European Union

Russia seeks to resolve several trade issues during this week’s summit. But China holds the cards.

More technical talks are needed on cross-border transfers of defence goods

Depuis janvier, 880 civils ont été tués par des drones, selon les Nations unies, qui observent que les trois ans de guerre ont causé la plus grave crise alimentaire du monde.

The United States may be accepting the reality of Chinese power.

Depuis plusieurs mois, une recrudescence d’attaques meurtrières par des groupes djihadistes a conduit le président nigérian, Bola Tinubu, à décréter en novembre 2025 un état d’urgence sécuritaire, et le président américain, Donald Trump, à menacer le pays d’une intervention militaire.

Credit: Osugi / shutterstock.com

By Jordan Ryan
May 19 2026 (IPS)

 
Where does real power reside in the UN development system? A new policy brief from Cepei, a Colombian development policy institute, and the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), presented earlier in May, poses this deceptively simple question. The answer matters because institutions that cannot govern fairly or transparently struggle to sustain legitimacy, and legitimacy is essential for peace.

The Cepei-IDOS diagnosis identifies a “triple disconnect” that structures contemporary development governance. Formal oversight bodies (the Executive Boards, ECOSOC, the General Assembly) set policy directions but control only a fraction of financing. Real resources flow through bilateral arrangements between major donors and agency leadership, operating largely beyond collective scrutiny. The ten largest donors shape system priorities through informal channels of influence. Meanwhile, the programme countries that host the vast majority of UN development operations report significantly weaker upstream influence than traditional donor states. This misalignment between authority, resources and voice is no longer incidental. It has become embedded in the way the system operates.

What transforms this observation from an efficiency problem into a peace imperative is the reality that ungovernable systems cannot respond to prevention and peacebuilding needs. A development architecture shaped disproportionately by donor priorities and limited programme-country voice lacks the legitimacy, flexibility and democratic accountability required to address the structural drivers of conflict. When host countries experience UN operations as imposed rather than negotiated, and when funding priorities reflect donor interests rather than local prevention priorities, the development system becomes an actor in grievance production, not prevention.

The governance–legitimacy nexus works in both directions. Ungovernable institutions erode the multilateral system’s credibility in the Global South. Successive rounds of ineffective UN reform, driven by incremental adjustments within existing power structures, signal to programme countries that the system is designed to resist their inclusion. This perception is strengthened when donors can navigate around formal governance bodies through bilateral arrangements. Over time, institutional opacity breeds delegitimation. The UN is then weakened as a platform for both development cooperation and conflict prevention, because confidence in its democratic character has fractured.

The Cepei-IDOS brief positions the first 1000 days of the next Secretary-General’s term as a narrow window for visible structural change. The argument is neither revolutionary nor naive. It does not propose wholesale redesign of the UN system. Rather, it suggests that an incoming Secretary-General with political capital and an informed strategic agenda can make power visible, realign financial flows with governance decisions, strengthen coordination across fragmented programme delivery, and treat programme country inclusion not as charitable consultation but as an operational requirement. Small shifts in how decisions are made, where resources are allocated and whose voice is heard can accumulate into meaningful redistributions of power.

For those committed to multilateral peace and development, the brief is important precisely because it refuses the false choice between institutional realism and structural ambition. It recognises that the current system is durable and resistant to change. It also demonstrates that durability does not mean immutability. The Secretary-General occupies a unique position to convene, name problems and propose sequenced shifts in practice. Whether that role is exercised for incremental adjustment or for visible realignment of power depends on the strategic choices made in the first 1000 days, when institutional attention is high and political mandates are fresh.

The launch event captured something essential about the moment. Participants acknowledged that the system is ungovernable as presently designed while recognising that accepting that reality is not the same as accepting its inevitability. The brief itself can serve as an anchor for what peace advocates and policymakers need to argue in the months ahead: that the next Secretary-General should treat governance reform not as a technical fix but as a peace imperative. When multilateral institutions are trusted by the countries they purport to serve, they become more effective instruments of prevention and cooperation. When they are experienced as vehicles for donor capture, they become part of the problem they claim to address.

