Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

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)

&nbsp
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 “to identify ways to further enhance the role, authority, effectiveness and efficiency of the General Assembly”.

Till 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 of the Assembly as the appointing authority. The 75th PGA in 2020 Volkan Bozkir has 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, 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 which 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 the 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 recent withholding of payments by a few major contributors for political reasons. Outstanding contributions for 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”, 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 on-going 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 best of luck in this very important endeavor to revitalize the apex body of 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');  

Johanna Choumert-Nkolo, third from right, speaking during a panel discussion at the Global Development Conference 2025 in Clermont-Ferrand, France. Credit: Athar Parvaiz/IPS

By Athar Parvaiz
CLERMONT-FERRAND, France, Dec 4 2025 (IPS)

During the Global Development Conference 2025, development experts and researchers kept warning that low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were being pushed into a wave of digital transformation without the basic statistical systems, institutional capacity, and local context needed to ensure that AI and digital tools truly benefited the poor.
Among the prominent voices shaping this conversation were Dr. Johannes Jütting, Executive Head of the PARIS21 Secretariat at the OECD, and development economist Johanna Choumert-Nkolo, who has over 15 years of research and evaluation experience. IPS interviewed both Jutting and Choumert-Nkolo following the conference, which concluded about five weeks ago, about the issues surrounding digitalization in LMICs.  Following is the summary of their responses.

How is Data the Weakest Link?

Much of the conversation around AI’s potential in the Global South centers on the promise of improved governance. But for Jutting, whose organization has been working on AI and data, there is a widening gap between the capacities of countries in the Global North and those in the Global South.

AI, he said, offers enormous potential. “For lower-income countries in particular, the production side is promising because AI can reduce the very high costs of traditional data collection. By combining geospatial data with machine learning, for instance, we can generate more granular and more timely data for policymaking, including identifying where poor populations live,” Jutting told IPS.

“But real challenges remain. Many low-income countries lack the fundamental conditions required to make use of AI. First, connectivity: without it, there is no practical AI application. Second, technical infrastructure such as data centers and reliable data transmission. Third, human capacity and skills, which require sustained investment. And fourth, governance and legal frameworks that must be updated to reflect new technologies,” he said.

There are also clear risks, particularly concerning confidentiality, privacy, and the fact that most large AI models are trained on data from the Global North, he told IPS and added that this creates potential biases and limits their usefulness for national statistical offices in the Global South.

Data collection processes, such as censuses and household surveys, are expensive, slow, and operationally difficult. According to him, many national statistical offices lack the workforce, training, and budget needed to maintain regular, reliable data production.

The challenge, he emphasized, is not simply technological.

“Digital transformation is not just a technology issue. It is a change management issue, a capacity development issue, a skills issue, and a political will issue.”

Dr. Johannes Jütting, second from right, speaking during a panel discussion at the Global Development Conference 2025 in Clermont-Ferrand, France. Credit: Athar Parvaiz/IPS

Divide Within the Global South and Fiscal Constraints

While global debates often frame digital inequality as a problem between rich and poor nations, Jütting believes the more serious divide is emerging within the Global South itself. He argues that some LMICs are sprinting ahead while others fall further behind, a divergence he calls “one of the most worrying trends in development today.”

“What I see is a divide inside the Global South,” he said. “Countries like Rwanda, Kenya, the Philippines and Colombia are advanced—sometimes more advanced than OECD members. But others like Mali, Niger, and several small island states, are completely left behind.”

This divide is not only visible in connectivity and infrastructure but also in institutional readiness, technological skills and even access to basic demographic data. In some countries, he said, governments still lack reliable records of how many people are born each year or how many people live within their borders.

“How can we talk about fancy AI models when basic population data is missing?” he asked. “We have to start with the fundamentals.”

He also cautioned that development agencies may inadvertently widen this divide by focusing on “low-hanging fruits” that yield quick, measurable results, instead of supporting long-term system-building in fragile countries.

“There is donor fatigue, and funding is shrinking,” he said.

So, how do we move forward? First, Jutting said, every country needs a strong national strategy for the development of statistics (NSDS). This strategy must be fully aligned with national development plans, he said and added that only then can we ensure financing is efficient, coordinated, and aligned with country needs as well as international monitoring requirements, such as the SDGs or Africa’s Agenda 2063.

“Second, viable financing models will require greater domestic resource mobilization. Governments must be convinced to invest in their own data systems—and this requires demonstrating tangible impact.”

And third, he said, donors need to align their spending more effectively. “Our recent work on gender data financing shows a major disconnect: while gender equality funding is increasing, funding for gender data is not. This mismatch risks wasting money and undermining progress.”

He believes that there has to be a change on both fronts: national governments must allocate more domestic resources, and donors must invest in data in a more strategic, coherent, and results-oriented way.

Complexity of Measuring Digital Impacts

While Jütting focused on institutions and governance, Choumert-NKolo approached digitalization through the lens of climate resilience, human behaviour and evidence generation. Unlike many policy conversations that foreground tools and technologies, she emphasized the complexity of understanding real-world impacts.

“Digitalization is reshaping economies at a very fast pace,” she told IPS. “From a climate perspective, we need to understand what this means, both in terms of opportunities and risks.”

Her main concern is the long-term and layered nature of digital impacts. A digital tool deployed today may influence decisions in ways that take years to fully materialize.

“You never know how a tool will be used until people start making decisions with it,” she said. “Understanding behavioural change is complex, and attribution to one digital tool is extremely difficult.”

Despite these challenges, she emphasized that digital tools have significant potential to support climate adaptation. Farmers facing unpredictable weather patterns can benefit from climate information services delivered through mobile platforms. Communities vulnerable to storms or floods can receive alerts even through basic SMS networks. Such tools, she said, can save lives.

But she urged caution in assuming digital tools are universally accessible or understood.

“We must remember that not everyone can read or act on digital messages,” she said. “Literacy and accessibility gaps remain large in many countries.”

Her research experience in East Africa reinforced the importance of context. Mobile money, she said, became a major success story precisely because it solved local problems and fit local cultural and economic realities. But not every challenge requires a digital solution.

“Sometimes nature-based or low-cost solutions work better. The key is context. We must understand what problem we are trying to solve and whether digital tools are the right fit.”

