The UN report has highlighted water as the most immediate and severe casualty of this global transition. Mining operations require vast quantities of water and often contaminate local sources. Credit: UNU-INWEH

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINAGAR, India, Apr 30 2026 (IPS)

A newly released United Nations report has raised urgent concerns that the world’s push toward clean energy and digital technologies is driving a hidden crisis in some of the planet’s most vulnerable regions, where mining for critical minerals is depleting water supplies, damaging health, and deepening inequality.

The report, Critical Minerals, Water Insecurity and Injustice, released by the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH), warns that the race for minerals essential to electric vehicles, renewable energy, and artificial intelligence could replicate the injustices of the fossil fuel era.

Demand for these minerals is expected to surge dramatically in the coming decades. According to the report, global demand could quadruple by 2050, with lithium, cobalt, and graphite seeing increases of up to 500 percent. These materials are indispensable for batteries, solar panels, and digital infrastructure.

Prof. Kaveh Madani, UNU-INWEH Director who led the investigation team, says the world lacks an enforceable governance model for critical minerals. Credit: UNU-INWEH

Prof. Kaveh Madani, UNU-INWEH Director who led the investigation team, told IPS News in an exclusive interview that the world is lacking an enforceable governance model for critical minerals.

He said that without binding international agreements, laws, and policies, environmental and health costs—especially water depletion and pollution—are pushed onto mining regions, leaving affected communities without effective accountability or recourse.

“The climate, energy, sustainability, and the so-called “green” policies are narrowly carbon-centric. Demand projections are driven by decarbonisation targets, but water security, health and WASH impacts are not hard constraints in transition planning. As a result, mineral extraction expands even in highly water-stressed regions,” Madani said.

He added that the trade and industrial policies reinforce structural asymmetries and that high-income economies retain control over refining, manufacturing, finance, and intellectual property, while mineral-rich countries are locked into raw extraction with weak benefit-sharing. “Together, these failures reproduce inequality rather than delivering a just transition,” Madani told IPS.

Communities in mining zones are increasingly described as “sacrifice zones”, areas where environmental degradation and human suffering are accepted as the cost of global progress. Credit: UNU-INWEH

The report has further highlighted water as the most immediate and severe casualty of this global transition. Mining operations require vast quantities of water and often contaminate local sources.

Producing just one tonne of lithium requires nearly 1.9 million litres of water. In 2024 alone, global lithium production consumed an estimated 456 billion litres, an amount equivalent to the annual domestic water needs of about 62 million people in sub-Saharan Africa.

In Chile’s Salar de Atacama, one of the world’s richest lithium reserves, mining accounts for up to 65 percent of regional water use, intensifying shortages for local communities and farmers.

Across the so-called Lithium Triangle, spanning Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile, groundwater levels are falling. The report cites evidence of declining water tables and disrupted ecosystems as brine extraction alters underground water systems.

“Everyone needs money. But everyone also needs the basics, like water,” a resident in Bolivia’s Uyuni region is quoted as saying in the report.

Cases of Birth Defects, Miscarriages, and Chronic Illnesses

Toxic chemicals and heavy metals released during extraction often seep into rivers, soil, and groundwater.

The report documents widespread pollution in mining regions such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where cobalt extraction is concentrated. In some areas, rivers have turned highly acidic, with pH levels below 4.5, rendering water unsafe for drinking and agriculture.

Health impacts are severe. In communities near mining sites, 72 percent of respondents reported skin diseases, while more than half of women reported gynaecological problems. Prolonged exposure to contaminated water has also been linked to cases of birth defects, miscarriages, and chronic illnesses.

Children are particularly vulnerable. Studies cited in the report show higher rates of congenital abnormalities in areas close to mining activity, along with increased risks of developmental disorders.

“These are not isolated cases. They reflect systemic health disparities driven by environmental exposure,” reads the report.

Who Benefits and Who Pays?

Beyond health, water scarcity and pollution are undermining traditional livelihoods. Farming, fishing, and livestock rearing are becoming increasingly difficult in mining regions.

In Bolivia, lithium extraction has reduced water availability for quinoa farming, a staple crop. In parts of Africa, declining fish populations have resulted from river contamination, which has cut off a key source of food and income.

In some cases, mining operations displace entire communities. Indigenous populations, whose lands often contain mineral reserves, are among the hardest hit.

The report estimates that more than half of critical mineral projects are located on or near Indigenous territories .

A main finding of the report is the imbalance between who benefits and who pays the price.

While extraction largely occurs in the Global South, the economic and technological gains are concentrated in wealthier nations. Countries rich in minerals often lack the infrastructure and capacity to process them, limiting their role to low-value extraction.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which produces over 60 percent of the world’s cobalt, more than 70 percent of the population lives on less than $2.15 a day.

Meanwhile, the profits flow to multinational corporations and industrial economies that dominate refining and manufacturing.

The report describes this dynamic as a “structural sustainability paradox,” where the environmental benefits enjoyed in developed countries are effectively subsidised by ecological and social harm in poorer regions.

Experts warn that the current trajectory could repeat patterns seen in the fossil fuel industry.

“The clean energy transition is not automatic. Without deliberate policy intervention, it can reproduce extractive colonialism under a new label,” the report states.

Communities in mining zones are increasingly being described as “sacrifice zones”, areas where environmental degradation and human suffering are accepted as the cost of global progress.

The report has recommended stronger international regulations, mandatory environmental standards, and greater transparency in supply chains. It also urges investment in recycling and circular economy models to reduce reliance on new mining, as well as the adoption of technologies that use less water.

Crucially, it emphasises the need to include local communities in decision-making and ensure they benefit from resource extraction. “Achieving climate goals must not come at the expense of those least equipped to bear the costs,” the report reads.

Dr Abraham Nunbogu, UNU-INWEH scientist and the report’s lead author, says legally allocating a share of mineral revenues to water infrastructure, health systems, skills training, and downstream industrial capacity is crucial. Credit: UNU-INWEH

Strategic Policy Needed

Dr Abraham Nunbogu, a UNU-INWEH scientist and the report’s lead author, told Inter Press Service that a practical step to move up the value chain and keep more economic benefits is a strategic industrial policy: using export conditions, licensing, or joint-venture requirements to promote local refining, processing, and manufacturing.

“Second, benefit-sharing and reinvestment mandates: legally allocating a share of mineral revenues to water infrastructure, health systems, skills training, and downstream industrial capacity. Third, regional value-chain cooperation: pooling resources across neighbouring countries to achieve economies of scale in processing and manufacturing that individual countries cannot reach alone,” Nunbogu said.

He added that the final step would be to address power imbalances by linking mineral access to ethical sourcing standards and technology transfer obligations in trade agreements.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Frank McCourt, founder of Project Liberty, speaking with Foreign Policy CEO Andrew Sollinger at the Geoeconomics Forum. Credit: IPS

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINAGAR, India, Apr 17 2026 (IPS)

As war in the Middle East ripples through global markets, policymakers, economists, and industry leaders gathered in Washington this week to agree that economics is no longer separate from geopolitics. It is now its core instrument.

At the Geoeconomics Forum hosted by Foreign Policy alongside the Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, speakers repeatedly pointed to a world shaped by shocks, where supply chains, energy flows, and technology have become tools of power.

“Geoeconomics is no longer a backdrop to global politics. It is the key and critical element,” said Foreign Policy CEO Andrew Sollinger in his opening remarks.

The urgency of that shift is tied closely to the ongoing conflict in the Gulf, which has disrupted energy markets and exposed vulnerabilities in global trade systems. The war has made the world understand how quickly regional crises can cascade into worldwide economic instability, affecting everything from fuel prices to industrial production.

Participants at the forum described a transformed global order where governments increasingly deploy economic tools once considered neutral or technical.

Trade policy, capital flows, and supply chains now serve strategic goals. Critical minerals, essential for semiconductors and artificial intelligence systems, have become geopolitical leverage points. Energy routes such as the Strait of Hormuz have turned into potential choke points with global consequences instead of just transit corridors.

“Geopolitics and economics have always been linked. We are going back to a school of thought that sees them as inextricable,” Jacob Helberg, U.S. Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, said in his address.

Helberg pointed to growing competition over rare earth minerals, where China dominates processing and has begun using export controls as a strategic tool. At the same time, logistics corridors and manufacturing hubs have emerged as additional pressure points in the global system.

“The stack is totally interlinked,” he said, referring to the chain from raw materials to finished technology. “There are choke points at every layer.”

The forum repeatedly returned to a central theme: fragmentation.

Countries are adapting to a “shock-prone” world marked by conflict, pandemics, and financial instability. This has led to a shift away from global integration toward more regional and strategic economic blocs.

Middle powers, in particular, face difficult choices. As competition intensifies between the United States and China, many nations are weighing how to align their economic and technological futures.

Dr Pedro Abramovay, Vice President, Programs, Open Society Foundations, argued that the moment offers both risk and opportunity for these countries.

“We need to make sure that middle powers act as middle powers and not just middlemen,” he said, stressing that democracy can shape their role in a changing order.

Abramovay said the current moment has exposed long-standing imbalances in the global system.

“It unveils the reality that existed before,” he said, referring to earlier global arrangements that often did not serve the interests of the Global South.

He noted that domestic political pressure is now reshaping how countries engage globally. Leaders can no longer align externally without responding to internal constituencies.

“That internal pressure can empower those middle powers to assert their sovereignty and negotiate effectively,” Abramovay said.

The forum highlighted growing calls for a reworked international order grounded in sovereignty and public interest rather than narrow economic gain.

“We need to have clear clarity of agenda. We need to have commitment of those leaders expressing that they are there, not representing big corporations or, again, interests and organisations that speak for themselves, but exactly speaking in the name and representing the majority of the world,” Abramovay added.

Frank McCourt, founder of Project Liberty, warned against framing the future as a binary choice between U.S. private-sector dominance and Chinese state-led models.

“This is a false dichotomy,” he said, arguing for a third path that aligns technology with democratic values.

He highlighted growing unease among countries that feel caught between competing systems, noting that many are exploring alternative frameworks for digital governance and economic cooperation.

Human Impact Behind the Strategy
While much of the discussion focused on high-level strategy, speakers acknowledged the human consequences of geoeconomic shifts.

Energy shocks translate into higher costs for households. Supply chain disruptions affect jobs and access to goods. Decisions made in boardrooms and ministries ripple outward to communities worldwide.

“The best-laid plans can be interrupted by unforeseen circumstances. You have to pivot, adapt, and build better,” Sollinger said.

That message echoed throughout the event.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A group of young people. Photo by Iwaria Inc. on Unsplash. Source: Africa Renewal, United Nations.
 
The choice is clear; the window is narrow; and the time to prepare Africa’s workforce for the frontier economy is now. Africa’s growth story over the past two decades is real, but it is not yet transformative.

By Claver Gatete
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia, Apr 17 2026 (IPS)

Across the continent, GDP has risen on the back of more workers, more capital and a commodity super-cycle, rather than through genuine gains in productivity and innovation. Too little labour has moved out of subsistence agriculture into higher-productivity manufacturing and modern services.

As the recent Africa Business Forum in Addis Ababa drew to a close, a clear message emerged: if Africa is to create the tens of millions of quality jobs its young people need in the coming decade, it must shift decisively from input driven growth and embrace an innovation-led growth powered by data and frontier technologies.

Our 2026 Economic Report on Africa comes at a time when governments are realising that this pivot is no longer optional. It is the only credible route to resilient, inclusive and sustainable development amidst climate shocks, tightening financing conditions, geopolitical challenges and rapid technological change.

Frontier technologies, from artificial intelligence and advanced data analytics to the Internet-of-Things, robotics and clean energy solutions, are already reshaping value chains in agriculture, manufacturing, services and public administration.

Claver Gatete

Jobs of the future

Preparing for the jobs of the future starts with an honest diagnosis of the skills challenge. Today, only a small share of African children achieve minimum reading proficiency by age 10; enrolment in technical and vocational education remains low; and tertiary enrolment lags far behind global averages. This is a recipe for exclusion from a technology intensive global economy.

Countries need comprehensive national skills compacts that place foundational learning, STEM education and digital literacy at the centre of economic strategy, not as an add on.

That means curriculum reforms that prioritize problem solving, coding, data literacy and creativity; large scale teacher upgrading; and robust partnerships between universities, TVET colleges and industry to ensure training aligns with real labour market demand.

Encouragingly, some countries are already moving in this direction.

For example, Kenya’s digital innovation ecosystem – from mobile money to platform-based logistics and e commerce – is creating new occupations in fintech, digital marketing, data services and platform management that barely existed a decade ago.

