Afrique

Parliament wants the Commission to assess whether there could be a clear risk of a serious breach of the EU’s founding values by Slovakia’s government.
Committee on Budgetary Control
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Fracture idéologique, mémoire des années 1990 et stratégie anti-Vučić, le nouveau « Mémorandum sur le Kosovo et la Metohija » des étudiants serbes provoque une onde de choc au sein de la diaspora et relance le débat sur la place du nationalisme dans le mouvement civique.

- Libres opinions. L'espace de débat du Courrier des Balkans / Grand Bazar - Diaporama, Serbie

Le ministre de la Santé a reconnu que les médecins essayaient de rattraper leur retard face au virus après avoir mis du temps à le détecter.

La piraterie au large des côtes somaliennes a repris de plus belle, alors que la guerre en Iran attise l'instabilité dans la région.

Credit: Bibbi Abruzzini/Forus - Rabat, Morocco

By Silla Ristimäki, Miguel Santibañez, Emeline Siale Ilolahia and Aoi Horiuchi
HELSINKI, Finland / SANTIAGO, Chile / SUVA, Fiji / TOKYO, Japan, May 20 2026 (IPS)

Just four years of the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development remain. What comes after 2030 is already a political battleground.

The next global development framework is being shaped now: through quiet agenda-setting, shifting alliances, financing choices, contested norms, and decisions about who gets to participate and who is pushed to the margins. That matters because the world that will shape what comes next is not the world that adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015.

The context is harsher, more fractured and less generous. Geopolitical fragmentation is deepening. Armed conflicts are distorting priorities. Climate impacts are accelerating. Development finance is under growing strain. Civic space is shrinking. Public trust in multilateralism is weaker. And too often, the rights, equality and accountability commitments that gave the SDGs their normative force are treated as negotiable.

“We step into the next decade against the background of climate chaos, growing inequality and increasing poverty. The scaffolding for positive change shall be to infuse democratic values in the blood stream of all our governments from the Right to the Left,” says Dr. Moses Isooba, executive director of the Uganda National NGO Forum and Vice-Chair of Forus.

The post-2030 debate must confront the political and structural weaknesses that limited implementation the first time around.

As a civil society network, we have been here from the very beginning. We have secured the adoption of the SDGs with the Beyond 2015 campaign, pushed for innovation and ambition, challenged power, brought forward the voices of communities, and held systems accountable. That role evolves and as we now look “beyond 2030”, we remain present, engaged, and determined to influence what comes next.

One message comes through clearly: the next agenda will only be credible if we are clear about three things — what must be defended, what must be demanded, and what must be declined.

What must be defended

Some foundations of the current framework remain essential and must not be traded away for the sake of political convenience.

The first is universality. One of the most important achievements of the SDGs was to establish that sustainable development is not only a concern for lower income countries, but a universal responsibility. Policies, consumption patterns and economic models that drive inequality, exclusion and ecological harm must be addressed in all regions. High-income countries must not only finance development but also reform their own adverse policies. If the next framework weakens the recognition that sustainable development must integrate social justice, equality, environmental sustainability, peace and human rights, it will not move us forward. It will mark a retreat.

The second is civic space. Civil society participation is one of the conditions that makes accountability, inclusion and implementation possible yet it is increasingly constrained by financial pressures, exclusion from global decision-making processes and erosion of fundamental rights. A future agenda which prioritises resources and protection for civil society supports the building of stable, sustainable societies.

The third is local leadership. Communities and local civil society actors remain closest to the realities that global frameworks claim to address, yet they are still structurally under-resourced and under-represented. Localisation beyond the “buzzword” can bring essential resources for problem diagnosis and planning, increasing effectiveness and legitimacy for sustainable development and peacebuilding.

And finally, what must be defended is multilateralism itself, not as an abstract ideal, but as the shared political space where common commitments can still be built.

“Safeguarding the structures created to advance peace, cooperation and rights sustains global hope and possibilities to address common global challenges. This is in the interests of us all, future generations and the planet.” Silla Ristimäki, Adviser at Fingo. “This is why ambitious reform of the UN cannot be separated from the post-Agenda 2030 discussion.”