If the next Secretary-General treats governance reform as a peace imperative rather than a technical exercise, the UN development system can begin to rebuild the legitimacy it is steadily losing among the countries and communities it exists to serve.

Related articles from this author:
The Secretary-General This Moment Demands
From Reform to Reinvention: Reimagining the United Nations for the 21st Century
The UN’s Withering Vine: A US Retreat from Global Governance

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');  

  

 

« Migrants en Méditerranée, la mécanique du silence » (2/4). Le gouvernement Meloni, soutenu par l’Union européenne, finance, équipe et entraîne les gardes-côtes libyens et tunisiens, malgré les exactions commises par ces derniers, afin qu’ils interceptent les exilés en route pour le Vieux Continent.

Sustainable beekeeping is increasingly recognized as a key asset for not only farming communities but for sustainable agrifood systems, the environment and the global community as a whole. Credit: Farai Shawn Matiashe/IPS

By Thanawat Tiensin
ROME, May 19 2026 (IPS)

For thousands of years, humans have kept bees. Beekeeping is a key agricultural activity, yet its full potential remains largely unrealized. Beekeeping produces far more than honey and generates far more income than many have chosen to acknowledge.

The contribution of bees to global agrifood systems runs to hundreds of billions of dollars annually, a figure that should anchor national policy and investment decisions, not appear as a footnote in environmental reports.

The case for investing more substantially in sustainable beekeeping and pollinator conservation can be and has been made at the farm level. When farming practices actively support pollinator health through crop diversification, reduced agrochemical use, and biodiversity-friendly habitat management, the results are measurable and can be significant.

As an example, in cashew cultivation in South India, agroecological farming practices increased the abundance of insect pollinators visiting flowers by nearly 400 percent, with yields trending substantially higher as a result.

Beekeeping generally requires relatively low capital investment, generates income across multiple product streams, and is well-suited to the resource constraints of small-scale producers

Cashew, like many high-value crops, suffers acute yield losses in the absence of pollinators, losses that better conservation of bees and other pollinators can directly address.

Beekeeping generally requires relatively low capital investment, generates income across multiple product streams, and is well-suited to the resource constraints of small-scale producers. In increasingly fragile and climate-stressed environments where other agricultural activities face growing uncertainty, beekeeping has shown unusual resilience.

Of the roughly 25,000 bee species on Earth, only 8 to 11 are honeybees. Around those species, humanity has built very advanced management systems, refined over millennia and now increasingly integrated with modern science. Many countries across the world have made beekeeping a pillar of rural livelihoods, and in 2017 World Bee Day officially entered the United Nations calendar.

Celebrated each year on 20 May, it marks the birthday of Slovenian Anton Janša, a founding figure of modern apiculture. We have made great strides in raising awareness of the importance of bees and other pollinators and the role they play in our lives and now we need to step up our efforts.

One important action that can promote sustainable beekeeping and realize its true economic and food security potential is to recognize bees as a valuable natural asset. When governments include beekeeping in national agriculture investments and support its potential to generate income, they can promote fair and just development of domestic value chains for a range of hive products.

This enables beekeepers to earn higher prices in international markets by producing honey that is sustainable and traceable. FAO’s “Good Beekeeping Practices for Sustainable Apiculture” provide guidelines for sustainable colony management, integrated pest and disease control, habitat stewardship, and the value chain development that allows beekeepers to generate returns beyond raw honey.

These practices, which have been tested across developing country contexts can raise both hive productivity and beekeeper income.

Another key action is to promote sustainable beekeeping through improving extension services, input subsidies, and training programs; these should be designed to help small-scale producers to integrate beekeeping into their production systems, capturing both the pollination benefits and the income from hive products that conventional farm support systems often overlook.

A further and equally important action is to ensure that benefits from beekeeping are accessible and reach those who need them most. Women and young people represent a growing segment of the global beekeeping community and have a lot to gain from having diversified income sources. When they can access training, equipment, and markets on equal terms, productivity and hive health have shown to improve.

The partnership between humans and bees has lasted for thousands of years and continues to evolve.