Rwanda has positioned itself as an African testbed for emerging technologies, investing heavily in broadband, digital public services and coding academies to build a workforce ready for data driven and AI enabled jobs.

In Egypt, Morocco, and South Africa, automotive and renewable energy value chains are spawning new roles in advanced manufacturing, battery technology and solar and wind engineering.

Tangier, the city that hosted the ECA Conference of Ministers of Finance and Economic Development last month, has a world-class frontier technologies port that rivals many in developed countries.

These examples show that when countries align education, industrial policy, and digital strategy, they can start to bend their labour markets towards the industries of the future.

More is required

But skills alone will not deliver the jobs dividend. Workers need productive firms to hire them, and firms need an enabling ecosystem to innovate.

That is why the report stresses the importance of industrial and innovation policy that deliberately integrates frontier technologies in Africa’s productive sectors.

In agriculture, for instance, the jobs of the future will be in climate smart farming, Agri data services, precision input distribution and digital extension.

Realizing that potential requires investment in irrigation, rural broadband, data platforms, and support for agritech start ups that can tailor frontier tools, from sensors to satellite imagery and AI based advisory services, to local realities.

In manufacturing, governments can use industrial parks and special economic zones to attract firms deploying automation, smart logistics and advanced materials, while negotiating technology transfer and local supplier development that expand skilled employment.

At the same time, Africa must treat data as a strategic economic asset, not an afterthought. Data underpins frontier technologies across all sectors – yet much of the continent’s data is stored and processed offshore, with limited value captured locally.

Building a data economy that creates jobs means investing in data centres, cloud infrastructure, high performance computing and secure connectivity, while developing clear rules on data governance, privacy, cross border flows and competition.

It also means supporting local firms that work along the data value chain – from collection and labelling to analytics and AI services – and equipping young people with the skills to work as data engineers, analysts, ethicists and product managers.

If Africa continues to export raw data while importing high value digital services, it will simply reproduce its traditional commodity trap in digital form.

The financing model for innovation and jobs must also change. Traditional banking systems, focused on collateralized lending, are poorly suited to high risk, intangible asset driven technology ventures. African countries can begin to close this gap by creating blended finance facilities, innovation bonds, public venture funds, and regional credit lines that crowd in private capital for high productivity sectors.

Public procurement can be a powerful lever here: by designing innovation friendly tenders and reserving space for local digital and tech providers, governments can create predictable demand that helps start ups and SMEs grow and hire.

Some countries are already experimenting with sandboxes and innovation challenges in fintech, e health and govtech, signalling how policy can catalyse new job creating ecosystems.

None of this is without risk.

The risks

Frontier technologies are already automating routine tasks and reshaping value chains in ways that can displace workers, widen social and gender inequalities and deepen digital divides. Jobs will not disappear overall, but they will change – and some will vanish.

Preparing for that disruption demands robust social protection systems, active labour market policies and targeted support for women and youth to access training, finance and technology.

It also requires serious attention to cybersecurity, data protection and platform regulation to prevent predatory practices, safeguard rights and maintain trust in digital systems.

If governance lags too far behind innovation, the labour market will absorb the adjustment costs through informality, underemployment, and social tension.

Africa starts this journey with significant advantages.

It is home to the world’s youngest population, vast critical mineral reserves essential for clean energy and technology manufacturing, and some of the best solar resources on the planet.

These assets can underpin new waves of green industrialization – in batteries, electric mobility, green hydrogen, clean power, and digital infrastructure – creating diverse, future oriented jobs in engineering, construction, maintenance, data and services.

But to convert potential into reality, countries must abandon the comfort of input driven growth and embrace a more demanding agenda: one that puts skills, innovation ecosystems, data, and frontier technologies at the heart of economic strategy.

With the AfCFTA as our Marshall Plan, we have the rules and platform for continental scaling, leading to shared prosperity in jobs, created from harnessing data and frontier technologies.

The jobs of the future are being designed today, in how Africa educates its children, regulates its data, finances its innovators and plans its infrastructure.

If African countries act with urgency and purpose, they can shape a labour market that is more productive, more inclusive, and more resilient than the one they inherited.

If they hesitate, the continent risks remaining a consumer of other people’s technologies and a supplier of low value labour and raw materials.

In the end, the real question is simple: will Africa harness frontier technologies to accelerate economic growth and structural transformation, or remain on the margins of the industries shaping the 21st century?

The choice is clear; the window is narrow; and the time to prepare Africa’s workforce for the frontier economy is now. This is how we can ensure sustainable economic growth on the continent.

Claver Gatete is Under-Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Africa.

Source: Africa Renewal

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The GEF actively supports climate resilience and sustainable livelihoods in Zanzibar, with a specific focus on the seaweed farming sector, which is crucial for over 20,000 farmers—mostly women—in the region. Here a woman identified as Jazaa is pictured working as a seaweed farmer. She carefully attaches little seaweed seedlings to the rope that she will harvest after two months. Credit: Natalija Gormalova/Climate Visuals Countdown

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINAGAR, India, Apr 16 2026 (IPS)

The Global Environment Facility, widely known as the GEF, plays a central role in financing environmental protection across the world. It supports developing countries in tackling climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation, pollution, and threats to ecosystems.

Since its establishment in the early 1990s, the GEF has grown as a multilateral environmental fund, supporting projects in more than 170 countries.

Over time, the GEF has evolved into what it calls a “family of funds”, each targeting a specific global environmental challenge while operating under a shared strategic framework.

This explainer looks at how the GEF funding works, the origins of its financing model, and the role of six major funds that channel resources toward global environmental goals.

While the GEF predates the 1992 Rio ‘Earth’ Summit, its importance as a financial mechanism grew after the summit. Here UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali opens the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, which aimed to develop a global blueprint for balancing economic development with environmental protection. Credit: Michos Tzavaras/UN Photo

Origins of the GEF Funding Model

The GEF was created in 1991, before the Rio ‘Earth’ Summit in 1992, which aimed to develop a global blueprint for balancing economic development with environmental protection; however, its importance grew after the summit.

The Rio Summit produced three major environmental conventions. These were the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity, and, later in 1994, the Convention to Combat Desertification. The GEF became the financial mechanism for these agreements, meaning it mobilises and distributes funds to help countries implement them.

Over the past 35 years, the GEF has expanded its mandate. Today it supports multiple conventions and environmental initiatives through a structured set of trust funds. This architecture allows the facility to coordinate funding across different environmental priorities while maintaining specialised programs for each global commitment.

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is now focusing on solving environmental problems together instead of separately. It looks at climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution as connected issues and works with governments, international groups, civil society, and businesses to address them.

The GEF Trust Fund was initially created to support multiple environmental agreements simultaneously. Over time, countries preferred more specific funding for their particular needs.

Because of these changes, the GEF now has different funds, each designed for different purposes and methods of giving money.

Some funds – like the Trust Fund, the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), and part of the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) – use a system that helps countries know in advance how much funding they can expect.

The GEF Trust Fund

The Global Environment Facility Trust Fund is the main source of funds for the GEF. It provides grants to support environmental projects in developing countries.

The Trust Fund finances activities across several environmental areas.

These include

• Biodiversity conservation,
• Climate change mitigation,
• Land degradation control,
• International waters management, and
• Chemicals and waste reduction.

Countries receive funding through a system known as the System for Transparent Allocation of Resources, or STAR, which distributes funds based on their environmental needs and eligibility.

Projects funded by the Trust Fund often focus on creating global environmental benefits. These may include:

• Protecting endangered species,
• Restoring ecosystems,
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and
• Improving pollution management systems.

The Trust Fund operates through periodic “replenishment” cycles. Donor countries pledge new contributions every four years, which allows the GEF to finance programs during the next funding period. For example, the GEF-9 cycle will cover the period from July 2026 to June 2030 and focus on scaling up environmental investments while mobilising private capital and strengthening country ownership of environmental policies.

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) has created Integrated Programs. These are special programs designed to address multiple environmental goals at the same time in a more coordinated and efficient way.

For example, the Food Systems Integrated Program does not fund separate projects for climate change, biodiversity, and land degradation. Instead, it combines them into one unified project, which helps achieve stronger and longer-lasting results while making better use of funding.

The GEF helps fund biodiversity across the globe, helping to create conditions to prevent the further endangerment of species like the Sumatran Orangutan (Pongo abelii). Credit: Thomas Gabernig/Unsplash

Global Biodiversity Framework Fund

The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund is a relatively new component of the GEF family of funds. It was created to help countries implement the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which was adopted in 2022 under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The biodiversity framework sets ambitious targets for protecting nature by 2030. Its most prominent targets include the “30 by 30” target, which calls for protecting at least 30 percent of the world’s land and ocean areas by the end of the decade.  The Framework also sets a 30 percent target for the restoration of ecosystems and a target of mobilising 30 billion dollars in international financial flows to developing countries for biodiversity action.

The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund supports actions that help countries meet these targets.

Actions that are supported include the following:

• Expanding protected areas,
• Restoring degraded ecosystems,
• Protecting endangered species, and
• Strengthening biodiversity monitoring.

Another important focus is the integration of biodiversity into economic planning. Many projects supported by this fund work with governments and businesses to match financial flows with biodiversity goals. This means reducing financial support for activities that damage the environment and encouraging more sustainable farming, forestry, and fishing practices.

By providing targeted financing for biodiversity commitments, the fund helps translate global agreements into practical actions at the national and local levels.

It is also important to highlight that the fund sets a target of providing at least 20% of its resources to support actions by Indigenous Peoples and local communities. This form of direct financing is unique for a multilateral environmental fund.  To date, this target has been exceeded and mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund and the Tropical Forest Forever Facility are considering replicating this approach.

GEF-9 biodiversity investments will bring together four interconnected pathways:

• Scaling up financial flows to close the nature financing gap,
• Embedding environmental priorities in national development strategies,
• Mobilising private capital through blended finance, and
• Empowering Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and civil society as active conservation partners.

“A renewed emphasis on the Forest Biomes Integrated Program will continue directing investment into the landscapes most critical for achieving 30×30 – ensuring that GEF financing remains focused where the stakes are highest,” said Chizuru Aoki, the head of the GEF Conventions and Funds Division.

Medicinal and aromatic plant species, such as the baobab, are often exploited; however, the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing aims to ensure fair use of the planet’s genetic resources and secure benefits for Indigenous knowledge holders. Credit Noah Grossenbacher/Unsplash

Nagoya Protocol Implementation Fund

The Nagoya Protocol Implementation Fund supports countries in implementing the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing. This international agreement, part of the Convention on Biological Diversity, aims to make sure that the genetic resources of the planet are used fairly and equitably, with benefits shared with those who provide them.

Genetic resources include plants, animals, and microorganisms that are used in research and commercial products such as medicines, cosmetics, and agricultural technologies. Historically, many developing countries have expressed concerns that companies and researchers benefit from these resources without sharing profits or knowledge.

The Nagoya Protocol fixes these issues by requiring users to do the following:

• Get permission from the country providing the resources, and
• Agree on how benefits (like money or knowledge) will be shared.

The fund supports countries by helping them:

• Create laws and rules for using genetic resources,
• Improve monitoring systems, and
• Build skills among researchers and policymakers.

Projects funded also support Indigenous peoples and local communities, who often hold traditional knowledge associated with biological resources. Protecting this knowledge and ensuring fair compensation is a key objective of the Nagoya framework.

Least Developed Countries Fund

The Least Developed Countries Fund focuses on supporting climate adaptation in the world’s most vulnerable nations. These countries often face severe environmental risks but lack the finances and systems to respond efficiently.

The fund supports the preparation and implementation of National Adaptation Programs of Action and National Adaptation Plans. These are country-specific strategies that identify the most urgent climate risks facing each country and outline measures to reduce vulnerability.

Typical projects include the following:

• Strengthening climate-resilient agriculture,
• Improving water management systems,
• Protecting coastal zones, and
• Building early warning systems for extreme weather events.

Because many least developed countries face multiple environmental issues at once, the fund often supports integrated projects that address climate change alongside biodiversity conservation and land management.

This funding system makes sure that the poorest and most vulnerable countries get the help they need to deal with climate change, even though they did very little to cause it.

Villagers in Nyamisati, Rufiji District, wade through muddy tidal flats to plant mangrove seedlings—part of a grassroots effort to curb saline intrusion that has begun to poison nearby rice paddies as saltwater seeps underground. The initiative reflects growing local responses to environmental degradation driven by human activity along Tanzania’s coast. The GEF supports projects like these that help mitigate the impacts of climate change. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

Special Climate Change Fund

The Special Climate Change Fund supports climate action in developing countries and works alongside the Least Developed Countries Fund.