What must be demanded

Defending core principles is not enough. Negotiations about the future must also correct what the Agenda 2030 left unresolved.

At the centre of this is financing. A credible post-2030 framework cannot rest on the same unequal financial architecture that has constrained implementation for years. Debt burdens, unequal fiscal space, volatile aid flows and weak commitments have all narrowed the room for governments and communities to act. Financing reforms must include debt restructuring and relief, fairer lending terms, increased concessional finance, stronger domestic resource mobilisation, tax justice, policy coherence and predictable support for civil society.

“Many countries are spending more on debt than education or health. We need to reform the current unjust international financial architecture,” says Aoi Horiuchi, Senior Advocacy Officer at JANIC, the civil society network for international cooperation in Japan.

Accountability must also be stronger. Voluntary reporting and soft review mechanisms have not been enough. A future agenda must be backed by mandatory, transparent and regular review, with independent oversight and a formal role for civil society and local actors in tracking progress and exposing implementation gaps.

And participation must mean more than consultation after decisions are already taking shape. Civil society needs a formalised, meaningful and safe role in both negotiating and implementing the future framework, especially for local actors and groups continuing to face structural or political exclusion.

“Meaningful change comes from meaningful participation. That’s why we need to defend civic space,” says Horiuchi.

What must be declined

Some directions already visible in early discussions must be rejected outright.

A thinner agenda that lowers ambition in the name of consensus must be declined. So must any attempt to weaken universality, rights, gender equality, civic freedoms or climate ambition for political expediency.

The continuation of a financial status quo that deepens inequality while speaking the language of partnership must also be declined. So must accountability arrangements that remain symbolic, selective or performative.

And tokenistic participation must be named for what it is. A process that brings civil society into the room for appearance’s sake while excluding it from agenda-setting, decision-making and follow-through is managed exclusion.

Finally, as development governance evolves, the expanding role of private and philanthropic actors must not come without public-interest safeguards, democratic oversight and accountability. Public goals cannot be left to unaccountable power.

We must get out of silos, create spaces of dialogue, of co-responsibility and raise the question of whether the post-2030 framework will be more honest about power, more serious about accountability, more capable of confronting structural inequality, and more open to those whose lives and rights are most at stake.

Our answer is here:
Defend what must not be lost.
Demand what must be corrected.
Decline what would weaken the future.

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: Amnesty International
 
Vanuatu has spearheaded a UN General Assembly resolution, expected to be tabled on May 20, 2026, to endorse and operationalize the 2025 International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion, which confirmed that nations have binding legal duties to prevent and repair climate-related harm. The resolution, supported by a core group including Singapore and the Netherlands, calls for implementing these legal standards to protect vulnerable states from climate disasters, despite resistance from major polluters.

By Shristi Gautam and Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, May 20 2026 (IPS)

Normally, resolutions voted at the United Nations General Assembly do not make the headlines.

As nonbinding and mostly symbolic, rich in principles yet empty and lacking the power to carry consequences, these statements are shrugged off and ignored.

But there are exceptions, and today’s (May 20) UNGA vote is one of them. The reason is that a positive vote would constitute a significant development in the evolution of international environmental law. To understand what we are referring to, let us allow a small flashback.

Far from South Asia, a trailblazing effort to hold a private corporation accountable for climate-damaging harm played out in a German court in recent years. For the first time, a Peruvian farmer filed a case against a major German energy company, accusing it of gravely damaging his livelihood due to its contributions to climate warming.

Even though this case, known as Lliuya v. RWE, was ultimately rejected in May 2025, it opened a new era in one of the most promising fields for achieving climate justice: climate litigation.

In the words of experts from the Grantham Research Institute, Lliuya v. RWE “established a powerful legal precedent that can be replicated in courts worldwide and will shape the trajectory for future climate litigation: corporate greenhouse gas emitters can, in principle, be held liable for their contribution to climate change impacts.”

