settings that transform institutions and structures.

“The implementation of the Pact can be tangibly realized for all, but particularly to serve marginalized communities. It’s a transformative opportunity and it is our collective responsibility to follow through,” said Sawjani.

After the event, Holmes was heartened by the outpouring of support for ICO’s work, noting that many more countries had agreed to partner with them for future projects. By maintaining their focus on working with minority communities, ICO can “play a major global role” in implementing the Pact for Future.

“I have a big vision, and I have a lot of ambition for ICO,” Holmes told IPS. “We already have a global team, and I see that growing, and I see us having a bigger and bigger role in helping to implement the Pact.”

The launch event of ICO’s flagship report on the UN Pact for the Future at UNHQ in New York. The event was attended by high-ranking UN diplomats. Credit: John Okyo Nyaku/UN

Local actors and stakeholders, namely governments, academia, the private sector and civil society, would play a key role in implementing the Pact’s agenda. Organizations like ICO could serve as a bridge to translate the issues to the national context.

“The more we are able to bridge communities, the more successful it will be for states to deal with Track I diplomacy,” Shahid said to IPS, referencing the formal channel of diplomacy between governments on international issues.

Implementing the Pact for the Future must also mean recognizing the specific needs and challenges that these countries face. Island states like Samoa and Tonga, for example, are uniquely impacted by climate change, energy, and the global financial structures that need to better serve developing countries.

“For us in the Pacific, progress is measured not by rhetoric, but by real improvements that are felt in our villages, outer islands and vulnerable communities,” said Viliami Va’inga Tōnē, the Permanent Representative of Tonga.

Accountability and transparency will also be crucial to ensure countries follow through on the promises of the Pact. This must be present at all levels. Participants at the event emphasized the need for monitoring mechanisms that would measure progress.

The timing of the report coincides with the ongoing reform negotiations under the UN80 Initiative introduced this year. Discussions around the Pact went hand in hand with recognizing the critical step toward reforming the UN system that will optimize its ability to live up to its founding principles and the Pact’s promises.

If the Pact represents ‘what’ the UN and member states need to achieve in the global agenda, then UN80 represents ‘how’ the UN can implement the agenda.

“The UN80 initiative is really part of the UN response to how it can deliver on the ground,” said Fatumanava-o-Upolu III Dr. Pa’olelei Luteru, the Permanent Representative of Samoa. He said to IPS, “When you look at all the individual actions that need to be taken, these are at the global level, the UN [level], regional level, and national level. They’re all important, because we can’t continue to work in silence. Everything is interconnected now. So we need to make those connections and work together, and you don’t want duplication.”

While New York hosts reform discussions around the UN and its mandates, the organization’s impact will ultimately be felt by local communities across the world.

Dr. Agnes Mary Chimbiri-Molande, Permanent Representative of Malawi, told IPS that the people who serve in multilateral systems like the UN need to “renew or even rebuild trust” with local communities. At a time when people are questioning the UN’s relevance, she said, these discussions must be held and all perspectives need to be respected.

“We need to hear the voices of the local people. Because here we are working for them. We are not working for ourselves,” Chimbiri-Molande said. “So in fact, to be hearing the voices of those peoples, it’s very, very important to inform our work here, whether we are making an impact or we are making differences in the lives of the people in the community.”

Shahid reiterated that the decisions made in the halls of UN Headquarters will affect local communities, adding that the UN’s success is also contingent on its partnerships with civil society and how important it is for civil society to recognize the UN’s relevance.

During his time as President of the General Assembly from 2021-2022, the world was in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. His ‘presidency of hope’ championed the progress made by the international system despite the challenges brought on by the pandemic. He also made efforts to promote inclusivity by opening the General Assembly to more participants, including civil society groups.

Shahid invited young diplomats from underrepresented member states to the President’s office to witness international diplomacy firsthand.

Even after his presidency ended, he told IPS, he wanted to continue to deliver on the ideals that defined his tenure.

“I thought that there’s no need to end the presidency of hope after one year. Let us keep delivering the message of hope through other platforms. And ICO provides me the platform, because it is a platform through which I can actually reach out to communities at [the] household level and inspire them not to give up. Keep working, keep aiming to change the status.”