While the Least Developed Countries Fund focuses on the poorest nations, this fund helps other developing countries that are also affected by climate change.

It supports projects that:

• Help countries prepare for climate impacts,
• Include climate planning in development and infrastructure,
• Improve water management and agriculture.
• Reduce disaster risks, and
• Promote environmentally friendly technologies.

The SCCF also, in some cases, supports mitigation efforts, particularly when they involve innovative technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By financing both adaptation and mitigation initiatives, the fund contributes to global efforts to stabilise the climate system.

Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency Trust Fund

The Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency Trust Fund supports countries in implementing transparency requirements under the Paris Agreement.

Under this agreement, countries must regularly report their greenhouse gas emissions and track their progress on climate goals. However, many developing countries do not have the tools or skills to do this properly.

This fund helps by supporting:

• Training for government officials,
• Creation of national emissions data systems, and
• Better monitoring and reporting methods.

Strong reporting systems are important because they:

• Help track climate progress,
• Build trust between countries, and
• Ensure countries meet their commitments.

The fund helps developing countries improve their climate reporting so they can fully take part in global climate efforts.

How the “family of funds” works together

One of the defining features of the GEF funding model is that each part speaks to the others.

Think of it like a team of funds working together, rather than separate, isolated programs.

These funds are coordinated so they can:

• Support the same project from different angles,
• Avoid duplication (no overlapping funding for the same purpose), and
• Align with global environmental agreements.

For example:

• A biodiversity project might use:
  • The main GEF Trust Fund
  • Plus the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund
• A climate adaptation project could combine:
  • Least Developed Countries Fund
  • Special Climate Change Fund

This ‘family’ structure improves:

• Coordination, so different funds work in sync,
• Efficiency, so funds work with less waste and duplication, and
• Flexibility, so projects can tap into multiple funding sources.

Environmental problems are interconnected. A single project (like forest conservation) can:

• Reduce carbon emissions,
• Protect biodiversity,
• Improve water systems, and
• Avoid land degradation.

Because of the integrated funding system, the GEF can support all these goals at once, rather than funding them separately.

The “family of funds” is a coordinated funding system that allows the GEF to:

• Combine resources;
• Support complex, multi-sector projects; and
• Maximise environmental impact

The Future of GEF Financing

As global environmental crises grow, so does the demand for money and resources to meet climate and biodiversity needs. International assessments suggest that hundreds of billions of dollars are needed each year.

The GEF aims to play a “catalytic” role in closing this gap – in short, the GEF acts as a “catalyst” or tool for using limited public funds to unlock much larger investments.

Its funding model mobilises additional resources from

• Governments,
• Development banks, and
• Private investors.

“In practical terms, the mechanisms being supported in GEF-9 include debt-for-nature and debt-for-climate swaps, green bonds, pooled investment vehicles, and outcome-based financing structures. Each of these can serve a different purpose depending on the context – but the common thread is that they allow the GEF to use its resources strategically to unlock much larger pools of capital from the private sector, multiplying the environmental impact that public funding alone could achieve,” Aoki said.

Note: This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

From the left, Rev. Tolbert Thomas Jallah Jn with Mariann Bassey Olsson during the launch of the campaign in Cartagena, Colombia. Credit: AFSA.

By Isaiah Esipisu
NAIROBI, Apr 14 2026 (IPS)

Over 800 households in Ikolomani Constituency in Kakamega County, Western Kenya, fear eviction to pave the way for a British firm, Shanta Gold Limited, to begin extracting gold valued at Sh683 billion ($5.29 billion) on an estimated 337 acres of residential and agricultural land.

Efforts by residents to protest against the looming displacement during an attempt for a public participation session on the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) by the government on 4 December 2025 were met with police brutality, leading to four deaths due to bullet wounds, arbitrary arrests and scores of injuries.

According to the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), the incident is part of a disturbing and escalating pattern in Kenya’s extractive sector, where communities seeking accountability are met with brutal force, political threats, and procedural manipulation.

“Mining zones are increasingly becoming death traps rather than engines of community development,” reads part of a statement issued by the commission following the incident.

This trend mirrors what is happening in many other countries across Africa, where communities living in mineral-rich areas face forceful displacements, abuse of basic human rights, and environmental degradation linked to industrial mineral extraction, often perpetrated by foreign firms with full support of the political class.

According to Appolinaire Zagabe, a Congolese human rights activist and the Director for the DRC Climate Change Network (Reseau Sur le Changement Climatique RDC) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), often, people he terms ‘greedy government officials’ sign contracts with extractive firms to legalise their activities, then use police machinery to forcefully and brutally evict communities without informed consent and proper compensation.

It is based on such injustices that civil society organisations, social movements, faith-based actors, Indigenous Peoples, pastoralist and peasant organisations from Africa under the umbrella of the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) launched a campaign calling for land policies that protect African smallholder farmers and communities against punitive extractive practices and land grabbing, which are currently a threat to human rights, livelihoods and sustainable food systems.

“Land is more than a resource; it is our heritage, our identity, and our future,” said Rev. Tolbert Thomas Jallah Jr, the Executive Director at the Faith and Justice Network, during the launch of the campaign on the sidelines of the International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD+20) in Cartagena, Colombia.

“Across Africa, our soils feed our families, sustain our economies, and connect generations, yet today, land degradation, industrial extractive practices by foreign enterprises, climate change, and land grabbing threaten the very foundation of our food systems,” he added.

In a joint declaration at the conference, the organisations observed that rural communities across the world continue to face dispossession, land concentration, and ecological destruction.

“Despite global commitments to end hunger and poverty, land and food systems are increasingly controlled by corporate and financial interests, while communities that produce food remain marginalised and insecure,” reads part of the declaration statement.

It was further observed that carbon offset projects, extractive industries, agribusiness expansions, and speculative land markets are accelerating dispossession, soil degradation, and social inequality, often excluding communities from territories they have governed collectively for generations.

The campaign, dubbed “Protect Our Land, Restore Our Soil”, is now calling on governments to strengthen land rights and protect smallholder farmers; communities to embrace sustainable farming practices that rebuild soil fertility; and youthful farmers to view agriculture not as a last resort but as a powerful pathway to innovation and resilience.

“When soil is degraded, food becomes scarce, and when land is taken or misused, communities lose dignity and security,” said Rev. Tolbert, who is also the sitting Chairperson at the AFSA’s Board of Directors.

Just like the looming evictions of residents of Ikolomani in Kenya, Amnesty International has also observed that people of the DRC also pay a high price to supply the world with copper and cobalt: forced evictions, illegal destruction of their homes, and physical violence – sometimes leading to deaths.

The DRC supplies 70 to 74 percent of the copper and cobalt used in lithium-ion batteries. These batteries power our smartphones, laptops, electric cars, and bicycles, and they play a major role in the energy transition away from fossil fuels. This transition is urgent and necessary.

However, according to Amnesty International, mineral-rich regions of the DRC are sacrificed to mining development, leading to a shocking series of abuses in the region. Thousands of people have lost their homes, schools, hospitals, and communities due to the expansion of copper and cobalt mines in the country, especially in Kolwezi, which sits above rich copper and cobalt deposits.

The AFSA-led campaign calls on governments and corporate organisations to guarantee meaningful participation of affected communities and free prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples in land, agriculture and climate decision-making to avoid conflicts and abuse of basic human rights.

“The future lies not in further commodifying land and food systems, but in restoring community control over territories, securing pastoralist mobility and commons, and supporting agroecological transitions rooted in justice and ecological integrity,” observed Mariann Bassey Olsson, a Lawyer, and Director at Action (Friends of the Earth Nigeria).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Bangladesh is scheduled to graduate from the least developed country (LDC) status in November this year after more than half a century. Bangladesh joined the UN club of LDCs in 1975 and consistently met all three graduation criteria – per capita Gross National Income (GNI), human asset and economic vulnerability – since 2018.

Anis Chowdhury

RMG’s dominance and failure to diversify

Bangladesh is indeed a leading, often the highest, user of Duty-Free Quota-Free (DFQF) facilities among LDCs, largely driving its RMG sector growth through the European Union (EU)’s Everything But Arms (EBA) scheme. This reliance on preferential access has made Bangladesh a dominant exporter among LDCs.

However, the RMG sector’s dominance also made Bangladesh highly vulnerable. In the late 1970s when the RMG sector started its journey, it accounted for less than 5% of Bangladesh’s total exports. By the end of the 1990s, this proportion had reached about three-fourths. After more than four decades, since 2013, it has been hovering between 80-85%, according to the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA).

Bangladesh’s heavy reliance on a single export item makes its export basket one of the least diversified among the global economies. This is starkly different from South Korea, a country from which Bangladesh received technical assistance to usher in its RMG sector. South Korea’s textile industry accounted for 33.3% of exports in 1970; it declined to 22.6% within two decades in 1990 as the economy diversified. By 1975 South Korea became a major exporter of electrical machinery and appliances, transport equipment and various other manufacturing products.

Bangladesh’s vulnerability does not arise only from its export product concentration. Bangladesh’s export market is also not diversified with close to 60% going to the EU and UK with apparel comprising more than 90%. The USA, which does not provide any LDC related preferential market access, accounts for about 16% Bangladesh’s exports.

Here, too, Bangladesh’s experience differs from that of South Korea. With the diversification of the economy, South Korea’s exports by destination also became less concentrated. For example, while around 63% of South Korea’s export went to Japan alone in 1960, the combined market share of Japan and the USA fell to around 56% by 1975.

The South Korean State’s autonomy from groups with a vested interest is well documented. Thus, its policies were driven by broader national interest. On the other hand, Bangladesh’s policy space has been captured by the RMG sector.

Undoubtedly, the preferential treatment by the state helped the RMG sector expand rapidly; but at the high cost of failure to diversify. Professor Munir Quddus of Prairie View A&M University and President, Bangladesh Development Initiative (BDI) compared the RMG sector’s support environment with Leather exports to demonstrate the RMG sector’s state capture. His findings, summarized below, are revealing:

The usual justification for such preferential treatment is that RMG is the “largest export sector and foreign exchange earner”. But the argument is perverse. Given some of these subsidies have been in existence for nearly 50 years, prudent policymaking demands that it is high time to redirect scarce resources to support other potentially dynamic export sectors.

Being used to state support, the RMG sector ignored the need for raising productivity. The sector’s average labour productivity is lower than Bangladesh’s competitor countries except Cambodia. The sector’s compliance with the environmental and labour standards has also come under scrutiny. However, it seems by becoming too big through state support, the sector’s demand cannot be ignored.

The cosy relationship between the RMG sector leaders and the fallen kleptocratic regime is well-known. The regime allowed them to flourish through loan defaults and state subsidies and in return the business leaders were cheering on the fascist regime hoping to see its continuation. Understandably, they were fearful that they might not enjoy the same crony relationship with the Interim Government led by Nobel Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus; thus, they cried foul and campaigned for a postponement of LDC graduation.

LDC graduation as structural transformation

The Interim Government accepted the White Paper’s recommendation and viewed the LDC graduation momentum as an opportunity to accelerate structural transformation of the economy. Despite bureaucratic inertia, it did succeed in improving business environment, such as significant reductions in times to obtain business licenses/certificates/permits, simplifications of customs procedures and fast-tracked implementation of national logistic and national tariff policies. It also identified the bottlenecks for potential sectors, such as pharmaceuticals, leather & footwear, electronics, light engineering and fishing & agro-based industries and took measures to remove or ease them.

No doubt a lot still needs to be done as part of an ongoing process of reform and policy adjustment. But that cannot be used as a justification to request a delay on the basis that the preparation is inadequate, particularly when Bangladesh’s macroeconomic performance is far better than the most LDCs, including Nepal and Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), the two countries scheduled to graduate along with Bangladesh.

Thanks to the macroeconomic management of the Interim Government which succeeded in preventing a total collapse of the economy; it restored discipline in the financial and banking sector, rebuilt the country’s foreign exchange reserves, stabilized the exchange rate and earned the confidence of international financial leaders to re-open trade financing and maintain foreign investment inflows. It earned the diaspora community’s confidence resulting in increased remittances. The Interim Government concluded Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with Japan in record time, ensuring duty-free market access for 99.9% of its products. It also initiated EPA talks with other major trade partners, including the EU.