Climate litigation, as an approach to pursue justice, is relatively new but is on the rise worldwide. There are more and more legal cases being filed in courts of law to uphold the principles of climate equity and climate justice and to pursue the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, a precondition to the enjoyment of other rights, such as the right to life, health, and an adequate standard of living.

After years of litigation, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the state has an obligation to reduce emissions because adaptive efforts alone are insufficient. More groundbreaking cases followed. In the Los Cedros case, the Ecuadorian Constitutional Court established another pioneering precedent, affirming the primacy of the Right of Nature over mining concessions.

These rulings created momentum for bolder climate action, both in courts and in the streets, where millions of people across the Global South and North protested vigorously against climate injustice.

Within the international climate regime established by the Paris Agreement in 2015, the voices of developing nations, especially small island developing states, grew louder in opposition to unchecked greenhouse gas pollution, mostly from the Global North.

Unfortunately, there have been only very partial advancements within the UNFCCC framework. Last year, Climate COP 30, chaired by Brazil in Belém and supposed to be the COP of action and implementation, ended in another major disappointment. It is difficult to find optimism that the upcoming COP 31 in Türkiye will bear the transformative results humanity so desperately needs.

But an extraordinary legal effort, initially launched by law students from the Pacific in 2021 and later embraced by the Government of Vanuatu, paid off. On 23 July last year, the International Court of Justice issued the landmark Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change. It was a truly game-changing moment for the fight for climate justice, even if the AO is non-binding.

Among its several remarkable aspects, the Paris Agreement’s obligations are not only procedural but also substantive, and states have stringent due diligence obligations. The ICJ also rejected the concept of “Lex Specialis,” clarifying that states’ obligations extend beyond the Paris Agreement, which, as a treaty, does not take precedence over other sources of law.

In plain terms, governments cannot hide behind the negotiations within the various climate COPs. They must do more. The ruling explicitly demands that states do whatever they can, within their means, to meet their commitments to reduce climate change.

It is not enough for a state to submit a Nationally Determined Contribution, its national plan to mitigate greenhouse emissions. A state may also be considered responsible for failing to take regulatory and legislative measures to limit not only its own emissions but also greenhouse gases produced by the private sector within its own borders.

The AO could not be clearer: “A breach by a State of any of the obligations identified by the Court in relation to climate change constitutes an internationally wrongful act entailing the responsibility of that State.”

Today, the Pacific island of Vanuatu, a true trailblazer showing that small developing nations can punch above their weight with moral leadership, is once again attempting to make history by bringing a UNGA Resolution on the AO.

Even without enforceable power, this resolution wants to reaffirm the principles enshrined in the Advisory Opinion, marking another step toward states’ accountability under international law.

According to the Climate Litigation Database, hosted by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, more than 3,000 lawsuits have been filed against governments and private-sector carbon emitters, including banks and asset management companies.

Today’s UNGA Resolution was supported by a diverse coalition including the Netherlands, Kenya, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Barbados, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Jamaica, the Philippines, and Burkina Faso.

Despite Nepal’s limited international engagement in recent months due to its own political transitions and elections, the new government led by Prime Minister Balendra Shah must join this group of nations.

Nepal must devise a strategy to revamp its climate efforts at the international level and, critically, do so beyond the Paris Agreement negotiations. There must be recognition that future negotiations within the UNFCCC will not be less fraught or complicated.

A series of policy papers published by the British think tank ODI exposed the hypocrisy of many governments that, in theory, are sympathetic and supportive of the climate fight of small island developing states, yet in their own submissions before the ICJ, resisted and opposed further legal obligations beyond the Paris Agreement.

This duplicity is embraced not only by developed nations but also by India and China, two of the most vocal defenders of the rights of developing nations within the Paris Agreement framework.

The incredibly complex politics of climate negotiations mean only one thing: courts of law may end up offering the only realistic venue for climate-vulnerable nations to pursue redress. As explained by The Guardian, Vanuatu was even forced to compromise some of the most progressive and climate-justice-centered aspects of this resolution in order to build the widest possible coalition of supporting nations.