She believes the way forward lies in identifying local needs, drawing from existing evidence and piloting new solutions where knowledge gaps remain. “There is a lot of hype around digitalization,” she said. “We need more comparative evidence on what works best in each setting.”

A Future That Must Be Shaped Carefully

One theme emerged with clarity from both experts: Digital transformation can support inclusive development, but only if countries invest in strengthening their statistical systems, building institutional capacity and grounding innovation in local realities.

“We need more and better data for better lives,” Jütting said. “But we must ensure the poorest countries are not left behind in this digital wave.”

Choumert-NKolo echoed that sentiment. “Digital tools offer huge opportunities,” she said. “But they must be rooted in context, evidence and local needs.”

For LMICs navigating the uncertainties of climate change, economic pressures and technological disruption, these warnings are timely. Digital transformation can be a powerful equalizer—or a new source of exclusion. The difference, experts said, will depend on whether governments and development partners prioritize the foundations that make digital inclusion truly possible.

• “Travel (for reporting this story) to the Global Development Conference was supported by GlobalDev, the research communications platform of the Global Development Network (GDN). The 2026 Global Development Conference was organized in partnership with other members of the Pôle clermontois de développement international (PCDI)—Foundation for Studies and Research on International Development (FERDI) and Centre for International Development Studies and Research (CERDI). Reporting and research remain independent.”

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: UN Photo/Loey Felipe September 2025

By Annalena Baerbock
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 4 2025 (IPS)

For seventy-eight years, the question of Palestine has been on the agenda of this General Assembly, almost as long as the institution itself.

Resolution 181 (II) was adopted by the General Assembly on November 29 1947 – laying the foundation for the Two State Solution and calling for the establishment of both an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine.

But while the Jewish State, the State of Israel, is a recognized Member State of the United Nations, the Arab State, the State of Palestine, is not.

Seventy-eight years later, Palestine has still not been admitted to the UN as a full Member.

For 78 years the Palestinian people have been denied their inalienable rights – in particular, their right to self-determination. Now, it is high time that we take decisive action to end this decades-long stalemate.

The atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7th set off one of the darkest chapters in this conflict. Two years of war in Gaza have left tens of thousands of civilians killed, including many women and children. Countless more have been injured, maimed, and traumatized for life.

Communities are starving; civilian infrastructure is in ruins; almost the entire population is displaced. Children, mothers, fathers, families like us.

The hostages who have been finally released and reunited with their loved ones are slowly recovering from captivity under extremely dire conditions, while other families are mourning over the returned bodies. Again, children, fathers, mothers, families like us.

And while the horrors of Gaza have dominated the news for two years, settlement expansion, demolitions and increased settler violence in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem continue to undermine the prospects for a sovereign, independent, contiguous and viable Palestinian state.

Palestinian communities are bifurcated by the rapid expansion of settlements. Movement, communication and access to essential services and livelihoods are severely restricted for Palestinians by checkpoints, confiscations and demolitions.

While in my previous capacity, I visited a small village in the West Bank to actually meet with Palestinian farmers and teachers who wanted to show me what settlement expansion and settler violence meant for their daily lives.

As we stood on a hillside overlooking their farmland, a drone from an Israeli settlement began hovering above us, circling in the air, monitoring what we were doing and probably saying.

We know what happens when foreign people and cameras are no longer there. It’s not just a drone watching; it’s outright violence, including farmers being attacked as they try to go to work, as they try to harvest.

Beyond the violence itself are the daily indignities confronting the residents of the West Bank, including children getting to school or thousands of pregnant women rushing to hospital to receive care or give birth, only to be stopped at checkpoints or by road closures.

All that has happened in the last two years has all underlined what we have known since decades. The Israeli–Palestinian conflict cannot be resolved through illegal occupation, de jure or de facto annexation, forced displacement, recurrent terror or permanent war.

This only adds to grievances and fuels the flames of conflict.

Israelis and Palestinians will only live in lasting peace, security, and dignity when they live side by side in two sovereign and independent states, with mutually recognized borders and full regional integration –

As outlined in the New York Declaration, which is indeed a ray of hope, and the adoption of Resolution 2803 in which the Security Council endorsed the “Comprehensive Plan to End the Conflict in Gaza”.

We see unfortunately again on a daily basis that these are only words on paper if we do not deliver. We need to ensure that the ceasefire is consolidated and becomes a permanent end to hostilities. Since this ceasefire at least 67 children have been killed; and again, we see children being left without parents, or left in the rubble.

This has to end.

And as we brace for the increasing cold in New York ourselves, imagine what winter means for the people of Gaza: tents collapsing under rain, families shivering without shelter, children facing the night with nothing but thin fabric between them and the wind, and countless people still going to sleep hungry.

If we want to live up to our commitments, we need humanitarian agencies, on the ground without hindrance and without excuse.

And we need to ensure that humanitarian aid is delivered throughout all Gaza in a full, safe, unconditional and unhindered manner, in full accordance with international humanitarian law and humanitarian principles. And this includes delivery through UNRWA.

And as outlined in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of Israel in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, allowing UNRWA to fulfil its mandate and continue operations there is not merely a gesture of goodwill, it is a legal obligation.

Both the General Assembly and the Security Council have been consistent on the parameters that must guide any peaceful resolution of the conflict. So, we know what we have to do.

These parameters are again reiterated in the draft resolution before this Assembly today, relating to the New York Declaration, which was endorsed by a vast majority of Member States, and identified a comprehensive and actionable framework including tangible, timebound and irreversible steps for the implementation of the Two-State-Solution, in particular that resolution underlined that Gaza must be unified with the West Bank. There must be no occupation, siege, territorial reduction, or forced displacement.

It underlines that Hamas must end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority.

It makes clear that the Palestinian Authority must continue implementing its credible reform agenda focusing on good governance, transparency, fiscal sustainability, fight against incitement and hate speeches, service provision, business climate and development.

And it calls on the Israeli leadership to immediately end violence and incitement against Palestinians, and immediately halt all settlement, land grabs and annexation activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. It makes clear that it has to end the violence of the settlers.

As diplomats we all know this is hard diplomatic work. And therefore , I want to be frank and clear.

The quest for peace, stability and justice in the Middle East needs our United Nations. It needs this Assembly to play a meaningful role.

It requires every Member State to walk the talk: to engage in this process, to uphold the United Nations Charter, to adhere to international law, and the promise this institution made to all the people of the world eighty years ago.