Graduation delay: Bad signal for LDCs and win for vested interest

The UN-DESA uses three criteria for LDCs – GNI per capita, human asset index (HAI) and economic vulnerability index (EVI). Its evaluation in February 2025 shows that Bangladesh is in a much better position than Nepal and Lao PDR in terms of GNI per capita and EVI. Bangladesh with higher GNI per capita is economically less vulnerable than Nepal and Lao PDR, both of which suffer from additional disadvantages of landlockedness.

Bangladesh’s economy is projected to grow at a faster rate (around 5.0%–5.1% in FY 2005-26 and 5.7% in FY 2026-27 according to the ADB) than both Nepal and Lao PDR despite slightly elevated inflation rates. Bangladesh also performs better in logistics, ranked 88th out of 139 countries by the World Bank compared to Nepal’s rank of 114th and Lao PDR’s 115th. Bangladesh also has better productive capacity according to the UNCTAD’s productive capacity index.

Bangladesh will continue to enjoy DFQF market access for three more years after its graduation as endorsed by the WTO. Australia and Canada indicated extended periods of DFQF access until at least 2034. The UK will allow 92% Bangladesh products duty-free access after 2029. Therefore, a delay for a better performing Bangladesh will be a bad signal for the LDCs aspiring to graduate from LDC status.

It will also mean a win for the vested interest groups and stalling of the momentum towards accelerated structural transformation. The state capture by the RMG sector has already become clear; a highly professional and successful central bank governor has been replaced with a failed (loan defaulter) garment sector businessperson with no background in banking or international macroeconomics. The Transparency International Bangladesh views “such a decision risks turning the central bank once again into an instrument of business lobbies dependent on defaulted loans and political connections, rather than safeguarding national interest, as was the case during the authoritarian kleptocratic regime”.

Bangladesh will be better off spending its diplomatic efforts to secure GSP+ facilities in the EU and EPA with its trading partners instead of lobbying for a LDC graduation delay. It should worry more about EU’s new, stricter and mandatory Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) regulations. Whereas ESG failure may cost Bangladesh 30% of EU exports, strict compliance can function as powerful catalysts for production upgrading and accelerating structural transformation while achieve sustainable development goals (SDGs).

Anis Chowdhury, Emeritus Professor, Western Sydney University (Australia). He held senior UN positions in Bangkok and New York and served as Special Assistant to the Chief Advisor for Finance (with the status and rank of State Minister) in the Professor Yunus-led Interim Government. E-mail: anis.z.chowdhury@gmail.com

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Artisanal miners work at a mercury-free processing site in Bushiangala, Ikolomani, Kakamega County, Kenya. Credit: Chemtai Kirui/IPS

By Chemtai Kirui
KAKAMEGA, Kenya, Apr 1 2026 (IPS)

They call this land Bushiangala. Gold has been mined here for nearly a century. In 1931, colonial prospectors arrived after traces were found in the nearby Yala River, setting off a rush that changed this quiet corner of western Kenya.

Colonial authorities quickly took control of the boom, introducing mining laws that restricted access, while companies like Rosterman Gold Mines dominated production, employing local labour even as profits flowed out of the region. When industrial operations collapsed in the 1950s, they left behind something more enduring: an informal mining economy that never disappeared.

For more than 70 years, artisanal miners, known locally as ‘wachimba migodi’, have worked these deposits by hand, digging, crushing and washing ore using techniques passed down through generations. Mercury came much later.

Josephine Liabule Mkhobi grew up around the pits. She remembers watching older miners process gold with water and pans.

“Our parents never used mercury,” Mkhobi says. “This method started around 2008.”

Introduced as a faster alternative, mercury quickly took hold, speeding up gold extraction – but leaving behind contamination that has not disappeared.

Over time, water sources across the Lake Victoria region became increasingly unsafe, with mercury in some wells reaching up to ten times the World Health Organization’s guidelines.

The contamination now stretches across a gold-rich belt that includes Kakamega — home to Bushiangala — as well as Vihiga, Siaya, Busia, and Kisumu, reaching toward Migori near the Tanzanian border.

A 2026 study published in Environmental Health found that the water and slurry used in these mining pits contain concentrations of arsenic, chromium, and mercury up to 100 times higher than local surface waters. The researchers warned that miners – and children living nearby – are in direct, frequent contact with these toxic mixtures, which eventually drain into the broader Lake Victoria ecosystem.

Mercury’s Slow Poison

Gladys Akitsa, an artisanal gold miner, mixes mercury with gold-bearing concentrate at the Bushiangala mining site in Ikolomani, Kakamega County, Kenya. Credit: Chemtai Kirui/IPS

For the miners on the ground, these toxins are no longer a matter of abstract data.

Timothy Mukoshi, a miner, remembers a colleague who slowly began to lose his memory. The man would withdraw money from the bank and later forget where he had put it.

Like many miners here, he often burnt mercury-gold amalgam to separate the metal – a process that releases toxic vapours. After he died, Mukoshi says the cause was clear: a post-mortem found traces of mercury in his brain.

“Mercury is what you call a slow poison,” Mukoshi says.

For years, the risks associated with using mercury in mining went largely unrecognised. Now, Bushiangala is trying something different.

In the same processing sites where women crush ore and wash gold by hand, miners are forming cooperatives and introducing methods that can recover gold without the toxic metal.

Miners say the shift gathered momentum after training initiatives reached the area through the planetGOLD programme — a global initiative backed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and led by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), with country-level implementation in Kenya by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to reduce mercury use in artisanal and small-scale gold mining.

“The planetGOLD programme stands as our leading initiative to tackle mercury use in artisanal and small-scale gold mining. By helping countries identify, test, and scale up mining and processing techniques, we not only support improved gold recovery but also empower miners to transition away from mercury use,” says Anil Bruce Sookdeo, Chemicals and Waste Coordinator and Senior Environmental Specialist at the GEF.

“Our approach is comprehensive – we facilitate sector formalisation, broaden access to financing for technology upgrades, and connect miners to formal and more reliable gold supply chains. When cleaner technologies are economically viable, financing is accessible, and there’s a dependable market for their gold, miners are much more likely to adopt mercury-free methods,” Sookdeo added.

Bringing Artisanal Miners Out of the Shadows

Women miners gather at a gold processing site in Bushiangala, Ikolomani, Kakamega County, Kenya. Credit: Chemtai Kirui/IPS

The planetGOLD Kenya project, locally known as IMKA, is partnering with the Ministry of Mining and the Ministry of Environment to tackle the root cause of the mercury crisis: informality. By bringing miners out of the shadows and into legal cooperatives, the project aims to replace toxic shortcuts with formal, mercury-free systems.

“At first, many miners were afraid of joining cooperatives,” says Mkhobi, the chairlady of the Bushiangala Women’s Mining Cooperative. “They thought it meant losing their money or being forced into something they didn’t understand. But after they understood the benefits, more people started joining.”

Kakamega currently has 24 registered mining cooperatives spread across several gold-producing sub-counties. Small welfare groups were brought together into registered cooperatives, creating a structure through which miners could access training, equipment, and formal recognition under the Mining Act of 2016.

A Capful of Mercury Replaced by Mechanical Processing

Miners stand at the entrance of a shaft at the Bushiangala mining site in Ikolomani, Kakamega County, Kenya. Credit: Chemtai Kirui/IPS

An artisanal miner uses a sluice box to separate gold from crushed ore at the Bushiangala mining site in Ikolomani, Kakamega County, Kenya. Credit: Chemtai Kirui/IPS

Women process crushed gold ore at the Bushiangala mining site in Ikolomani, Kakamega county, Kenya. Credit: Chemtai Kirui/IPS

Mechanical processing systems are replacing mercury inside the cooperatives. Miners who once relied on a capful of mercury are now learning to master gravity concentrators and shaking tables – mechanical systems that use physical force, rather than toxic chemicals, to pull gold from the dust.

At Bushiangala, a mercury-free demonstration plant now serves as a training ground for miners to practise using the new system under supervision. Technical manuals that once existed only as engineering documents are being translated into practical steps that can be applied directly in the pits.

Training sessions are conducted by technical staff from the planetGOLD programme alongside regional mining officers and cooperative leaders, combining engineering guidance with the practical knowledge miners already bring from the pits.

Oversight of the site is handled through a Joint Implementation Committee that brings together national regulators, county governments and representatives from mining communities.

By providing land and routine supervision, county governments are gradually assuming greater responsibility for the sector — an arrangement designed to ensure the effort continues even after international partners step back.

Convine Omondi, the project’s chief technical adviser, said in a 2025 planetGOLD report that involving local authorities directly helps turn what began as a donor-supported initiative into something managed and sustained at the local level.

The training materials and tools being tested here are part of a wider effort under the planetGOLD programme to share lessons between countries. Experiences from Kenya are being documented and adapted for use in other artisanal mining regions, rather than copied wholesale.

As of early 2026, Kenya had identified six demonstration sites across Kakamega, Vihiga, Migori and Narok. Fencing and sheds have already been completed, and the sites are now entering the commissioning phase. Delivery of heavy equipment and full operation are expected later this year.

Even so, progress is gradual. A site is only considered fully operational once the machinery is installed, utilities such as water and electricity are reliable, and certified cooperatives are actively using the facilities.

“First we were sensitised about how hazardous mercury is,” says Mukoshi, who has worked the Kakamega gold fields since the late 1990s and now chairs the Kakamega Miners Cooperative Union. “People realised it is dangerous. Now many sites keep registers, and miners are also learning that when you mine, you must rehabilitate the land.”

Healing the Land, Working Together

This focus on healing the land has spread beyond Kakamega. In neighbouring Vihiga County, the shift toward environmental restoration is being led by women who see the forest’s health as inseparable from their own.

“The training also introduced environmental rehabilitation, encouraging miners to restore excavated land once extraction ends,” says Shebby Kendi, chair of the Elwunza Women Cooperative Society.

But for Mkhobi, the change is not only about soil or chemicals. It is also about bargaining power. By moving from scattered pits to organised cooperatives, miners are beginning to act collectively in a trade where individuals have little influence.

“Now through the training we are learning how to organise ourselves, keep records and work as cooperatives,” Mkhobi says. “When we come together, we have more strength in the market.”

In a region where gold prices are often dictated by middlemen, that collective strength is beginning to shift how miners negotiate.

Giving Women Voice

A woman at the Bushiangala artisanal gold mine in western Kenya, where mercury is commonly used in gold processing, raises health concerns among workers. March 23, 2026. Photograph: Chemtai Kirui/IPS

“When you are one woman with a gram of gold, you have no voice,” she says. “When there are a hundred of you with a kilo, the buyers have to listen.”

For Anthony Munanga, Kakamega’s county director for environment, natural resources and climate change, that “kilo” also represents something else: control. At a recent media engagement, he said that without organised cooperatives, the gold economy remains largely invisible to regulators.

“Without organisation, there is no way to ensure compliance,” Munanga says. His department is now mapping mining areas across the county, an effort aimed at moving miners out of scattered pits and into designated zones where licensing and environmental oversight become possible.

“This process allows miners to operate safely and legally,” he says.

Changing Face of Financial Support

But legal recognition requires more than a map. It requires financing — and the local banking system is still reluctant to lend to a sector long defined by risk.

Changing how gold is produced also means rethinking how the trade is financed. In Bushiangala, this is where the constraints begin to show.

The planetGOLD programme in Kenya was launched with relatively modest public funding, despite ambitions that stretch far beyond its initial budget. At its core is a USD 4.24 million grant from the Global Environment Facility, much of which has already been allocated.

The grant has largely supported technical assistance — including miner training, policy development and institutional systems designed to formalise the sector — rather than directly financing mining equipment.

Project documents estimate the programme could mobilise up to USD 26 million in additional financing from commercial lenders and private investors to support new processing plants and upgraded mining infrastructure.

In practice, that funding has been slow to materialise.

Although the project was backed by USD 16.6 million in co-financing from government and local partners, a 2023 mid-term review found that much of this support existed on paper as in-kind contributions rather than cash available for day-to-day operations. It also pointed to delays within government financial systems and the lack of a risk-sharing mechanism to draw in private lenders, factors that have slowed implementation on the ground.

A final evaluation due in 2026 is expected to assess how far the programme has managed to address these gaps and whether it can sustain its operations over the long term.

Several structural constraints help explain the shortfall.

A government moratorium on new mining licences between 2019 and 2023 froze formalisation during a critical phase of the project. Without licences, miners could not meet standard lending requirements, and commercial banks have been reluctant to lend to what remains a largely informal sector.

Even where discussions with lenders progress, approval processes within banks can take more than a year, often outlasting key phases of the programme.