Meanwhile, the ongoing tensions in the Gulf are offering a silver lining: more and more nations are realizing that phasing out carbon emissions is becoming irreversible. A few weeks ago, a pioneering gathering was held in Santa Marta, Colombia, the first-ever conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels. Although Nepal was invited, there was no news of the government’s participation.

While climate negotiations within the UNFCCC should not be dismissed, it is time to embrace another approach to seeking climate justice. The pursuit of climate justice through local and international courts may offer the most effective remedy to ensure the primary goal of the Paris Agreement, limiting climate warming to 1.5°C, is realistically pursued.

Nepal’s government will surely cast the right vote at the UNGA today. At the same time, we hope the new federal government will do whatever it takes to reiterate and expand its commitment to international law to stop climate change in the highest courts and global forums. We also hope it will create a conducive environment for climate litigation to thrive and become a tool for climate accountability that reaches everyone.

Shristi Gautam is the Past Co-Lead of World’s Youth for Climate Justice, Nepal, and Founder of Nyaya Vatika; Simone Galimberti is the pro bono co-founder of The Good Leadership.

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');  

  

 

Wednesday 20 May

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Le président croate Zoran Milanović a refusé d'accréditer Nissan Amdur comme nouvel ambassadeur d'Israël à Zagreb, invoquant à la fois une entorse au protocole diplomatique et son opposition à la politique du gouvernement de Benjamin Netanyahou.

- Le fil de l'Info / Courrier des Balkans, Israël-Palestine , Croatie, Relations internationales

On Wednesday morning, Parliament and Council reached a provisional agreement on two pieces of legislation implementing EU tariff commitments under the August 2025 EU-US Joint Statement.
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

The health minister has acknowledged that medics are playing catch-up with the virus after being slow to detect it.

Tax expenditures (TEs) in Zimbabwe represent a significant portion of government spending, amounting to 2.8 percent of GDP, 24.7 percent of total revenue, and 21.2 percent of public spending in 2023. Companies benefitting from TEs enjoy tax savings that trigger a reduction in government revenue, which may in turn result in higher budget deficits and sovereign debt. TEs are often regressive, e.g., when TEs related to personal income tax (PIT) benefit those in higher income tax brackets more, and TEs related to value-added tax (VAT) provide a larger benefit to higher income households, given their larger consumption in absolute terms. Although TEs are meant to boost investment, exports, innovation and employment, their real impact is often unknown, as Zimbabwe lacks a culture of ex-ante and ex-post evaluation of TEs.

Transparency: Section 3 of the Public Finance Management Act [Chapter 22:19] aims to secure transparency, accountability and sound management of revenues and expenditure, but does not provide specific provisions on TEs assessments nor reporting to the Parliament of Zimbabwe. Section 30 of the Zimbabwe Investment Development Agency (ZIDA) Act also highlights that ZIDA, in consultation with the Minister responsible for Finance, should publish guidelines for investment, which include general and special incentives applicable to specific categories of licensed investors. Against this backdrop, it is fair to say that there is no explicit policy on TE transparency in Zimbabwe.

Complex landscape: The rationale for the introduction of business-related TEs is to stimulate investment and production, which should then create employment opportunities and other benefits, potentially leading to higher government revenues in the medium or long term. If well-designed, tax incentives for investment can be a cost-effective policy tool. However, TEs may be vulnerable to lobbying and abuse, providing preferential tax treatment to specific groups with vested interests to keep the incentives in place even without much benefit to the economy at large. Empirical evidence on TEs is still limited in Zimbabwe, which undermines evidence-based tax policymaking.