Let us recall once more: self-determination, and the right to live in one’s own state in peace, security, and dignity, free from war, occupation and violence, is not a privilege to be earned, but a right to be upheld.

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:

Annalena Baerbock In her address as President of the UN General Assembly

Drone view from Combu Island, with the city of Belém, where COP30 took place, in the background. Credit: Alex Ferro/COP30

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINAGAR, Dec 4 2025 (IPS)

“I see more philanthropic support aligning with systems thinking, linking climate stability, biodiversity protection, Indigenous leadership, and community resilience,” says Michael Northrop, Program Director at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

In an interview with Inter Press Service (IPS), he says funding is increasingly moving beyond isolated interventions and siloed approaches. The intersection between climate, nature, and Indigenous rights can be considered together. He sees philanthropy moving in that direction, and the momentum is growing.

Northrop is particularly excited about the recent COP30 Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) announcement. Over the past two years, the Fund has backed the facility while in its development stages. TFFF targets the protection of 1.2 billion hectares of tropical rainforests across more than 70 low- and middle-income countries.

The TFFF was launched during COP 30 with USD 5.5 billion in commitments from sponsor countries, strong endorsements from 53 countries, and plans for delivery. It has a long-term goal of raising about USD 125 billion.

All-in-one Solution

He calls it a nature solution, a climate solution, an Indigenous peoples and local communities solution, and an economic development solution, all in one.

“The Brazilian government raised almost USD 7 billion in early contributions. They aim to secure another USD 15 billion from governments over the next 12 to 18 months, then attract USD 100 billion in private investment. This structure focuses on investment instead of grants or loans. Countries will get paid per hectare of standing forest they conserve,” Northrop told IPS.

Northrop sees this initiative as a major departure from traditional models. It rewards protection instead of exploitation and avoids burdening countries with increased debt.

He appreciates Brazil’s leadership in promoting this initiative, stating that the RBF has been working with Brazilians and other nations for nearly two years. “The current challenge is moving from concept to a mature investment mechanism that can finance forest protection at scale.”

Indigenous peoples and local communities already protect nature more effectively than any other model, he says.

“Half of the world’s remaining intact forests are within Indigenous territories. Almost 45 percent of global biodiversity exists within those lands, although formal recognition of land rights often lags. In regions such as the Amazon, the Congo Basin, and Southeast Asia, granting tenure to indigenous communities has helped protect forests, marine resources, and ways of life.”

Michael Northrop, Program Director at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, in a remote Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest. Photo: Supplied

He emphasizes that when giving sovereignty and governance responsibilities to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), they do not require extensive external resources.

“They need safety, legal recognition, and the freedom to live on and defend their lands. This is a powerful message that is now understood more widely.”

Single Lens Needed to Tackle Multiple Issues

One of the greatest obstacles, according to Northrop, lies in the way global systems compartmentalize climate, nature, and indigenous issues. Climate change, he says, is treated through one lens, biodiversity through another, and Indigenous rights through yet another.

These areas are interdependent but managed separately. Negotiators at UN climate summits differ from those at biodiversity forums. They often belong to different ministries, speak different scientific languages, and focus on different priorities. As a result, policy responses malfunction.”

Northrop believes the disconnect reflects human cognitive limits.

“Most people cannot think deeply about these big systems all at once. Yet he notes progress in recognizing connections, supported through the powerful visual mapping of these connections that Earth Insight did before COP30. He believes accessible visuals help experts see the interdependencies more effectively.

The fund uses field visits to identify partners. Northrop says the institution does not have a big staff, so it relies on travel and direct engagement. The Fund looks for people who think on a large scale and design strategies to solve complex problems. Reviewing paper proposals alone is insufficient. He says real understanding comes from meeting people, seeing their environments, and learning what drives them.

There are enormous numbers of positive examples of effective philanthropy, but even with these, the overall volume of the work is insufficient. He notes a generational shift in the sector that contributes to current impact.

“Earlier, philanthropic institutions often hired academics without social change and policy change experience. Today, staff are increasingly drawn from social movements, campaign organizations, and policy implementation roles.”

He finds this shift encouraging.

Michael Northrop, Program Director at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), inspects oil pipelines in the Ecuadorian Amazon. RBF stresses that Indigenous peoples and local communities already protect nature more effectively than any other model. Photo: Supplied

Still, philanthropy cannot substitute for strong governance and policy. He points to worrying trends in the United States, where decisions that protected social and environmental systems are being reversed. He insists progress depends on government action alongside philanthropic support. Both are needed.

At COP30, Northrop notes a split in approaches among countries. “A large number wanted to phase out fossil fuels and halt deforestation. Others, including major oil-producing nations, continue to push for extraction. The world has already crossed the threshold for burning new fossil fuel reserves if it hopes to protect the planet.”

Unfortunately there is also continued pressure to industrialize forest landscapes through oil, mining, logging, and agriculture.

Fossil Fuel Phase-Out Efforts

Northrop expects philanthropy will support the 80 countries that have committed to a fossil fuel phase-out. This approach may need adoption outside the formal COP mechanisms, given the split in Belém. He also expects strong philanthropic engagement to support efforts to end deforestation.

He would like to see immediate action on phasing out fossil fuels and ending deforestation. He says the world cannot wait.

The link between forest protection and fossil fuel restraint is direct. Extraction becomes more difficult if forest areas are left intact. Keeping reserves in the ground helps safeguard forests. Northrop believes strategies must be aligned.

He sees growing collaboration among philanthropic groups focused on nature and climate—a new and expanding trend—which must continue because neither philanthropy nor policy can solve these issues alone. Both must work together with civil society and indigenous communities.

Northrop is clear about the biggest challenge for climate philanthropy—achieving scale. Philanthropy alone cannot deliver transformation at the necessary magnitude. Only policy can. Philanthropy must help develop and support strong policy and governance to scale systemic change.

His personal motivation, which developed early in life, continues to drive him. He says he’s fortunate to have met so many mission-driven people throughout his four decades of work on nature, climate, and development. He has deep respect for how social change agents’ minds work. What keeps him going, he says, is listening. He tries to understand what people are doing and what inspires them. He credits individuals who have driven major changes in the environmental, health, and education systems for inspiring his work.