The absence of a dedicated risk-sharing mechanism has also limited participation. Without a first-loss guarantee to absorb potential defaults, lenders had little incentive to finance investments in artisanal mining.

The COVID-19 pandemic slowed procurement and field operations, but programme assessments suggest that the deeper barriers were structural — particularly the shortage of licensed miners eligible for credit and the lack of financial instruments tailored to the sector.

As a result, the programme has made measurable progress in training miners and organising them into cooperatives, but access to capital remains constrained.

Harry Kimtai, principal secretary at Kenya’s Ministry of Mining, describes the sequencing as deliberate, arguing that formalisation must come first before significant private investment can enter the sector.

Lag Between Training and Implementation

Sharon Ambale, an artisanal gold miner, holds a gold-mercury amalgam at the Bushiangala mining site in Ikolomani, Kakamega county, Kenya. Credit: Chemtai Kirui/IPS

For those on the front lines, that “deliberate sequencing” feels like a race against their own health. Merab Khamonya, a 28-year-old mother who joined the Bushiangala cooperative in 2024, is one of those caught in the lag between training and implementation.

Though she has attended planetGOLD sessions and understands the neurotoxicity of the metal she handles, her reality remains unchanged. To support her family, she still submerges her bare hands in basins of ore and mercury—a necessity for survival.

“I feel things moving inside my eyes,” she says, describing a persistent, painful irritation. “I know it harms me. I even see traces of it on my clothes when I go home to cook for my children.”

For Khamonya, the promise of a mercury-free mechanical system is a lifeline that has yet to arrive. “We are ready for the shift,” she says, “but for now, we have no other way to clean the gold. We are just waiting for the machines.”

Benefits of Mercury-Free Mechanical Systems

The economics behind the shift are straightforward. Kenya’s 2022 National Action Plan on artisanal and small-scale gold mining estimates that traditional manual methods recover only about 20 per cent of the gold in the ore. By comparison, data from planetGOLD Kenya shows that mercury-free mechanical systems can recover up to 90 per cent—potentially increasing the amount of gold recovered from each load of ore.

Miners involved in the programme say they are cautiously optimistic. They understand the problems and the solutions needed and feel best placed to judge what works on the ground.

“We have seen the difference and learned about mercury-free alternatives,” Mukoshi says. “We are ready to make the shift.”

But the obstacles, he adds, are basic.

“For these sites to work, you need water and electricity. Many of them don’t have either.”

For Mukoshi, Mkhobi, Kendi, Khamonya and their colleagues, the work has shifted to practicalities – securing water and electricity, preparing sites, and waiting on machines. The early experiments are over; what remains is making the system function.

On most days, that means clearing land, assembling equipment and negotiating with miners who are still uncertain about abandoning the mercury methods they have relied on for years.

The change taking shape in Bushiangala is small for now — one processing site, one cooperative, a handful of machines. But the model is already drawing attention beyond Kakamega.

planetGOLD’s Global Reach

In various places in Africa, governments and development agencies are searching for ways to formalise artisanal gold mining without destroying the environments where it takes place. In the Congo Basin’s Cuvette Centrale, UNEP and the planetGOLD programme are supporting a USD 10.5 million initiative aimed at protecting one of the world’s largest tropical peatland systems from mining damage.

The region spans about 167,600 square kilometres of peatlands and stores an estimated 29 billion tonnes of carbon — roughly three years of global emissions. GEF project data suggests the effort is designed to keep gold production from driving damage in a peat swamp that is crucial to climate stability.

In Zimbabwe, a parallel programme has begun introducing mercury-free processing technologies across dozens of mining sites. The effort here is more centralised, tied to the state-run Fidelity Gold Refinery and legislative reforms under the Mines and Minerals Bill.

Kenya’s system, by contrast, relies on cooperative structures at mine sites with county-level oversight through Joint Implementation Committees (JICs) and national regulation under the Mining Act — a model the African Development Bank is using as a reference point, particularly its JIC structure, for scaling mercury-free artisanal mining across the continent.

Kenya’s Experience Now a Guideline For Africa, World Expansion

According to Ludovic Bernaudat, head of the chemicals and green chemistry unit at UNEP, Kenya’s experience is now being used to guide the next phase of the programme as it expands across Africa.

He describes the country as one of the original eight members now completing its first implementation cycle – a milestone for the global initiative.

“New countries in Africa have recently joined the programme, and through the global project, UNEP will make sure that connection is made with Kenya,” Bernaudat said.

He added that the Kenyan model will be featured at the 2026 planetGOLD Global Forum in Panama, where nations share technical expertise and compare approaches to ending mercury use.

Since its launch, planetGOLD has expanded from nine to 27 countries across Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

“This growth demonstrates both the scale of the challenge and the value of a programme that integrates environmental action with support for livelihoods, inclusion, and market transformation,” says Anil Bruce Sookdeo, from the GEF.

But the final proof will depend less on policy design than on whether miners themselves decide it works.

Chasing Thin Seams of Gold Safely

Back in Bushiangala, that test is only beginning.

Miners still arrive at the pits each morning as they always have, chasing thin seams of gold buried in the red earth. What is changing — slowly — is what happens after the ore reaches the surface.

If the new system holds, the mercury that once flowed through these streams may eventually disappear. And the miners here, in this corner of western Kenya, will find a way to keep working the land without the risks that have defined it for years.

Note: This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

Inter Press Service (IPS) UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

ECA Deputy Executive Secretary for Programme Support, Mama Keita.

By Busani Bafana
TANGIER, Morocco, Apr 1 2026 (IPS)

Africa must move swiftly to harness data and frontier technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) to drive its economic growth and make the continent globally competitive in the digital economy, a senior official at the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) has told policymakers.

Opening the Committee of Experts segment of the Conference of African Ministers of Finance, Planning and Economic Development meeting in Tangier, ECA Deputy Executive Secretary for Programme Support Mama Keita emphasised that technological innovation is the key to unlocking Africa’s development potential. Africa has been slow to harness technological innovation to drive industrialisation and economic growth.

“Frontier technologies and innovation are not only useful to unlock Africa’s growth potential and enhance the competitiveness of African economies through productivity growth and diversification,” Keita said. She emphasised that technological innovations can be used to accelerate structural transformation, allowing the much-needed reallocation of resources from low- to high-productivity sectors.

Frontier technologies, including AI, the Internet of Things, and biotechnology, are boosting productivity, enhancing competitiveness, and enabling global economic diversification, but Africa is taking its time to join the party.

Keita, in remarks on behalf of ECA Executive Secretary Claver Gatete, questioned why Africa was not harnessing frontier technologies to utilise its natural resources and tap its youthful population and sizeable markets to boost productivity.

The conference, themed ‘Growth through innovation: harnessing data and frontier technologies for the economic transformation of Africa’, is being held at a critical moment for Africa, which is fast gaining global attention as the next frontier for investment, human capital, and mineral resource development. Despite trade uncertainty, Africa’s economic growth is on the rise.

Keita noted that the conference was an opportunity for policymakers to examine how technology-driven solutions can accelerate structural transformation and deliver more sustainable economic growth in Africa.

Despite averaging 3.5 percent GDP growth between 2000 and 2023, Africa has struggled to convert this expansion into productivity gains. Keita observed that growth has largely been driven by capital and labour accumulation, with little contribution from productivity improvements—an imbalance that innovation and advanced technologies could help correct.

Effective Regulation, Financing and Data Systems Needed

Frontier technologies and data can enable Africa to shift resources from low-productivity sectors to higher-value activities while also improving living standards with effective regulation and financing robust data systems  in place.

Africa suffers from poor data, which constrains effective planning and decision-making for development projects. The ECA’s flagship Economic Report on Africa 2026, to be launched during the conference, argues that harnessing data and technologies like AI, machine learning and robotics is now an imperative for Africa.

Technology Delivers

“There is no doubt that digital platforms, underpinned by frontier technologies such as AI, the Internet of Things, and blockchain, hold significant potential to reduce poverty, generate employment opportunities, promote economic integration, and drive economic growth,” Keita said.

Across the continent, signs are there of how technology innovation is driving development. Digital payment systems and mobile-money platforms are transforming Africa’s economies by lowering transaction costs, boosting efficiency, enhancing access to finance and markets, and advancing financial inclusion.

Nearly 30 per cent of the world’s critical minerals that are essential for clean-energy technologies are in Africa, which gives  the continent a comparative advantage over other continents.

Strategic industries such as digital technologies and telecommunications also depend on the critical minerals, making Africa an indispensable actor in this vital and fast-growing space, she said.

Frontier technologies have boosted crop productivity, enhanced water and land-use efficiency, and promoted climate resilience and adaptation in agriculture.

But Not all is Rosy

Keita said Africa risks falling behind global peers in harnessing the benefits of frontier technologies. AI, for example, is projected to contribute about 5.6 percent to GDP across Africa, Oceania and parts of developing Asia by 2030—lagging behind contributions expected in more advanced economies.

“The adoption of frontier technologies is not all roses, as this is associated with several risks that cannot be ignored,”  Keita warned. “The storage of most of Africa’s data in data centres outside the continent is a big problem, particularly for sensitive data such as medical, financial, and security data, given the sensitivity of such data. It is also costly and results in delays in data transmission.”

Africa currently accounts for less than one percent of global data centre capacity, limiting the deployment of data-intensive technologies like AI, according to the ECA.

“The disruptive effects of new technologies on the African labour market cannot be ignored,” Keita stated, adding that technology tends to cause job losses quickly, while job creation often occurs slowly.

But Africa’s demographic profile of having more young people presents a competitive advantage if it is aligned with the demands of a digital economy.

Globally, AI and automation are expected to create 170 million jobs while displacing 92 million jobs by 2030, resulting in a net gain of 78 million jobs.  Africa can only benefit from these new jobs if it prioritises providing enhanced digital skills training to its population.

&IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Máximo Torero, Chief Economist of Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), briefs the Security Council meeting on Conflict-related food insecurity: Framing the global dialogue: addressing food insecurity as a driver of conflict and ensuring food security for sustainable peace. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 27 2026 (IPS)

The current conflict in Iran and the Middle East region threatens to disrupt the global energy and agri-food sectors, as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz affects oil and fertilizer exports for farmers during critical harvest seasons.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warns that if the war does not come to an immediate end, global markets could collapse from the high demands for oil and crops.

Within the next two weeks, global markets may be able to absorb the shocks brought on by the war thus far and could therefore minimize the risks of food insecurity, said FAO’s chief economist Máximo Torero.

“If this crisis continues for the next three to six months, then yes, it will have an impact not only on the food security sector; of course, energy will impact all other sectors and all other inputs that have been affected,” Torero said.

The Strait of Hormuz carries up to 30 percent of international trade fertilizers and up to 35 percent of global crude oil and natural gas. Premiums on the costs of these resources are increasing as the war continues in the region. Torero told reporters on Thursday that farmers face the “double choke” of higher prices on fertilizers and rising fuel prices, the latter of which is used by the value chain to produce the food available in markets. With limited supplies, farmers may be forced to adapt their crop cycle by reducing the amount of fertilizer or switch to crops that require less nitrogen fertilizer.

Credit: UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

Torero remarked that the immediate impact will be on the next season of crops, which will likely have fewer yields than before the war started. If the fighting concludes within a month, countries with higher reserves of fertilizers and fuels may mitigate shocks to the global markets. If the fighting lasts three months and the Strait of Hormuz stays closed, the shocks will be global and harder to manage. The consequences could include fewer yields from crops and more pressure on global exporters such as the United States, Brazil and Australia. As oil prices increase, this may encourage farmers to switch to biofuels to help meet the demands for crops. Yet such actions may also cause higher consumer prices.

When it comes to the war’s impact in the region, Torero reported that Iran was already dealing with high food prices before the fighting began, which it has only exacerbated. Meanwhile, for Gulf states such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, they are largely reliant on food imports and will face more challenges as there are no ships carrying imports through the channel.

Beyond the Middle East, FAO identified certain countries that will be impacted by fertilizer and fuel shortages, such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, which are currently in their respective rice harvest seasons, and sub-Saharan countries like Kenya and Somalia, which rely on 22 to 31 percent of fertilizer imports.

One area that will also be affected by the conflict is remittances. Migrant workers from South Asia and East Africa live and work in the Gulf states, including at airports and places of business that have been targeted by military strikes. Torero explained that if these workers cannot send money back to their households in their home countries, the resulting decline in remittance inflow will affect many countries where remittances make up a “significant share” of their GDP.