From the forests of Ethiopia to the pine slopes of Turkey, from the clover fields of Argentina to the manuka hillsides of New Zealand; farmers and beekeepers have long understood what agricultural policy is only beginning to recognize: that sustainable beekeeping and pollinator conservation can be a key asset for not only farming communities but for sustainable agrifood systems, the environment and the global community as a whole.

Thanawat Tiensin is the Assistant Director-General, Director, Animal Production and Health Division, FAO

Unconditional Western support for the incumbent prime minister could backfire.

Le taux d’éloignement des étrangers sans papiers placés en rétention n’a jamais été aussi faible, alors que les durées d’enfermement s’allongent et que les conditions se dégradent.

As Europe wakes up to the importance of energy resilience, no country has developed such strength as Ukraine. Now others want to learn

"Enough with fragmentation," a top NATO commander said

France looking at deposit scheme for plastic bottles and reuse strategy

Legal reform and structural change may lack flair, but they can improve the situation on the ground.

The sudden move from Washington followed a spat between Trump and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz over the war in Iran

Jean Kesaya, le patron d’Africa CDC, l’agence sanitaire de l’Union africaine, dénonce, dans un entretien au « Monde », l’impact de la réduction drastique de l’aide internationale sur la gestion tardive de l’épidémie en cours.

Ghana will face fellow West African heavyweights Ivory Coast in qualifying for the 2027 Africa Cup of Nations, which will be co-hosted by Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.

No vaccine or treatment currently exists for the Bundibugyo Ebola strain

La spécificité de la guerre informationnelle réside dans son caractère évolutif : afin d’atteindre efficacement les opinions publiques, elle s’adapte aux environnements sociaux et politiques en se greffant aux thématiques qui suscitent une attention accrue dans les sociétés ciblées. Comme de nombreux autres enjeux, les changements climatiques peuvent donc être intégrés dans le cadre de la guerre informationnelle.

Bien que l’intégration des questions climatiques dans le cadre d’ingérences informationnelles étrangères soit récente, la manipulation de l’information climatique est en réalité une pratique ancienne. Toutefois, la désinformation climatique contemporaine se distingue par la diversité des acteurs impliqués : aux acteurs des énergies fossiles s’ajoutent désormais ceux de la Big Tech, ainsi que des acteurs étatiques. De 2024 à 2026, la désinformation climatique représentait en moyenne 7,7 % de l’ensemble des contenus de désinformation recensés dans l’Union européenne (UE).

La manipulation de l’information climatique recouvre une diversité de pratiques, dont les nuances reposent sur le degré d’intentionnalité. L’UE établit ainsi une distinction entre « mésinformation » – définie comme la « diffusion de contenus faux ou trompeurs transmis sans intention de nuire, même si leurs effets peuvent néanmoins être préjudiciables » – et la « désinformation », définie comme des « contenus faux ou trompeurs diffusés avec l’intention de tromper ou dans un but lucratif ou politique et susceptibles de causer un préjudice public ».

Dans la continuité des travaux menés par l’Observatoire Défense et climat sur l’intégration des changements climatiques dans les dynamiques de guerre hybride, cette note propose d’analyser l’instrumentalisation de l’information climatique par des puissances étrangères, grâce à une approche multifactorielle. Dans cette perspective, elle intègre les questions climatiques comme nouvel objet de la guerre informationnelle. Ainsi, après une présentation du cadre méthodologique du nexus désinformation climatique – guerre informationnelle (I), cette note propose un panorama des principaux acteurs étatiques de la désinformation climatique ciblant l’Europe, notamment la Russie et les États-Unis, ainsi que leurs interactions avec des acteurs non étatiques (II). L’analyse porte ensuite sur les conséquences sécuritaires de la désinformation climatique (III). Sur la base de ces conclusions, la note développe trois scénarii de prospective, accompagnés de recommandations à destination du ministère des Armées (IV).

Note Synthèse

L’article Désinformation climatique et guerre informationnelle : ingérences étatiques et enjeux sécuritaires est apparu en premier sur IRIS.