Northrop believes there is more philanthropy today and that more players think globally. He welcomes new actors with practical experience in change-making. He warns that philanthropic support must be backed by stable national and international policy.

“The coming months will test whether the Tropical Forest Forever Facility advances beyond the pilot stage. If it succeeds, it could become one of the most significant efforts yet devised to reward protection instead of destruction.”

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');  

Excerpt:

Michael Northrop, Program Director at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, says the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, announced at COP30, is an all-in-one nature, climate, Indigenous peoples, local communities and economic development solution.

The United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) is the world’s highest-level decision-making body for matters related to the environment. Credit: UNEP
 
The 7th session of the UNEA will take place from December 8-12 in Nairobi, Kenya.

By Inger Andersen
NAIROBI, Kenya, Dec 3 2025 (IPS)

As geopolitical challenges and tensions escalate globally, one thing is clear: fragmented politics will not fix a fractured planet. This is why the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) – the world’s highest decision-making body on the environment – is so critical to address our shared and emerging environmental threats.

The seventh session of the Assembly, taking place at the headquarters of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in Nairobi, Kenya, next month, will bring together ministers, intergovernmental organizations, multilateral environmental agreements, the broader UN system, civil society groups, scientists, activists and the private sector to shape global environmental policy.

Inger Andersen
Credit: UNEP/Natasha Sweeney

Recent UNEP data show emissions continue to rise as the impacts of global environment and climate challenges are accelerating and growing ever more extreme. We see it in record heatwaves, disappearing ecosystems, and toxins in our air, water and soil. These are global threats that demand global solutions.

Even in turbulent times, environmental multilateralism continues to deliver. Since countries met at UNEA last year, this multilateralism has delivered important progress.

Governments agreed to establish the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution – finally completing the “trifecta” of science bodies alongside the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The BBNJ Agreement on the sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction came into force, a major win for the governance of our oceans.

Importantly, during such a challenging political climate, the Paris Agreement is showing that it is working. However, it is clear we need to move much faster with greater determination. But change is afoot: The global shift to low-emission and climate resilient development is irreversible. Renewable energy is outcompeting fossil fuels pricewise. Climate smart investments are driving tomorrow’s vibrant economies and societies.

While we must recognize that many were hoping COP30 would include explicit reference to phasing out fossil fuels in the decision text, this was not to be. However, the COP President committed to creating two roadmaps during his one-year tenure, one to halt and reverse deforestation and another to transition away from fossil fuels – a move that was backed by more than 80 countries during the talks.

These are not small steps – nor are they enough to address the threats we face in full. But they do reinforce that multilateralism can still bring science and policy together to address our global challenges.

Of course, progress is not always straight forward. Since UNEA’s historic resolution in 2022 on a legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, negotiations have continued to advance. While we do not yet have a full treaty text agreed, the latest talks in Geneva earlier this year made hard fought progress and countries remain at the table, sustaining momentum toward an agreement that ends plastic pollution once and for all.

This year, under the theme “Advancing sustainable solutions for a resilient planet,” UNEA will build on these wins to set the stage for even greater progress.

The seventh edition of UNEP’s flagship report, the Global Environmental Outlook, will be key to informing how we deliver this future. Released during UNEA, the report will help move us beyond diagnoses of our common challenges to identifying real solutions across five interconnected areas: economics and finance; circularity and waste; environment; energy; and food systems. Drawing on contributions from hundreds of experts worldwide, the Outlook will help countries prioritize the most effective solutions to deliver our global goals.

To deliver at the speed and scale required, the United Nations system must act together – with the full family of Multilateral Environmental Agreements coming together to support countries. UNEP is proud to host 17 conventions and panels that span the environmental spectrum, from toxic chemicals to protection of the ozone layer. Bringing this family of agreements closer together offers opportunities to better align priorities.

This is why UNEA will put a central focus on how these agreements can better work together for accelerated, more targeted support to countries as they implement commitments. Because action on climate is action on biodiversity and land; because action on land is action on climate; because action on chemicals, pollution and waste is action on nature and on climate.

Inaction now carries a clearer cost than ever. At UNEA-7 in Nairobi – the environmental capital of the world – the “Nairobi Spirit” can convert shared challenges into shared action and, ultimately, shared prosperity on a safe, resilient planet that benefits all.

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:

Inger Andersen is Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme

The first USSR nuclear test Joe 1 at Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan, 29 August 1949. Credit: CTBTO

By John Burroughs
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Dec 2 2025 (IPS)

In a Truth Social post that reverberated around the world, on October 29 President Donald Trump wrote: “Because of other countries’ testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.”

A month later, it remains unclear what “testing programs” Trump had in mind. Other than North Korea, which last tested in 2017, no country has carried out nuclear-explosive testing since 1998.

Some commentators speculated that Trump was referring to tests of nuclear weapons delivery systems, since Russia had just carried out tests of innovative systems, a long-range torpedo and a nuclear-powered cruise missile.

Perhaps to underline that the United States too tests delivery systems, in an unusual November 13 press release Sandia National Laboratories announced an August test in which an F-35 aircraft dropped inert nuclear bombs.

It appears, though, that the testing in question concerns nuclear warheads. In what was clearly an effort to contain the implications of Trump’s announcement, on November 2, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said regarding US plans that “I think the tests we’re talking about right now” involve “noncritical” rather than “nuclear” explosions. The Energy Department is responsible for development and maintenance of the nuclear arsenal.

In contrast, Trump’s remarks in an interview taped on October 31 point toward alleged underground nuclear-explosive testing by Russia, China, and other countries as the basis for parallel US testing. His remarks perhaps were sparked by years-old US intelligence assessments that Russia and China may have conducted extremely low-yield experiments that cannot be detected remotely.

The prudent approach is to assume that Trump is talking about a US return to nuclear-explosive testing. That assumption is reinforced by the fact that a few days after Trump’s social media post, the United States was the sole country to vote against a UN General Assembly resolution supporting the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

The Russian government is taking this approach. On November 5, President Vladimir Putin ordered relevant agencies to study the possible start of preparations for explosive testing of nuclear warheads.

US resumption of nuclear-explosive testing would be a disastrous policy. It would elevate the role of nuclear arms in international affairs, making nuclear conflict more likely. Indeed, nuclear tests can function as a kind of threat.