“There’s a significant amount of labor employment that comes from this region,” Torero said. “Now, if the airplanes are not flying… If the operations that used to flow through the airports are not happening, that will impact of course their economies, and that will impact all these temporary laborers that are working in those locations.”

The rich economies that attract migrant labor could be impacted, Torero said, and the workers whose families rely on remittances would also be severely affected.

While the war in the Persian Gulf continues to threaten the global energy, fertilizer and food markets, the international community is encouraged to take short- and long-term measures to mitigate the shock and protect vulnerable populations.

Torero and FAO recommended developing alternative trade routes to reduce dependence on the Strait of Hormuz. Vulnerable import-dependent countries, including low-income states, need support through emergency food aid, balance-of-payment support and targeted subsidies. Farmers should also be financed to maintain agricultural production and to prevent liquidity constraints.

Torero also recommended that states should diversify their import sources and promote regional coordination. He added that states need to build resilience in the future, which means investing in sustainable domestic agriculture and alternatives to fertilizers and preparing for structural market shifts that may result from prolonged instability.

“We need to treat food systems with the same strategic importance as energy and transport sectors and invest […] accordingly to minimize those shocks.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The WTO reform agenda is a distraction. The real prize is dismantling MFN through plurilateral precedents. Credit: WTO

By Chien Yen Goh and Kinda Mohamadieh
GENEVA, Mar 24 2026 (IPS)

As trade ministers gather in Yaoundé, Cameroon, for the WTO’s 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) on 26–29 March 2026, the preparatory process has produced a dense fog of competing reform proposals, draft ministerial statements, and work plans.

The facilitator-led consultations at the WTO headquarters in Geneva focused for the past few weeks on decision-making, development and Special and Differential Treatment (S&DT), as well as level-playing-field issues, while the United States, European Union and others tabled their own reform submissions.

The sheer volume and scope of this activity have muddied the picture of what exactly requires ministerial attention and decision.

This confusion, however, serves a purpose. It obscures the fact that the U.S. — which has done more than any other member to destabilise the multilateral trading system through unilateral tariffs, bilateral Agreements on Reciprocal Trade (ARTs), and paralysing the WTO Appellate Body — is not primarily interested in the reform or continued relevance of the WTO.

Its 2026 Trade Policy Agenda, released earlier this month, makes this plain: the US will push to reorient the WTO’s negotiating function by “favouring meaningful plurilateral agreements” and “urging reassessment of the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) principle” so that trading nations can differentiate among partners in their liberalisation commitments.

The MFN rule is the foundational principle of the WTO that requires any trade advantage granted to one WTO member to be extended equally to all. The U.S. WTO reform paper submitted to the General Council in December 2025 (WT/GC/W/984) goes further, arguing that MFN “is not just unsuitable for this era” but actively prevents countries from optimising their trade relationships.

Outside the WTO, the U.S. is pursuing its trade interests through bilateral ARTs with Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia and others. Since its Supreme Court struck down the legal basis for these ARTs, section 301 of the U.S. 1974 Trade Act has been activated. But within the WTO, the U.S. priority at MC14 is more focused and consequential than the reform agenda suggests.

The immediate objective is to secure adoption of the plurilateral Investment Facilitation Agreement (IFA) into the WTO’s legal architecture under Annex 4 of the Marrakesh Agreement — despite the U.S. not having participated in the IFA negotiations and having no interest in being a party to it. U.S. Ambassador Joseph Barloon identified the IFA as one of a limited number of issues the U.S. wants decided at MC14.

Why would the US push through an agreement it will not sign? Because the IFA is not the end but the means. Its incorporation into the WTO — while its initiation, negotiation and addition have been formally contested — would establish that plurilateral agreements can be adopted and added to the WTO rulebook without the consent of all members. Once that door is opened, the principle of consensus in WTO agenda-setting and rule-making is effectively undermined.

This is precisely what the U.S. wants. Its December 2025 reform submission argues that plurilateral agreements should allow “likeminded trading partners committed to fair and reciprocal trade” to strengthen ties “within the architecture of the WTO agreements,” with benefits limited to consenting parties — that is, on a non-MFN basis.

The paper warns that without a path for plurilaterals, the WTO is “not a viable forum for negotiating.” Read together with the Trade Policy Agenda’s call to reassess MFN, the logic is clear: plurilaterals are the vehicle through which the U.S. intends to displace MFN as the organising principle of the multilateral trading system. Members that cannot or choose not to join will simply be left out.

The second U.S. priority reinforces this trajectory. Washington is pressing developing countries to make permanent the moratorium on customs duties on electronic commerce transmissions. First adopted as a temporary measure in 1998, the moratorium was last renewed at MC13 in Abu Dhabi, where members agreed it would expire at MC14 or 31 March 2026. The U.S. now wants to lock it in permanently and expand the scope of digital goods and services beyond customs authorities.

The stakes are high and direct. UNCTAD has estimated that the moratorium costs developing countries up to $10 billion annually in foregone tariff revenue, with 95 per cent of the losses borne by developing countries. For many, customs duties constitute 10–30 per cent of total tax revenue — for some, over 50 per cent.

The primary beneficiaries are the large technology firms in developed countries that dominate cross-border digital trade. Making the moratorium permanent would formalise this revenue transfer and strip developing countries of policy space to regulate digital imports as the digital economy grows.

Both these issues — the IFA and the e-commerce moratorium — involve developing countries giving up something concrete (MFN treatment, consensus-based decision-making, effective say over agenda setting, customs revenue and regulatory autonomy) in exchange for nothing.

The U.S. is not offering concessions on agriculture, S&DT, or the longstanding mandated issues that matter to developing country Members. It is not proposing to fix the dispute settlement system it broke. It is leveraging reform to extract structural concessions that tilt the WTO’s institutional machinery in its favour, while pursuing its trade interests bilaterally.

Once plurilaterals are entrenched and the moratorium made permanent, the U.S. will have a freer hand to set the WTO agenda without negotiating with developing country and Least Developed Country members. S&DT, already under pressure from demands to end self-designation and narrow its application, will recede further as a meaningful principle and integral part of the negotiations.

The reform agenda, for all its complexity, is secondary to the structural question: will the WTO remain a consensus-based institution where MFN and consensus decision-making ensure the smallest member has a say? Or will it be refashioned into a platform for variable-geometry agreements where the powerful set the terms and the rest face compliance or exclusion?

Developing countries have fought for decades to preserve a multilateral trading system in which trade could serve as a tool for their development. That system is now under direct threat — not from its irrelevance, but from a deliberate strategy to hollow it out from within.

Chien Yen Goh and Kinda Mohamadieh are trade and investment lawyers at Third World Network (TWN) based in Geneva.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Luther Bois Anukur, Regional Director of IUCN ESARO, interviewed at the IUCN Regional Headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. Credit: Isaiah Esipisu/IP

By Isaiah Esipisu
NAIROBI, Mar 3 2026 (IPS)

As the global community marks 2026 World Wildlife Day today (March 3), this year’s focus is on Medicinal and Aromatic Plants: Conserving Health, Heritage and Livelihoods. However, beneath these celebrations, a difficult question emerges: who will bear the cost of conservation when traditional donor funding becomes uncertain and in the face of climate change?

With geopolitical shifts causing traditional funders to tighten their budgets, conservation across Africa has reached a critical juncture.

In an exclusive interview with Luther Bois Anukur, the Regional Director for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Eastern and Southern Africa, we explore how governments must now go further by creating space for community-led biodiversity conservation initiatives to evolve into sustainable enterprises. We discuss why protecting biodiversity matters as much as maintaining roads or power grids and why national budgets should consider it a priority.

IPS: With conservation donors tightening their budget, how serious is this funding shift for Africa, and what risks does it create for biodiversity protection?

Anukur: Overall, there has been a shrinking of financing for biodiversity conservation, especially with the closing of USAID, which was a big financier for biodiversity work in Africa. This came as a shock and certainly slowed down the work of biodiversity conservation in Africa because some organisations have gone under, and some projects have closed altogether.

However, having said that, there is a huge opportunity for Africa to relook at biodiversity financing models. Indeed, relying on donor funding is not the right way to finance biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity is not a charitable cause. It is actually part of the sovereign natural assets, and so we need to look at ways in which countries can link their economies to biodiversity conservation.

For example, you’ll find that what underpins our economies in Africa is fresh water, agriculture, tourism, and energy, and all these form the backbone of biodiversity conservation.

IPS: African communities often live with wildlife and bear the costs of conservation. How possibly can this be turned into community-led initiatives that can evolve into sustainable enterprises?

Anukur: First and foremost, people in Africa have lived alongside wildlife for many years. However, the cost of living with wildlife has been very high, because you find there’s crop loss, there’s loss of livestock, and even loss of lives. Yet, we have not seen benefits go to communities in a proportional manner.

To change this, there is certainly a need to rethink and redesign our conservation efforts so that communities can be right at the centre. We need to see benefits going to communities in an equitable manner that is commensurate to the services and the sacrifices they provide by living alongside wildlife.

We need to stop seeing communities as beneficiaries but as leaders of conservation efforts. And when we do that, then we will go a long way in conserving wildlife.

IPS: Why should finance ministries in Africa treat conservation as a core national investment rather than an environmental afterthought

Anukur: In many cases, ministers of finance look at risks, they look at assets, and they look at returns. That is what they usually understand. But very clearly, nature is Africa’s largest asset. And so investing in our environment basically means that we are supporting our water systems, our agriculture, our fisheries, and our ecosystems. That basically means that we are strengthening our economies.

The reverse is true. If we do not support that, we will face disasters. We are going to have a higher impact from climate change, and we are going to get into food imports. When you balance the books, investing in conservation makes sense, as it will ultimately affect national economies. So investing in natural assets will greatly support the GDPs of our countries and the livelihoods of our people.

IPS: Can you share examples of models that governments should be using to support protection of biodiversity as well as community-led conservation initiatives?

Anukur: There have been good examples in Namibia, Zimbabwe, and Kenya, among other countries, which have been able to demonstrate that community-led conservation can generate not only ecological recoveries but also economic returns.

But the key thing with these models is that you need to secure the land rights, make sure that there is accountable governance, and that revenue flows directly to communities. There is also a need to have partnerships with multi-stakeholders, especially the ethical private sector.

IPS: Tools like the IUCN Red List and Green List provide data on species and protected areas. How can governments better use these frameworks to move beyond reactive conservation decisions toward long-term, evidence-based policies?

Anukur: IUCN has got quite a number of tools; we have the red list of species, which basically looks at extinction risk, but we also have the green list, which looks at how effectively we manage our ecosystems. Governments have extensively used these tools as reference documents.

However, we would want to see these tools being used to build evidence for planning. This is because when you plan well, then you are able to avert risks. For instance, you need these tools to plan roads, infrastructure, agriculture, and mining.

IPS: Many African governments face pressure to expand infrastructure, agriculture, and extractive industries. What strategies can realistically balance economic development with ecosystem protection, especially for communities living closest to nature?

Anukur: There has been a big debate for a very long time about whether Africa should prioritise development or whether it should be conservation. But that debate is now very old. What we are focusing on is moving from extractive growth to generative growth. We also need to balance everything. For example, you can do agriculture but ensure that you have healthy soils. You can do energy transition in a manner that is not degrading to the environment. Or even create infrastructure that avoids critical ecosystems.

The most important thing is that there should be cross-sectoral collaboration. We have seen environmental and conservation issues treated as an afterthought. We would want the environment to be right at the centre of budget projections, as well; communities should also be brought to the centre for people to benefit from natural assets.

IPS: As we celebrate World Wildlife Day, what message would you give to African governments regarding the conservation of biodiversity?

Anukur: This time is an opportune moment when the world is changing. At the moment we have a lot of geopolitical change. We also do have a lot of geo-economic change. If Africa is to look at itself, the biggest asset is already what we have. The continent is viewed as poor, but the truth is that Africa is not poor. All we need is to connect with our natural assets and use them for development.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

By Kester Kenn Klomegah
MOSCOW, Feb 24 2026 (IPS)

Despite consistent criticisms over its operations down the years, Russia still finds it difficult to leave the World Trade Organization (WTO), and instead assessing the opportunities and broad benefits of membership. WTO is not just an organization, but a multilateral bridge for strategic trade engagement and securing results-oriented partnerships. Certainly, unlocking and accelerating trade initiatives should be the key focus in the changing world.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk underscored the importance of the work of the WTO, which regulates global trade, further suggested optimizing its operations. Some experts believe the WTO has effectively been paralyzed due to conditions created by the current geopolitical shifts from United States power dominance and its tariffs policy, to the emerging multipolar architecture.