Evaluation challenges: The government of Zimbabwe committed to develop a tax incentive monitoring and evaluation framework, managed by the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA), to facilitate the management of TEs and inform cost-benefit analyses by Treasury on an annual basis with effect from 1 January 2019. No ex-ante evaluation has been conducted so far, but some ex-post evaluations of TEs were undertaken in 2021 and 2023. In addition, ZIMRA has started to publish TE figures from 2019 onwards in its annual reports, although the statistics published are highly aggregated and do not cover all taxes upon which TEs are granted. The published TEs from the annual reports are revenue forgone from domestic and trade taxes. Although the Parliament of Zimbabwe has the competence to oversee the national budget cycle, it is currently not involved in the monitoring and control of TEs.

Fiscal sustainability: Fiscal sustainability enables governments to meet future public expenditure and financial obligations without resorting to excessive borrowing. Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act, 2013 (Act No. 1 of 2013, Section 299) provides for Parliamentary oversight of state revenues and expenditure to ensure accountability, monitoring and fiscal sustainability (Government of Zimbabwe, 2023a). Section 298 (1) b i of the Constitution states that the burden of taxation must be shared equally which implies that TEs should not be allocated without evaluating if they are beneficial to Zimbabwe. TEs can be described as hidden government spending, which can negatively affect fiscal sustainability. Zimbabwe’s TEs amounted to US$1.34 billion in 2023, which is about 2.8 percent of GDP, compared to the global average of about 4 percent of GDP. However, VAT rate reductions and exemptions on domestic sales, which constituted 51 percent and 27.1 percent of total TEs reported by ZIMRA in 2020, were not reported through the new Tax and Revenue Management System (TaRMS) in 2023. Moreover, TEs for CIT, PIT and excise duty were not reported since they are not captured by ZIMRA. The bulk of the reported figures for 2023 were TEs related to custom duties. Thus, the extent of TE use in Zimbabwe is underreported and may in fact be considerably higher than the global average. Moreover, this is happening at a time when Zimbabwe is facing limited fiscal space, with public debt constituting 59.7 percent of GDP in 2024.

Policy recommendations: The Government of Zimbabwe should conduct or commission ex-ante and ex-post evaluations of TEs to enhance their effectiveness. Statistics on TE use and revenue forgone should be publicly available and easily accessible to enhance transparency and access of information to the users. All TEs should be time-bound (with sunset clauses) and, ideally, only be renewed after an assessment has been undertaken to justify their existence. All new TEs should be subject to an ex-ante evaluation to clarify expectations and ensure that only effective TEs are implemented in the country. The Parliament of Zimbabwe should be involved in the monitoring and control of TEs. The legislation should ensure that TE proposals are in line with national development plans and policies. The Parliament of Zimbabwe should also ensure that TE reports are published at pre-defined dates. TE reporting should be comprehensive, reported annually. This means there should be a designated authority responsible for preparing the TE report, preferably in the Ministry of Finance, Economic Development and Investment Promotion. The legal framework should also establish the structure and frequency of TE evaluations, including both ex-ante assessments and ex-post evaluations.

The Chair of the International Trade committee will hold a press conference after tonight's negotiations between Members and Council on the work on the deal around EU-US trade relations
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

The OECD Conference on the Future of International Development Co-operation convened in Paris on 11-12 May 2026. Andy Sumner and Stephan Klingebiel consider one core idea arising.

This study examines the synergistic effects of digital and green economies on sustainable development in 35 Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries over the period 2010–2021. Using a two-step System GMM estimator, we analyze the interaction among digital technology index (DT), green total factor productivity (GP), and adjusted net savings (ANS) as a percentage of GNI. The baseline results reveal a negative association between DT and ANS at low levels of green productivity. However, this penalty is mitigated as green productivity rises indicating a synergistic effect. Robustness checks across income levels, regions, and infrastructure types uncover heterogeneities. Specifically, the marginal penalty associated with fixed broadband subscription improves by 0.41% point as economies move from the 25th to the 50th percentile of green productivity, and by a larger 0.828% points when moving from the 25th to the 75th percentile. While basic mobile connectivity remains sustainability-neutral, high-capacity fixed broadband requires environmental efficiency to avoid eroding national savings. Furthermore, digitalization attenuates the negative relationship between natural resource rents and ANS. These findings underscore that achieving sustainable development in SSA requires synchronized policy strategies rather than isolated investments in technology or green initiatives.