It likely would also stimulate and facilitate nuclear arms racing already underway among the United States, Russia, and China. Over the longer term nuclear-explosive testing would encourage additional countries to acquire nuclear weapons, as they come to terms with deeper reliance on nuclear arms by the major powers.

Resumption of nuclear test explosions would also be contrary to US international obligations. The United States and China have signed but not ratified the CTBT. Russia is in the same position, having withdrawn its ratification in 2023 to maintain parity with the United States. Due to the lack of necessary ratifications, the CTBT has not entered into force. Since the CTBT was negotiated in 1996, the three countries have observed a moratorium on nuclear-explosive testing.

That posture is consistent with the international law obligation, set forth in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, of a signatory state to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty.

The object and purpose of the CTBT is perfectly clear: to prevent and prohibit the carrying out of a nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.

The CTBT is a major multilateral agreement with an active implementing organization that operates a multi-faceted world-wide system to verify the testing prohibition. It stands as a precedent for a future global agreement or agreements that would control fissile materials used to make nuclear weapons, control missiles and other delivery systems, and reduce and eliminate nuclear arsenals.

The sidelining or evisceration of the CTBT due to an outbreak of nuclear-explosive testing would reverse decades of progress towards establishing a nuclear-weapons-free world.

A return to nuclear-explosive testing would similarly be incompatible with compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Its Article VI requires the negotiation of “cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date.”

Nuclear-explosive testing has long been understood as a driver of nuclear arms racing. The preamble to the NPT recalls the determination expressed in the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits above-ground nuclear tests, “to seek to achieve the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time and to continue negotiations to this end.”

In 1995, as part of a package enabling the NPT’s indefinite extension, a review conference committed to completion of negotiations on the CTBT by 1996, which was accomplished. In 2000 and 2010, review conferences called for bringing the CTBT into force.

To resume nuclear-explosive testing though a comprehensive ban has been negotiated, and to support design and development of nuclear weapons through such testing, would be a thoroughgoing repudiation of a key aim of the NPT, the cessation of the nuclear arms race.

That would erode the legitimacy of the NPT, which since 1970 has served as an important barrier to the spread of nuclear arms. The next review conference will be held in the spring of 2026. Resumption of nuclear-explosive testing, or intensified preparations to do so, would severely undermine any prospect of an agreed outcome.

It is imperative that the United States not resume explosive testing of nuclear weapons. It would be a very hard blow to the web of agreements and norms that limit nuclear arms and lay the groundwork for their elimination, and it could even lead toward the truly catastrophic consequences of a nuclear conflict.

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:

Dr John Burroughs is Senior Analyst, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Dec 2 2025 (IPS)

This coming International Volunteer Day (IVD), celebrated every year on 5 December, is special because the United Nations will launch the International Volunteer Year 2026 or IVY 2026.

This is going to be a great opportunity to re-set the global agenda of volunteerism, one of the most important tools to promote civic engagement, the bedrock of our societies.

Civic engagement, expressed through volunteerism, can make local communities more inclusive and people centered.

Because volunteerism in essence is by the people, for the people and with the people, is not just a tool but it is a catalyst for meaningful human-to-human experiences.

If it can be designed, planned and managed properly including investing in the people that are engaged in it and driving it, volunteerism provides unique opportunities to grow and become better human beings.

In an era in which artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly evolving and challenging some of the most foundational aspects of our lives, volunteerism could offer a new meaning, new ground to forge connections by helping others.

“In an era of political division and social isolation, volunteering offers a powerful way to forge connections and foster our shared humanity” shares UN Secretary-General António Guterres in his official message for this year’s IVD.

Yet, almost inexplicably, volunteerism struggles to be recognized for its vital role and for the functions it plays in our lives. Volunteerism should be something that can really rally people together, a glue that can help with re-establishing connections with others.

In short, volunteerism is a precious, universal unifying element in our lives. Unfortunately, we are still unable to, not only upholding its values on a daily basis but we are also far we far from practicing it, truly making it an inextricable part of our being. After all, there is a common understanding that policy makers around the world have more serious things to deal with.

Instead of considering volunteering as something transformational, it is just seen as something nice while instead it should be at the core of any serious policy promoting social cohesiveness, something that should be a priority for any government.

But will IVY mark a turnaround? Will this special initiative really make a difference? Will IVY then be embraced by leaders in a tokenistic way as normally happens or will be there a serious effort to center volunteering as a key enabler of local wellbeing and prosperity?

These might sound as rhetorical questions that can be easily shrugged off and dismissed because there are more important issues to be worried about.

UNV, the United Nations program that is formally part of UNDP, has a unique role in boosting volunteerism around the world.

I have personally a great admiration for this organization but unfortunately, it falls short of the urgent priority to turbo-charge volunteerism, spreading it, mainstreaming it. At the end I do believe that UNV is failing in what it is its central mission.

Recently I came across a post on LinkedIn about how the government of Uzbekistan is stepping up its support for UNV. This should be great news because for too long, the agency was seen as too westernized, too much modeled to reflect only a certain and partial version of promoting and practicing volunteerism.

I do recognize and praise UNV’s efforts to change and embrace a more diverse strategic outlook and engage with emerging economies, new nations like Uzbekistan.

But as I was going through the post, I immediately felt that this new type of engagement was as much as promoting volunteerism but also about strategically building a pipeline of future UN staff from the Central Asian nation.

Because UNV has always been an entry door to join the ranks of the United Nations system and this is something that always bothered me. I never understood why this agency should promote what are in practice full time jobs that have, basically, nothing to do with volunteerism and are more similar to professional internship or fellowships that, in essence, offer cheaper manpower comparatively to the UN’s pay standards.

To me, this approach does not make sense. Then why do not we entrust UNOPS, the operational arm of the UN with the tasks of running schemes that can offer tangible opportunities to those youths who dream of joining the UN?

I am aware that the UN is undergoing a drastic overhaul. I am concerned about it but I also see this process, driven by immense aid cuts by the American and other administrations, as a chance to redeem the UN as a more effective development force.

I do not know what will happen to UNV. I do appreciate and value the part of the agency that tries to elevate volunteerism in the policy making processes around the world.

This coming IVY could offer a great platform to better promote, pitch volunteerism around the world.

A new edition of The State of the World’s Volunteerism Report, a massive global undertaking, will also be unveiled. With the new global report, a new Framework for the Global Volunteer Index will also be launched, an undertaking led by the University of Pretoria.