In his view, this reason is driving the current changes as well as “the desire of specific countries, business groups, and companies to establish control, including over deposits of critical minerals, and new transport and logistics routes that ensure the delivery of resources and goods necessary for the functioning of economies.”

“Because whoever succeeds in doing this will secure a leadership position in the world with a new socio-economic order, and, consequently, will create better conditions for the emergence of new enterprises, new jobs, new sources of income for individuals and legal entities, new sources of budget revenue, and, ultimately, of course, a better standard of living for their own population,” Overchuk said, at the forum “Architecture of the Future: Russian Business in Key Multilateral Platforms.”

In his opinion, sanctions, tariff and non-tariff restrictions are playing an increasingly important role in international economic relations, and Western countries are using instruments of unfair competition. Experts believe that Russia has not received substantial economic benefits from its WTO membership.

Now, the world is moving away from globalization altogether, with many countries introducing ever more restrictive measures based solely on their own interests, disregarding international rules.

Experts agree that the WTO crisis is part of a broader process of transformation of the global economy. In a mid-February Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Pavel Seleznev, faculty dean at the Russian Financial University, pointed to the “erosion of international law” and the transition to a model based on “might makes right” and bilateral agreements. According to him, the world is shifting away from multilateral mechanisms toward agreements concluded outside the framework of international institutions.

Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s Customs Policy Council Chairman, Georgy Petrov, however described what is happening as a “phase change”: classical globalization is giving way to regionalization, where trade flows and rules are concentrated within macro-regions and political decisions become the basis of economic policy, rather than the other way around.

In practice, this manifests as a sharp increase in restrictive measures. Dmitry Krasnov, managing director of the Rexoft Consulting Competence Center in Agriculture, also noted that participants in international trade are increasingly introducing unilateral steps that contradict established multilateral rules.

Meanwhile, the assessment of Russia’s WTO membership remains mixed. According to Krasnov, the organization provided “leverage for predictability”: multilateral commitments on tariff and non-tariff policies created a clear framework for the state and businesses, reduced arbitrary barriers, and provided opportunities for arbitration.

Petrov recalled that “the main tariff positions were fixed,” and entrepreneurs understood the limits of rate changes. This made customs and tariff policy more stable.

The reduction in tariffs provided for in the accession terms also had a dual effect. In Russia, some industries faced increased competition due to reduced protectionism upon accession to the WTO. According to Petrov, many manufacturers felt the need to produce higher-quality, more competitive products, which was a positive development.

Pavel Seleznev, faculty dean at the Russian Financial University, on the other hand, believes that Russia has not gained any significant economic benefits from its membership. However, even in the current situation, maintaining its membership status allows Russia to continue engaging in dialogue and expressing its views, even with unfriendly countries.

Russia remains the member of the WTO and views its norms as fair and useful but the issue of keeping membership in conditions of sanctions pressure is not a simple one, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, on February 11, in the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament.

Moscow believes it is necessary to revive the WTO as the sole recognized regulator of multilateral trade. “The issue is difficult and is under control with us and with the economic bloc of the government,” Lavrov said. “The WTO is experiencing crisis at present, just as the Bretton-Woods System on the whole,” he noted.

WTO principles and norms “are clearly established in agreements governing our trade relations with the overwhelming majority of countries of the world, including the global majority countries accounting for more than 70% of the Russian trade turnover,” the top Russian diplomat said. “One more circumstance that cannot be ignored is that the entire legal system of the Eurasian Economic Union rests on these WTO norms,” he noted.

The G20 Summit held on November 22-23 in Johannesburg, at the initiative of South African President, Cyril Ramaphosa, the joint declaration which was adopted, called for major reforms and stabilization of the global economy in 2026. “We recognize that meaningful, necessary and comprehensive reform of the WTO is essential to improve its functions so that it is better suited to advance all Members’ objectives,” the declaration read.

At the same time, G20 leaders emphasized its importance as an instrument for resolving trade disputes between countries. “We will strive to ensure that the benefits of trade reach all segments of society and that all people have the opportunity to benefit from trade,” the document reads.

In summary, the collective declaration advocated also for the swift implementation of the agreements reached within G20 to strengthen the role of countries from the Global South and East in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB), taking into account their real weight in global economy. It is also important to revive the WTO as the sole recognized regulator of multilateral trade.

Russia joined the WTO in April 2011 after almost 18 years of persistent struggle and several negotiations, and adopting consistent efforts to meet the stringent membership requirements. It is the only international body now supervising world trade.

WTO has 153 members, and negotiations on the admission of a new member are held within a working group that unites countries that have unsettled trade problems with the candidate. It was established on January 1, 1995, as the successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) that had been operating since 1947.

Kester Kenn Klomegah focuses on current geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development-related questions in Africa with external countries. Most of his well-resourced articles are reprinted in several reputable foreign media.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Nature-positive business operations can contribute to both business success and the environment, according to IPBES’ Business Biodiversity Assessment. Credit: iStock/IPBES

By Busani Bafana
BULAWAYO, Zimbabwe & MANCHESTER, United Kingdom, Feb 9 2026 (IPS)

Business can still remain profitable while protecting the environment but invest in nature-positive operations, says a landmark report by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which finds that global companies have contributed to the escalating loss of biodiversity.

The IPBES Methodological Assessment Report on the Impact and Dependence of Business on Biodiversity and Nature’s Contributions to People, known as the Business and Biodiversity Report, says global business has benefited from nature but has immensely contributed to the decline in biodiversity. It is time it changes how it does business because biodiversity decline is a “critical systemic risk threatening the economy, financial stability, and human well-being.”

The global economy, driven by business, is dependent on healthy biodiversity and nature for materials, climate regulation, clean water, and pollination. However, the current economic system treats nature as free and infinite, creating perverse incentives for its exploitation. Businesses are largely rewarded for short-term profit, even when their activities degrade the natural systems they rely on, creating a huge risk to the economy and society, the report said.

The cover of the Business and Biodiversity Report. Credit: IPBES

It Must Be Business Unusual Now

Approved at the recent 12th session of the IPBES Plenary, held in Manchester, United Kingdom, the report calls for the end of business as usual. Global businesses, heavily dependent on nature and impacted by nature, must quickly change their operations or face collapse.

“Businesses and other key actors can either lead the way towards a more sustainable global economy or ultimately risk extinction… both of species in nature but potentially also their own,” noted the report.

Based on thousands of sources and prepared over three years by 79 leading experts from 35 countries from all regions of the world, the report is the first assessment of the impacts and dependencies of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.

Current conditions perpetuate business as usual and do not support the transformative change necessary to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, said the report, pointing out that large subsidies that drive biodiversity losses are directed to business activities with the support of businesses and trade associations.

For example, in 2023, global public and private finance flows with directly negative impacts on nature were estimated at USD 7.3 trillion. Of this amount, private finance accounted for USD 4.9 trillion, with public spending on environmentally harmful subsidies at about USD 2.4 trillion, the report said.

In contrast, USD 220 billion in public and private finance flows were directed to activities contributing to the conservation and restoration of biodiversity, representing just 3 percent of the public funds and incentives that encourage harmful business behaviour or prevent behaviour beneficial to biodiversity.

The new report shows that business as usual is not inevitable – with the right policies, as well as financial and cultural shifts, what is good for nature is also what is best for profitability, said Prof. Stephen Polasky, co-chair of the assessment, who highlighted that the loss of biodiversity was among the most serious threats to business.

“Business as usual may once have seemed profitable in the short term, but impacts across multiple businesses can have cumulative effects, aggregating to global impacts, which can cross ecological tipping points,” Polasky said.

Polasky said during a press briefing today (February 9, 2026) that business can immediately act without waiting for governments to create an enabling environment. They can measure their impact and dependencies by increasing the efficiencies of their operation, reducing waste and understanding new business opportunities and products.

A 2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by IPBES warned that one million species face extinction in the next few years as a result of overexploitation of resources, development, and other human activities, posing serious consequences for people and the planet.

Global business, which turns profits from nature, has contributed to the loss of biodiversity as a result of poor production practices that have poisoned river systems, emitted dangerous high greenhouse gases and led to land degradation. This is despite business being affected by natural disasters, from extreme weather floods and droughts to climate change.

The report is the latest assessment by IPBES, an independent intergovernmental body comprising more than 150 member governments. IPBES, often described as the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) for biodiversity, provides policymakers with objective scientific assessments about the state of knowledge regarding the planet’s biodiversity, ecosystems and the contributions they make to people.

IPBES Chair, David Oburo,  said the assessments done by IPBES are balanced by the knowledge systems needed to integrate information business and its impacts and dependencies on biodiversity.

He said there is a need to move away from the scientific language often used in talking about impacts and dependencies of businesses to simplifying it to be about risks and opportunities “so that the messaging that comes out from our assessments is really accessible to the audience that needs to access that information.”

The IPBES methodological assessment report warned that the current system was broken because what is profitable for businesses often results in loss of biodiversity.

A Peruvian indigenous Quechua woman weaving a textile with the traditional techniques in Cusco, Peru. The IPBES Business and Biodiversity Report suggests business should integrate Indigenous knowledge into their operations. Credit: iStock/IPBES

IPBES Executive Secretary, Luthando Dziba, said nature was everybody’s business. The conservation and restorative use of biodiversity is central to business success. Although businesses have contributed to innovations that have driven improvement of living standards, that same success had come at the cost of biodiversity.

An Enabling Environment Is Good for Biodiversity

The report offers a key solution of creating a new “enabling environment” where what is profitable for business aligns with what is good for biodiversity and society. Current conditions — laws, financial systems, corporate reporting rules, and cultural norms — do not reward businesses for protecting nature.

There are many barriers to protecting nature, such as the focus on short-term profits versus long-term ecological cycles. In addition, there is a lack of mandatory disclosure and accountability for environmental impacts, inadequate data, metrics, and capacity within the business community, as well as the failure to integrate Indigenous and local knowledge in biodiversity protection.

The creation of an enabling environment needs coordinated action policy and legal frameworks where governments should integrate biodiversity into all trade and sectoral policies. Besides, there is a need to redirect the USD 7.3 trillion in harmful flows using taxes, green bonds, and sustainability-linked loans to reward positive action.

Businesses must engage with Indigenous Peoples and local communities with Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), while access to and sharing of location-specific data on business activities and biodiversity should be improved.  Leverage technology such as remote sensing and artificial intelligence for better monitoring and traceability across business supply chains.

Measure It to Manage It

Another key finding of the report is that business could improve the measurement and management of its impacts and dependencies on nature through appropriate engagement with science and Indigenous and local knowledge.

Assessment co-chair Prof. Ximena Rueda noted that data and knowledge are often siloed, as scientific literature was not written for businesses. Besides, a lack of translation and attention to the needs of business has slowed uptake of scientific findings.

“Among business there is also often limited understanding and recognition of Indigenous Peoples and local communities as stewards of biodiversity and, therefore, holders of knowledge on its conservation, restoration and sustainable use,” said Rueda in a statement.

Industrial development threatens 60 percent of Indigenous lands around the world, and a quarter of all Indigenous territories are under high pressure from resource exploitation. However, Indigenous Peoples and local communities often find themselves inadequately represented in business research and decision-making, said the report.

Commenting on the report, Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), noted that while all businesses depend on nature, some were more exposed to risks stemming from resource depletion and environmental degradation. She said companies need a deeper understanding of the breadth of their dependencies and impacts on biodiversity to act better.

“In too many boardrooms and offices around the world, there is still a dearth of awareness of biodiversity protection as a business investment,” said Schomaker in a statement. “Too often, public policy still incentivises behaviour that drives biodiversity loss.”

While Alexander De Croo, Administrator, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), said too often biodiversity is an invisible and expendable asset on a balance sheet of global companies, but that was changing.

“Awareness is now accelerating of the risks to development if biodiversity fails—and of the economic opportunities and future prosperity that emerge where it thrives,” De Croo said.

The report underscored that we cannot business-as-usual our way out of the biodiversity crisis. Governments need to stop incentivising the destruction of biodiversity and start rewarding environmental stewardship. Besides, business leaders should now integrate natural capital accounting into their business strategy to disclose their environmental footprint while contributing to a positive global economy.

The evidence is clear: our economic prosperity is inextricably linked to nature’s health, and we are severing that vital link at our peril.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

UN Secretary-General António Guterres (left), is participating in a meeting with the Heads of State and Government of the European Union in Brussels, Belgium. Credit: UNRIC/Miranda Alexander-Webber Source: UN News

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Feb 5 2026 (IPS)

Will trade be enough to navigate the current waves of chaos and disorder that are underpinning the ongoing rifts among competing powerful and hegemon nations and the rest?