On Tuesday, Parliament approved new EU rules for the screening of foreign investments to prevent security risks.
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

The new regulation replaces measures due to expire on 30 June 2026 and will help protect the EU steel industry from the negative effects of a global steel surplus.
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Abou Bakr al-Mainuki a été tué lors d'une frappe conjointe de précision le 16 mai 2026 dans le bassin du lac Tchad. Donald Trump l’a présenté comme le « numéro deux mondial » de l’État islamique, mais les experts soulignent qu’il s’agissait d’un chef régional, non d’un dirigeant global.

On Tuesday, the first laureates of the European Order of Merit were honoured for their significant contribution to EU integration and values in a ceremony at the European Parliament.

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

The policy brief argues that Greece should re-establish a substantial bilateral development aid programme, as its current contribution remains particularly low compared both to its international commitments and to pre-crisis levels. Development aid is not only as an act of solidarity, but also an instrument of foreign policy, security, and public diplomacy.

• Greek official development assistance remains very low (0.14% of Gross National Income in 2024), far below the country’s international commitments.
• The crises in Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan require increased humanitarian assistance and reconstruction support.
• Development aid is an instrument of foreign policy, security, and public diplomacy. It is an investment in stability and international credibility. If Greece wishes to play a role in its broader geopolitical region and participate actively in major European Union initiatives, like the Global Gateway, it must develop a bilateral aid programme.

Read here (in Greek) the Policy brief by Asteris Huliaras, Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of the Peloponnese; Member of the Advisory Board of ELIAMEP.

Non-communicable diseases such as heart disease and cancer account for nearly three-quarters of all deaths worldwide. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, May 19 2026 (IPS)

With death being an inevitable outcome, a fundamental question that crosses the minds of practically everyone is: “How am I going to die?”

A simple response is that you will likely die from one of the top causes of mortality. A more precise answer is that “it depends” to a large extent on your personal circumstances.

For example, if you are under the age of 45, the most likely cause of death statistically in many countries is unintentional injuries or accidents. If you are a young adult aged 18 to 29, in addition to motor vehicle accidents, other major causes of death include suicide and homicide. If you are an older adult over the age of 65, you are most likely going to die from the major causes of death for that age group, which are heart disease and cancer.

Various important personal circumstances contribute to your eventual demise, including age, sex, genetics, country of residence, medical condition, family status, occupation, income, healthcare access, and lifestyle choices. These lifestyle choices may involve smoking, alcohol consumption, drug use, diet, and exercise.

Before delving into personal circumstances and the leading causes of death globally and in various countries that ultimately end human lives, it is important to recognize the positive news regarding survival rates and the increase in human life expectancy.

In recent years, the average length of human lives has significantly increased. More people across the globe are surviving to older ages than ever before.

Marked increases in human survival rates have occurred at virtually every age, resulting in more people living longer lives. Additionally, a wide range of diseases, ailments, and conditions have either been eliminated or significantly reduced.

Life expectancies at various ages have shown significant increases worldwide. For example, the global life expectancy at birth has risen from 46 years in 1950 to 74 years today and at age 65, life expectancy has increased from 11 years in 1950 to 18 years today (Table 1).

Source: United Nations.

Additionally, infant and childhood death rates have significantly decreased with more children surviving to adulthood. For instance, the world’s infant mortality rate has dropped from 138 deaths per 1,000 births in 1950 to today’s 26 deaths per 1,000 births.

Moreover, remarkable medical advancements have been made in extending the lives of older men and women since 1950. For example, the number of centenarians worldwide has increased from nearly 15,000 in 1950 to about 672,000 in 2026.

Returning to the question posed at the beginning, “How am I going to die?”, the major causes of death for the world’s population of 8 billion provide some general background.

Globally, the main causes of death are non-communicable diseases (NCDs), which are illnesses that are not contagious. These NCDs account for about three-quarters of all deaths worldwide.