Having more data, more parameters and indicators to measure, assess the numbers of volunteers around the world and importantly, their impact, is essential.

In this type of tasks, UNV has developed a unique degree of expertise and it can really exercise the best of the convening powers that the United Nations have been famed for.

In the eventuality of any restructuring, this component of UNV must be not only protected and safeguarded but it must also be boosted. Perhaps UNV needs to shed itself of the outsourcing and onboarding functions it ended up assuming.

They were not supposed to become so central in the agency’s identity but they became the most important, budget wise, component of the agency. Either another agency takes up these responsibilities or UNV can fully separate such functions from its core business agenda.

An autonomous, semi-independent function could operate as it is already working now but it should be sealed off from other dimensions.

This would constitute a semi spin-off of the operation of placing full time United Nations Volunteers (UNV Volunteers) in UN Agencies, a task that is deemed strategically important for many nations as the case of Uzbekistan I ran into tells us.

In envisioning such restructuring, each government willing to sponsor its UNV volunteers, should be charged an additional budget item that could be directed to support the core functions of UNV.

I still imagine UNV running volunteering schemes around the world but these should be part time and only in partnership with civil society. The current model of UNV Volunteers should be re-branded and decontextualized from any association with volunteerism.

The reason for this is simple: these promising young professionals, all well-meaning and well-motivated, are not volunteers nor they are not engaged in any volunteerism centered activity.

If UNV wants to still facilitate and deploy full time volunteers, then, the model being championed by VSO, centered on partnership with local organizations and offering small living stipends to its volunteers, should be considered.

This year’s theme of IVD is “Every Contribution Matters”.

A new and different UNV, more grounded, more agile and closer to local communities and civil society organizations, can be imagined, ensuring that every contribution would “really” matter.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better 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');  

People walk through a destroyed neighbourhood in Gaza City. Credit: UN News

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 2 2025 (IPS)

The revenues from arms sales and military services by the 100 largest arms-producing companies rose by 5.9 per cent in 2024, reaching a record $679 billion, according to new data released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

www.sipri.org

Global arms revenues rose sharply in 2024, as demand was boosted by the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, global and regional geopolitical tensions, and ever-higher military expenditure.

For the first time since 2018, all of the five largest arms companies increased their arms revenues, according to SIPRI, one of the authoritative sources for arms sales and global military spending.

Currently, a rash of armed conflicts and civil wars are taking place in Ukraine, Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, Iraq, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Yemen, Haiti, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Somalia and Western Sahara, among others, triggering a rising demand for arms from governments and rebel forces.

Although the bulk of the global rise was due to companies based in Europe and the United States, there were year-on-year increases in all of the world regions featured in the Top 100. The only exception was Asia and Oceania, where issues within the Chinese arms industry drove down the regional total, according to SIPRI

The surge in revenues and new orders prompted many arms companies to expand production lines, enlarge facilities, establish new subsidiaries or conduct acquisitions.

‘Last year global arms revenues reached the highest level ever recorded by SIPRI as producers capitalized on high demand,’ said Lorenzo Scarazzato, Researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme.

‘Although companies have been building their production capacity, they still face a range of challenges that could affect costs and delivery schedules.’

Of the 26 arms companies in the Top 100 based in Europe (excluding Russia), 23 recorded increasing arms revenues. Their aggregate arms revenues grew by 13 per cent to $151 billion. This increase was tied to demand stemming from the war in Ukraine and the perceived threat from Russia.

But the rise in arms revenues and military spending also had a devastating impact on civilians, with a rise in death tolls.

As of mid-to-late November 2025, the Gaza Health Ministry reported that over 70,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, have been killed in the war since October 7, 2023.

But estimates of the death toll in the Russia-Ukraine war vary widely and are difficult to verify, as both sides consider military casualty figures to be state secrets.

Still, the number of Russian military casualties (dead and wounded) is estimated by sources like the UK Ministry of Defense and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) to be over 1 million, a “stunning and grisly milestone”.

Ukrainian military casualties (killed and wounded) are estimated at approximately 400,000.

Norman Solomon, executive director, Institute for Public Accuracy and author of “War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine,” told IPS the business of war is the business of lucrative death, and never more so than in 2025.

“The buyers and sellers of high-tech weaponry are in a macabre embrace, and the results can be found on the battlefield, in civilian suffering, and in the less-obvious carnage of depleted resources as children starve while profiteers feast.”

The United States stands out as the world’s biggest arms merchant. No other country comes close. And in recent years, when it comes to putting armaments to aggressively lethal use, Russia has become a standout with its war in Ukraine and Israel has become a standout with its war in Gaza, said Solomon, who is also national director, RootsAction.

“It should be clearly understood that U.S. weapons makers have been deriving tremendous profits from the Ukraine war and from Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. Those profits will continue as long as the mutual destruction of Ukrainian and Russian lives continues, and as long as Israel maintains its policies of destroying the lives of Palestinian civilians’.

“In a world where several countries are major arms exporters, all of whom should be condemned for their activities, the United States is far and away the leader in murderous commerce,” he pointed out.

The fact that the U.S. excels at such commerce is a marker for a moral corruption built into the country’s political economy and power structure of governance. Opposition movements, nonviolent and determined, will be essential to forcing an end to what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the madness of militarism,” he declared.

Dr Simon Adams, international human rights expert and President and CEO of the Center for Victims of Torture, told IPS in this new age of impunity, increased conflict and creeping authoritarianism in so many parts of the world, there has been a sickening increase in global arms sales.

The guns, drones, missiles and other weapons are coming from the major arms manufacturing countries and companies, but it is civilians in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan and elsewhere who pay with their lives, he said.

“There is a direct correlation between the increase in the global arms trade, and the fact that 123 million people are currently displaced in the world – the highest number since the Second World War.”

“We need governments to invest more in humanitarian solutions to global problems, not spend billions of dollars more every year on the manufacture and marketing of shiny new killing machines.”

“I long for the day when the arms trader will be seen like the slave trader, sex trafficker or drug dealer – as an international outlaw and pariah. As someone involved in an immoral criminal enterprise that is antithetical to human progress,” he declared.

Asked for a response, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters December 1 about the
“obscene amount of money that is going to weapon sales compared to the struggle that we face every single day trying to fund our humanitarian operations”.