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');  

“There will never be a better time than now to invest in a stable climate, thriving ecosystems, and resilient lands, or in sustainable development that delivers for all,” said Amina J. Mohammed, the deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, during the opening plenary of the seventh meeting of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-7) taking place […]

A dried karam tree branch stands on the bank of a pond in a field in Datinakhali village adjacent to the Sundarbans. Despite many efforts, the tree could not be saved. For two years, the Munda community in Bangladesh’s Sundarbans had been fighting to save the Karam tree so that they could bring back their […]

On 30th November 2025 in Kelaniya, Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka Army rescue boats transported villagers stranded near the Kelani River to safer locations. People boarded the boats carrying their essential items, hoping to escape the dangerous flood levels surrounding their homes. Credit: UNICEF/InceptChange

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 9 2025 (IPS)

In late November, Cyclone Ditwah made landfall in Sri Lanka and southern India, bringing heavy rainfall that triggered widespread flooding and devastating landslides. The storm caused extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and resulted in a significant loss of life. Communities have been severely impacted, with limited access to essential services, while humanitarian agencies face challenges in reaching the most vulnerable populations.

According to figures from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), approximately 1.5 million Sri Lankans are estimated to have been impacted by the cyclone, including over 275,000 children. Additionally, updated reports from the office of the United Nations Resident Coordinator (UN RC) in Sri Lanka indicate that 474 people have been killed, 356 are still missing, and around 201,875 individuals from 53,758 families are taking shelter in 1,564 government-supported shelters.

“UNICEF remains deeply concerned about the destruction the cyclone has caused to children and the vital services they depend on for their safety and well-being,” said Emma Brigham, UNICEF Representative in Sri Lanka. “Children urgently need help. It is a race against time to reach the most vulnerable families who (urgently) require lifesaving services. And while the cyclone may have passed, the consequences have not.”

The actual figures are projected to be even higher as communication disruptions and blocked entry points for humanitarian aid hinder accurate reporting and assistance efforts. Initial assessments from the UN RC in Sri Lanka show that more than 41,329 homes have been partially or fully destroyed, alongside the damaging of at least 10 bridges, the disruption of 206 roads rendered impassable, and sections of the rail network and power grid affected, and an inundated substation.

The Gampaha, Colombo, Puttalam districts are among the hardest-hit, with each district reporting north of 170,000 affected civilians. The Mannar, Trincomalee, Batticaloa, Badulla, and Matale districts have also reported considerable damage to civilian infrastructure and livelihoods as a result of flooding. The UN RC in Sri Lanka also notes that water levels in Colombo and the Kelani River region are beginning to slowly recede. However, northeast monsoon conditions are projected to gradually increase over the coming days, with heavy rains expected across several areas.

Furthermore, over 200 deadly landslides have been reported across several areas, with most occurring in the central highlands of the nation. The Kandy, Nuwara Eliya and Badulla districts recorded a significant loss of life, structural damage, and high volumes of civilian displacement, with landslide alerts extended until December 3.

“The people of Sri Lanka have not seen such widespread destruction in years,” said Kristin Parco, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) Chief of Mission in Sri Lanka. “Communities have been uprooted and many families are now sheltering in overcrowded, temporary spaces while facing immense uncertainty. We are entering a critical phase of this emergency, and mobilizing humanitarian assistance is essential to reduce the suffering of those displaced by Cyclone Ditwah and to ensure their safety, dignity, and access to basic services during this difficult time.”

Figures from IOM show that more than 209,000 Sri Lankans have been displaced in the days following the cyclone’s landfall. Additionally, IOM describes the ensuing floods as some of the most severe the country has experienced in almost two decades, noting that all 25 districts of Sri Lanka have been inundated, with 150-500 mm of continuous heavy rainfall and winds reaching 70–90 km/h over three days.

These challenges have significantly hampered both relief efforts and the ability to assess the full scope of the damage. IOM reports widespread power outages, blockages of critical access points, and severe disruptions to communication networks across the country. Additionally, several high-risk areas, such as Polonnaruwa, Kegalle, Kurunegala, and Colombo, to name a few, have been placed on red alert, with additional emergency evacuation orders being issued for communities along landslide-vulnerable slopes and low-lying river basin areas.

The UN RC for Sri Lanka reports that the country’s electricity and water infrastructure have sustained significant damage, which has had severe implications for public health and further strained the already collapsing national healthcare system. Numerous areas have already reported a near-total lack of clean drinking water, while health facilities continue to operate under severe shortages of essential supplies.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has expressed deep concern over the severe flood conditions, underscoring the heightened risks of vector-borne, food-borne, and water-borne diseases. The agency has called for increased public awareness around mosquito-bite prevention, safe food handling, and the importance of drinking safe, clean water.