However, infectious diseases, such as pneumonia, influenza, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, COVID, and malaria, still exist and are responsible for approximately 14% of all deaths.

According to recent trends by the World Health Organization (WHO) the leading cause of death globally is ischemic heart disease. It is followed by stroke, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), lower respiratory, and neonatal conditions (Table 2).

Source: World Health Organization (WHO).

In 2021, COVID-19 was a leading cause of death, ranking after ischemic heart disease and preceding stroke. By 2025, COVID-19 had dropped significantly in ranking, yet it still remains a significant contributor to respiratory mortality.

Analyzing the major causes of death among various age groups in different countries provides additional valuable insights. These data offer a glimpse into potential answers to the question of how I am going to die, based on specific age groups within different countries.

For individuals aged 15 to 34, the primary causes of death in many countries, especially more developed ones, are suicide, accidents, and cancer.

A particularly troubling global trend development in mortality is the fact that suicide ranks as the third leading cause of death among individuals aged 15 to 29. More than 720,000 people die by suicide every year

In Japan, for example, suicide is the leading cause of death for individuals aged 15 to 34, followed by accidents and cancer. Among older adults, cancer and heart disease are the main causes of death. Recent data also show that mortality from senility (or “old age”) has rapidly increased to become the third leading cause of death among elderly adults.

Similarly in the United States, the causes of death vary significantly by age. For young adults (ages 15 to 24), the main causes of death are unintentional injuries such as motor vehicle crashes and drug overdoses, followed by suicide and homicide. Among the elderly, the primary causes of death are heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases.

In many more developed countries, such as Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and South Korea, the leading causes of death for those aged 15 to 34 are suicide, road accidents, and cancer. Among adults aged 65 and older, like in the United States, heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases are the main causes of death.

Turning to less developed countries, the leading cause of death in China is cardiovascular disease, accounting for over 44% of deaths in 2024. Among children and adolescents, the leading causes of death are suicide, road traffic accidents, and drowning while among older persons aged 60 and above, cancer and cardiovascular diseases are major factors. Unintentional falls are also a significant and growing cause of injury related deaths in this older age group.

Similarly, ischemic heart disease is the leading cause of death in India, accounting for nearly one-third of all deaths. Among those aged 15 to 24, suicide is the leading cause of death, followed by road traffic injuries. For children, infectious diseases such as diarrheal diseases and intestinal infections are major factors contributing to death.

In contrast to China and India, the leading causes of death in Africa are dominated by communicable diseases. The major causes of death, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, include lower respiratory infections, malaria, diarrheal diseases, and HIV/AIDS. Neonatal conditions and maternal mortality also significantly contribute to premature death.

In Nigeria, for example, the leading causes of death are dominated by malaria, lower respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, and tuberculosis. Heart disease, stroke, and HIV/AIDS are also among the important causes of death. However similar to China, India, and many other countries worldwide, road traffic accidents are among the top causes of death among young adults.

Among the countries of South America, cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death, followed by cancer and respiratory diseases. Together these three account for over two-thirds of deaths in this major region.

Suicide is the leading cause of death among young people in several South American countries, including Chile, Ecuador, Guyana, and Suriname. Additionally, in many countries in South America, such as Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, homicide and road traffic accidents are the major causes of death among individuals aged 15 to 24.

A particularly troubling global trend development in mortality is the fact that suicide ranks as the third leading cause of death among individuals aged 15 to 29. More than 720,000 people die by suicide every year. This number, coupled with the alarming increasing trend, has elevated suicide to a major public health concern in many countries.

In conclusion, while virtually everyone acknowledges the inevitability of death, many occasionally wonder “How am I going to die?” Providing a precise answer to this question is challenging and depends on various personal circumstances, including age, sex, genetics, income, medical conditions, country of residence, and lifestyle choices.

Some of these circumstances, such as age and genetics, are unchangeable. However, lifestyle choices that impact the cause of death, such as smoking, alcohol and drug consumption, diet, and exercise, can be modified or improved. Making positive changes in these areas can often lead to a longer and healthier life.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population issues.