“We understand that Member States need to defend themselves and need for military. But I think, if you do a compare and contrast the amount of money that is flowing into that sector as opposed to the amount of money that is being sucked out of the humanitarian and development sectors, it should give us all food for thought,” he declared.

Meanwhile, in 2024 the combined arms revenues of US arms companies in the Top 100 grew by 3.8 per cent to reach $334 billion, with 30 out of the 39 US companies in the ranking increasing their arms revenues, according to SIPRI.

These included major arms producers such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics.

However, widespread delays and budget overruns continue to plague development and production in key US-led programmes such as the F-35 combat aircraft, the Columbia-class submarine and the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

Several of the largest arms producers in the US are affected by overruns, raising uncertainty about when major new weapon systems and upgrades to existing ones can be delivered and deployed.

‘The delays and rising costs will inevitably impact US military planning and military spending,’ said Xiao Liang, Researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme.

‘This could have knock-on effects on the US government’s efforts to cut excessive military spending and improve budget efficiency.’

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 the quiet hills of Chamhanya Gondwe village in Malawi’s Mzimba district, a young boy once watched his community struggle with limited access to healthcare. Today, Ranken Chisambi, a 22-year-old final-year biomedical engineering student at the Malawi University of Business and Applied Sciences (MUBAS), is determined to transform healthcare in Malawi and beyond. “I’ve always […]

A Yemeni mother and her child receiving nutritional assistance at a clinic in the Abyan governorate. Credit: UNICEF/Saleh Hayyan

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 1 2025 (IPS)

For the past decade, Yemen has been at the center of a severe and multifaceted humanitarian crisis, marked by widespread violence between various Middle Eastern actors, widespread civilian displacement, economic decline, and the collapse of essential services that serve as lifelines for displaced communities.

As the crisis has intensified in recent months, humanitarian agencies face increasing challenges in providing lifesaving care to civilians, who are experiencing record levels of hunger in a country that has become more reliant on remittances as self-sufficiency continues to slip further out of reach.

On November 25, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Food Programme (WFP) released a joint report detailing the food security situations in areas of highest concern that require urgent humanitarian intervention. According to the report, Yemen’s food crisis is primarily driven by economic deterioration, escalating armed conflict, climate shocks, displacement, disrupted supply chains, limited humanitarian access, and the collapse of safety nets.

The report highlights that food production in Yemen was severely impacted by the main Kharif season in August 2025, which was marked by early-season dryness followed by extended rainfall. Between August and the end of September, widespread flooding damaged water infrastructure across the country, particularly in the Lahij, Ta’iz, and Ma’rib governorates, which not only reduced economic output but also increased the risk of waterborne illnesses, such as cholera. Together, these factors contributed to a below-average 2025 cereal harvest, which serves as a critical food source for millions of Yemeni civilians.

Ongoing conflict remains a key driver of widespread food insecurity in Yemen, with attacks in areas controlled by the Sana’a-based authorities and along the Red Sea contributing to continued economic decline and triggering new waves of displacement. These attacks have damaged critical infrastructure, resulting in a decrease in fuel imports and a rise in food prices. Humanitarian access constraints, funding cuts, and economic sanctions also hinder the effectiveness of responses.

The report notes that over half of Yemen’s population is projected to experience high levels of acute food insecurity between September 2025 and February 2026, with approximately 63 percent of surveyed households reporting a lack of adequate food and 35 percent reporting severe food deprivation. Food security conditions are especially severe in four districts across the Amran, Al Hodeidah, and Hajjah governorates, where populations are experiencing catastrophic levels of hunger—defined by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) as the highest possible level.

Approximately 18.1 million people are projected to face ‘Crisis’ or worse levels of acute food insecurity (IPC Phase 3 or above), including 5.5 million in ‘Emergency’ (IPC Phase 4) across the country. In 2025, 24 districts are expected to experience very high levels of acute malnutrition, particularly in the Ta’iz and Al Jawf governorates. Of the districts classified in Emergency (IPC/CH Phase 4), 72 percent also have a Nutrition Severity Level of 4 or higher.

It is estimated that the average Yemeni household spends more than 70 percent of its income on food, leaving very little for other critical necessities. These households predominantly rely on unhealthy foods for survival, such as cereals, sugar, and fats, while essential items for a balanced diet like meat, fruit, and dairy, are almost entirely absent.

These challenges are even more pronounced among displaced communities, with approximately 24 percent of internally displaced civilians reporting that at least one family member goes an entire day and night without food—nearly double the rate seen in resident communities.

To effectively address the food security crisis in Yemen, it is crucial to confront the underlying economic challenges, which are threatening millions of livelihoods and restricting access to essential needs. According to the report, Yemen’s gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to contract by 0.5 percent in 2025, with inflation likely to remain elevated.

Public finances are under severe strain due to fuel shortages and the Houthi blockade on oil exports in areas controlled by the Internationally Recognized Government (IRG). Meanwhile, regions governed by the Sana’a-Based Authorities are grappling with severe liquidity shortages, and external shocks, such as ongoing conflict, reduced aid, and economic sanctions, are expected to exacerbate the already fragile economic situation.

“Economic stabilization in Yemen depends on strengthening the systems that keep services running and livelihoods protected,” said Dina Abu-Ghaida, World Bank Group Country Manager for Yemen.

“Restoring confidence requires effective institutions, predictable financing, and progress toward peace to allow economic activity to resume and recovery to take hold.”

Yemen’s economy is currently unable to adapt to external shocks due stringent economic sanctions, flailing external funding, and its historic over-reliance on remittances for survival. According to a joint analysis from Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development (ACTED), the Cash Consortium of Yemen (CCY), the Danish Refugee Council (DRC), and more, remittances in 2024 made up over 38 percent of Yemen’s GDP, making it the third-most remittance-dependent nation in the world.

The report also highlights that a significant decline in remittances would lead to currency destabilization, a collapse in import financing, and the widespread use of negative coping strategies, such as asset liquidation and severe dietary restrictions.