Additionally, WHO has been in the process of delivering urgent support to Sri Lanka’s overwhelmed healthcare system, which has been severely strained by the influx of new patients following the cyclone. The agency, in partnership with WHO Southeast Asia Regional Health Emergency Fund (SEARHEF), is supporting mobilization and deployment of emergency public health teams who are positioned to deliver urgent care for trauma, as well as referrals for hospital care for pregnant women, children, elderly, and others.

Furthermore, WHO has pledged USD $175,000 to support emergency health services and continues to collaborate with national authorities and humanitarian partners to reach the most vulnerable populations with lifesaving care. “The funds will be used for rapid response teams to support essential health services for the affected communities, and for strengthening health information management and surveillance, key for timely detection of disease outbreaks to facilitate appropriate response,” said Dr Rajesh Pandav, WHO Representative designate to Sri Lanka.

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');  

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');  

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');  

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');  

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');  

By Busani Bafana
PRETORIA, Dec 4 2025 (IPS)

Nature is a double-edged sword for global business. A groundbreaking report will reveal how businesses profit from exploiting natural resources while simultaneously impacting biodiversity.

An incisive scientific assessment, the Business and Biodiversity Report, set to be released by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) probes the impact and dependence of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.

Business and Biodiversity

This report, the first of its kind, examines the ways in which business benefits from nature and the ways in which global business operations impact nature. Representatives from 152 member governments are expected to approve it at the IPBES’ 12th Plenary session in the United Kingdom in February 2026.

Speaking at a media briefing ahead of the report launch, IPBES Executive Secretary Luthando Dziba said the assessment was commissioned by member governments for them to understand global business relationships with biodiversity. The report is to strengthen the knowledge to support the efforts of global businesses that are dependent on biodiversity and that also impact biodiversity.

“Biodiversity decline also represents a major risk for businesses,” Dziba said, highlighting that there are huge economic risks associated with biodiversity, whose loss is ranked among the top 10 global risks to business.

Dziba noted that the report is set to help businesses understand and measure how they depend on as well as how they impact biodiversity, which can determine actions they take to reduce their impacts on nature.

“Governments have an interest in understanding how other sectors impact biodiversity but also how they depend on biodiversity,” Dziba said. “Considering the unprecedented rates at which biodiversity is declining, this should hopefully be a wake-up call that presents significant risks, for instance, for businesses if biodiversity that they depend on is in such a dire state.”

Governments can design policies and regulations to create an enabling environment for companies to act sustainably by understanding how businesses benefit from and affect biodiversity, according to Dziba.

IPBES, an independent intergovernmental body established to strengthen the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services, had published several scientific assessments over the years. The assessments have provided policymakers with up-to-date knowledge on the current  situation and challenges relating to nature, biodiversity, and nature’s contributions to people.

Biodiversity Loss: a Loss to Business

IPBES’ seminal publication, the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, released in 2019, found that 1 million animal and plant species are threatened with extinction, many within decades. Changes in land and sea use, direct exploitation of organisms, climate change pollution, and invasive alien species are the leading causes of changes in nature.

Nature provides several ecosystem services, like pollination, water purification, climate regulation, and raw materials for business, which make trillions of dollars in value globally. At the same time, global businesses have a negative impact on nature through mining, agriculture production, manufacturing, and gas and oil exploration.

The World Economic Forum has warned that 50 percent of the global economy is threatened by biodiversity loss, calling for a radical change from destructive human activity to a nature-positive economy.

The World Economic Forum’s New Nature Economy Report II, warns about the risks of destroying nature, stating that “USD 44 trillion of economic value generation—over half the world’s total GDP—is potentially at risk as a result of the dependence of business on nature and its services.”

The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2022 ranked biodiversity loss as the third most severe threat humanity will face in the next  decade.

In 2024, IPBES launched two reports that highlighted the importance of tackling the biodiversity crisis to unlock business and innovation opportunities. Swift action on protecting biodiversity could generate USD 10 trillion and support over 390 million jobs by 2030, according to IPBES. Failing to act on climate change adds at least USD 500 billion a year in more costs to achieving biodiversity goals.

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');