According to WFP, funding for the 2025 Yemen Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan urgently requires USD $1.1 billion for investments in food security measures and livelihood interventions and roughly $237.9 million for nutritional assistance. However, lifesaving humanitarian programs have been forced to suspend or halt certain operations as funding is at its lowest level since the beginning of the crisis in 2015, with contributions at only 24 percent. Beginning in January 2026, WFP will reduce the number of people receiving food assistance in IRG areas from 3.4 million to 1.6 million due to funding shortfalls. In Sana’a Based Authorities, all WFP operations will remain paused.

The United Nations (UN) and its partners continue to call for increased donor contributions as the evolving economic situation reshapes the food security landscape, which remains subject to change.

Through its operations, WFP will provide targeted emergency and nutrition assistance, such as distributing agricultural inputs like seeds, tools, and fertilizers, as well as fishing and livestock production packages, such as fishing gear, small ruminants, and poultry.

Cash assistance will also be paired with these efforts to protect the livelihoods of households dependent on livestock. The organization will also strengthen its operational readiness for potential conflict escalation, ensuring rapid and second-line food security responses.

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 CIVICUS
Dec 1 2025 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses US civil society action under the second Trump administration with Bridget Moix, General Secretary of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the oldest faith-based lobbying organisation in the USA, advocating for peace, justice and environmental stewardship. Bridget has participated in the No Kings movement, a nationwide grassroots response to democratic backsliding and attacks on rights.

Bridget Moix

Since Trump’s second inauguration in January, the USA has witnessed what may be its largest ever democracy protests. Millions have taken to the streets in response to authoritarian overreach and mass deportations. The No Kings movement draws its name from the country’s founding rejection of monarchical rule, applying the principle to contemporary concerns about growing authoritarianism and the concentration of executive power in the hands of the president.

What drives the No Kings movement?

We are experiencing a rapid and devastating rise of authoritarianism. Since coming into office for his second term, Trump has embarked on a relentless campaign to undo generations of democratic institution building and international law while pursuing his own interests and the interests of billionaires. He has launched a militarised mass deportation campaign against immigrants that is ripping families apart and disappearing people from our streets. At the same time, he is dismantling core government agencies and firing hundreds of thousands of federal employees, punishing political opponents and rewarding those who are willing to serve him and his so-called ‘America First’ agenda.

Many people across the political spectrum are deeply troubled by what he’s doing and see it as a major attack on core principles of democracy, which have been at the heart of the struggle for freedom and equality since the country’s founding. The USA was founded on the rejection of rule by monarchy, a declaration against kings doing what they want at the expense of the public. The No Kings movement recalls that history and speaks out against Trump’s authoritarian actions today.

What have the protests been like, and what role is civil society playing beyond the streets?

The first protests brought about five million people in 1,500 cities and towns across the USA onto the streets to stand up for democracy. More recent protests in October brought seven million people out in 2,600 towns and cities.

What’s impressive about these protests is they bring a wide diversity of people together, across traditional social and political boundaries, who all believe our democracy is at real risk and we need to resist Trump’s authoritarianism. Even in very small towns, large groups gather, including people who have never protested before but feel they must do something now. That gives me hope.

Beyond the protests, US civil society has been very active and is learning and taking inspiration from movements elsewhere, as well as from our history of democratic struggle. Civil society groups have been quick to take legal action to sue the Trump administration for its overreach and continue to do so. They provide training every week on non-violent resistance and monitor immigration enforcement activity. Faith leaders have been speaking out and holding vigils and taking part in civil disobedience. Many groups are advocating with Congress to uphold its constitutional powers and provide a check on the Trump administration. Mutual aid groups are providing support for migrants and others at risk across the country. People are also working to build long-term resilience individually and in solidarity with others because we know this could be a long struggle.

How are immigration policies affecting communities?

Immigration raids and detentions are happening across the USA. I live in Washington DC, where Trump has deployed the national guard to further militarise our communities. The White House has given Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) free rein to terrorise people, detaining them from their homes, schools and workplaces as well as off the street, in front of their families. ICE officers drive unmarked vehicles, wear masks and do not follow due process as they should under US law.

Here in DC we’ve had at least 1,200 people detained in two months, probably many more. They are often taken without any warning and transported hundreds of miles to detention centres. Their families struggle to find out what happened to them and get legal help. Many people who are here legally have been swept up in these detentions, including US citizens. Many families are too afraid to send their children to school or leave their house. All of us know families who have been affected. The economy is also being affected.

However, the good news is that communities are standing up and working around the clock to support and protect one another, document and interrupt abuses and urge our leaders to push back against this mass cruelty campaign. Neighbourhood groups in Chicago, DC, Los Angeles and elsewhere are organising rapid response teams and sharing learning with each other to build resistance and solidarity.

How has the government responded to the protests?

The Trump administration doesn’t care about protests and just tries to ignore them or spread lies about them. We are used to that. What is important though is that we’re beginning to see more movement among members of Congress, whose constituents are protesting and advocating with them, and the protests are building the awareness and broader engagement of the public we need to push back.

Research shows that it takes 3.5 per cent of the population engaged in civil resistance to overcome authoritarian regimes. We have 330 million people in this country, and with each major protest we’re getting closer to that threshold.

What needs to happen to protect democracy?

We need to continue building an engaged and active movement of people who speak up, push back and advocate to rein in the Trump administration’s authoritarian takeover. We need to draw on the lessons from our history of struggles for freedom such as the Civil Rights movement, as well as lessons from grassroots movements around the world, as we grow non-violent civil resistance. We need more people protesting and protecting their neighbours, and we also need to turn that protest into policy action.

We need more people lobbying their members of Congress to stand up as an independent branch of government that responds to people and to do the right thing. Also critical is Congress standing up to protect its constitutional power of the purse and its authority over war. These are critical guardrails we need exercised against the militarised campaigns of the Trump administration at home and abroad.

We need to continue the legal pushback through the courts to uphold the rule of law and prevent the White House from further militarising our streets and corrupting government and elections. Solidarity across impacted communities in the USA and with civil society movements around the world will be very important to help us maintain and grow momentum here. We need to remember that our struggles for peace, justice and freedom are connected to people’s struggles all around the world.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Bluesky
Facebook
Instagram
TikTok
YouTube
Bridget Moix/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Outsourcing cruelty: the offshoring of migration management CIVICUS Lens 15.Sep.2025
Trump and Musk take the chainsaw to global civil society CIVICUS Lens 07.Mar.2025
Trump 2.0: What to expect CIVICUS Lens 18.Jan.2025

 

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');