Amid tectonic shifts in the realm of geopolitics and international relations, amid what the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently defined as a “rupture” in the rules-based multilateral order, trading is seen almost as a panacea.

Yet are we really sure that new and alternative trading partnerships like the ones the European Union has signed with the Mercosur and India are the only ways to cope with an increasingly unpredictable American administration and an over confident and more ambitious China?

Mark Carney in his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos a few weeks ago offered a blueprint for middle powers like Canada on how they can become less dependent on big hegemon powers.

While he was tacitly describing a tactic to tackle a bossy, unpredictable and more and more authoritarian president south to the border, Mr. Carney provided a foundational framework on how countries like Canada can leverage its natural resources and bet big on the power of trade with alternative markets.

No one doubts that trade can open valuable new options for established economies as well for new emerging ones like India.

The EU has also pivoted to this realm, using new commercial deals as a way to strengthen its own resilience and boost its economy while having no other options than maintaining a good relationship with the USA. But a playbook entirely focused on trade will also hit the wall.

While useful in the short term to escape from or at least try dodging expansionist maneuverings from Washington or Beijing, trade has limitations as well. A comprehensive and long-term response to these new difficult emerging circumstances cannot but be political.

Trade should be seen as a part of a broader toolkit of policies centered on nations committing themselves to invest more on regional projects of cooperation with other nations.

Strengthening political ties among neighboring nations through enhanced economic partnerships could offer the initial impetus to a new form of international regionalism.

Yet nations, while capitalizing on the economic dimensions of their bilateral relationships, should also be powered by a bolder, wider and importantly, more inspiring design.

The need for initiatives that, by intent, go beyond economics while dealing with other nations, would provide the space to imagine new political entities that could get respected and even compete with the existing hegemonic powers.

Imagine how trade and economics was underpinning and turbocharging the project of regional cooperation in post second world war Europe.

With the time, what was a mere economic association, a successful story of cooperation among equals , the European Economic Community turned into something more visionary and braver, a project of regional integration.

As we know from the recent episodes of confrontations generated across the Atlantic that humiliated and defamed Europe, this project is far from being accomplished.

Capitals from around the world, in the Global South and Global North alike, need to understand one thing: only the pursuit of a wider vision with multiple and complementary elements of integration that transcend economy, can offer them the safest route to be able to remain independent.

The building of regional cooperation frameworks, think of Association of South East Asian Nations or the Southern Africa Development Community, can offer a pathway to uphold their members’ internal legitimacy among the citizens while at the same time, cementing their power in the realm of international relations.

Yet the lesson from Europe is clear: economic cooperation and even economic based integration can only go so far.

Only an unequivocal support for more audacious projects can provide states with the leverage needed to deal with few but unrestrained hegemonic powers like China and Russia but also the USA with the second Trump administration.

As difficult and daunting as it is, only regional integration can offer nations a degree of collective power that will earn them some decent amounts of respect. Unfortunately, even regional cooperation is in shambles.

The Southern Common Market or Mercosur despite hitting the headlines with the recent signing of a trade agreement with the EU, (an agreement that the European Parliament, the semi-legislative chamber of the EU, “paralyzed” it with a vote to deferring its legality to the European Court of Justice) is nowhere resembling a politically integrated body of nations.

Who remembers the existence of the Union of South American Nations or UNASUR? Even ASEAN, seen as a model of regional cooperation, is at risk of losing its credibility with its famed “centrality” being put in question.

In Africa, the potential of SADC has evaporated while the most promising and bold attempt of building a political union, the East African Community (EAC) that was supposed to transform itself into a real federation, the East African Federation, also lost considerable steam.

Thanks to Mr. Trump’s ego and dramas stemming from it, the EU is now forced to reconsider its current trajectory of regional integration.

At this current pace and course, the EU will never be able to stand its ground and remain united and cohesive in tackling both overt and veiled threats and blackmails from the hegemonic powers vying to dominate the world.

The EU must be able to project power beyond its economic realm as Mario Draghi, the former Italian Prime Minister and President of the European Central Bank recently shared at the KU Leuven University in Belgium.

“Power requires Europe to move from confederation to federation” because as things stand now, Europe cannot even imagine to be able to survive as it is now.

“ “This is a future in which Europe risks becoming subordinated, divided and de-industrialized at once, and a Europe that cannot defend its interests will not preserve its values for longer.”

Mr Carney, the Canadian Prime Minister, should be praised for mincing no words in Davos. But rupture in the current multilateral order cannot be fixed with band aid solutions.

As much as important trade remains, it is going to be delusional to believe that, alone, it can do the job, in sewing and patching up the rupture that has been created and offer a very potent but still incomplete solution for nations.

We need initiatives that, by design, are fit to build political projects that, while start with nation states at the center, are able to envision, in a not too far horizon, a much more daring political project.

Brussels, as the de facto capital of the EU, could again provide a blueprint for this quantum jump towards a new phase of the European political project that can finally pursue deeper forms of union that, inescapably, would embrace federalism.

After all, the best way to preserve a nation’s standing is to invest in new forms of shared sovereignty.

This should not be a priority only for middle powers like Canada or the members of the EU. Even developing nations must come to terms with this new order and understand that their survival will be only guaranteed through ambitious initiatives of regional cooperation that have only the sky as the limit.

Unfortunately for Mr Carney and Canada, geography is unforgiving.

Who knows, perhaps we could imagine what are now unimaginable ties that would perpetually bind Ottawa with Europe or Mexico and the Caribbean.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

David Oburo, IPBES Chair. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

By Busani Bafana
BULAWAYO, Feb 3 2026 (IPS)

British Monarch King Charles says science is the solution to protecting nature and halting global biodiversity loss, which is threatening humanity’s survival.

In a message to the 12th session of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which opened in Manchester, United Kingdom, this week, King Charles said nature is an important part of humanity but is under serious threat, which science can help tackle.

“We are witnessing an unprecedented, triple crisis of biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution at a pace that far outstrips the planet’s ability to cope,” said King Charles in a message delivered by Emma Reynolds, United Kingdom Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Science is the Solution

“The best available science can help inform decisions and actions to steward nature and, most importantly, to restore it for future generations, “ King Charles noted, pointing out that humanity has the knowledge to reverse the existential crisis and transition towards an economy that prospers in harmony with nature.

Delegates representing the more than 150 IPBES member governments, observers, Indigenous Peoples,  local communities and scientists are meeting for the  IPBES’ 12th Session, expected to approve a landmark new IPBES Business & Biodiversity Assessment. The report,  a 3-year scientific assessment involving 80 expert authors from every region of the world, will become the accepted state of science on the impacts and dependencies of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. It will provide decision-makers with evidence and options for action to measure and better manage business relationships with nature.

The King lauded IPBES for bringing together the world’s leading scientists, indigenous and local knowledge, citizen science and government to share valuable knowledge through the Business and Biodiversity Report—the first of its kind.

“I pray with all my heart that it will help shape concrete action for years to come, including leveraging public and private finance to close by 2030 the annual global biodiversity gap of approximately USD 700 billion,” said King Charles.

IPBES Chair, Dr. David Obura, highlighted that the approval of the IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment is important just days after the World Economic Forum’s 2026 Global Risks Report again spotlighted biodiversity loss as the second most urgent long-term risk to business around the world.

“In transitioning and transforming, businesses should all experience the rewards of being sustainable and vibrant, benefiting small and large,” Obura emphasized. “The Business Biodiversity assessment synthesizes the many tools and pathways available to do this and provides critical support for businesses across all countries to work with nature and people and not to work against either or both.”

Addressing the same delegates, Emma Reynolds,  UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, highlighted the urgency of collective action, the critical role of science, and the opportunities for business in nature.

Reynolds noted there was momentum around the world as countries were restoring wetlands and forests, communities were reviving degraded landscapes and businesses were increasingly investing in nature after realizing that nature delivers real returns.

“The tide for nature is beginning to turn, but we cannot afford to slow down,” said Reynolds. “The window to halt diversity loss by 2030 is narrowing. We need to build on that momentum, and we need to do it now.”

Multilateralism, a must for protecting nature

Paying tribute to IPBES for supporting scientific research, Reynolds emphasized that the rest of the world must step forward when others are stepping back from international cooperation. This is to demonstrate that protecting and restoring nature was not just an environmental necessity but essential for global security and the economy.

“The UK’s commitment to multilateralism remains steadfast,” she said. “We believe that by working together, sharing knowledge, aligning policies, and holding one another accountable, we can halt and reverse the diversity loss by 2030,.“

In January 2026, the United States withdrew its participation in IPBES, alongside 65  international organizations and bodies, including the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement.

The United States was a founding member of IPBES, and since its establishment in 2012, scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders—including Indigenous Peoples and local communities—from the United States have been among the most engaged contributors to its work.

The approval of the Business and Biodiversity Assessment by IPBES government members this week will be multilateralism in action, she said, noting that the assessment would not be possible without the critical role of science.

Reynolds underscored the need to base sound policy on solid scientific evidence. Decisions made in negotiating rooms and capitals around the world must be guided by the best and most up-to-date science available. IPBES  exists to provide exactly that.

Noting that the business depends on nature for raw materials, clean water, a stable climate, and food, Reynolds said companies that recognize their dependency on nature are proving that nature-positive investment works.

“Business as well as the government must act now to protect and restore nature… we have the science. We have the frameworks… What we need now is action.”

“Nature loss is now a systemic economic risk. That’s precisely why the assessment on business impact and dependencies is both urgent and necessary,” said  Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

“The first-ever business and diversity assessment will deliver authoritative evidence on how businesses depend on nature, how they impact it, and what that means for risk, for resilience, and for long-term value creation.”

Business and Biodiversity are linked

Underscoring that biodiversity loss is linked to the wider planetary crisis, Astrid Schomaker, executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, paid tribute to IPBES as a provider of science as a public good.

“IPBES has remained a  ‘beacon of knowledge at a time when science  and knowledge itself is under strain and when the voices of disinformation are sometimes louder than the facts,” said Schomaker, noting that ahead of the first global stocktake of progress in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), the science provided by IPBES would be invaluable.

“The Business and Biodiversity assessment constitutes a win for everyone. Clarifying that biodiversity loss isn’t just an environmental issue; it’s a serious threat to economic systems, livelihoods, business profitability, and societal resilience. Biodiversity simply underpins and provides the stability we all need.”

Target 15 of the KMGBF, focuses on business reducing negative impacts on biodiversity and global businesses need to assess and disclose biodiversity-related impacts.

IPBES executive secretary, Dr. Luthando Dziba, said IPBES was on track to deliver, in the coming years, crucial knowledge and inspiration to support the implementation of current goals and targets of the KMGBF, and to provide the scientific foundation needed by the many processes now shaping the global agenda beyond 2030.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Jewel City, a newly developed mixed-use precinct situated in the heart of the Johannesburg CBD is meant to create a safe, green and energetic place for people in the city. Credit: Gulshan Khan / Climate Visuals

By Busani Bafana
BULAWAYO, Zimbabwe, Feb 3 2026 (IPS)

Our food, fuel, and fortunes come from nature, but as these resources are turned into profits, the balance between exploiting and replenishing the planet is ever more precarious.

Global businesses impact nature through mining, manufacturing, processing and retail operations. At the same time, nature impacts business operations because there is a loss of biodiversity and extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and high temperatures.

How global business is affecting nature and vice versa is the focus of a new assessment by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to be launched next week as part of the 12th session of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

IPBES is the global science-policy body tasked with providing the best-available evidence to decision-makers for people and nature. IPBES assessment reports respond directly to requests from governments and decision-makers, making them immediately relevant around the world.

The plenary session got underway earlier today (February 3, 2026) with a keynote address from Emma Reynolds, MP, UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and remarks by Astrid Schomaker, executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity; Kaveh Zahedi, FAO director of the Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment; IPBES chair Dr. David Obura; and IPBES executive secretary Dr. Luthando Dziba.

“This week you will work to agree on the business and biodiversity assessment; I pray with all my heart that it will help shape concrete action for years to come, including leveraging public and private sector finance,” King Charles said.

Reynolds sounded an optimistic note.

“Around the world, momentum is building. Countries are restoring wetlands and forests. Communities are reviving degraded landscapes. Businesses are discovering that investing in nature delivers real returns. The tide for nature is beginning to turn. But we cannot afford to slow down. The window to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 is narrowing. We need to build on that momentum—and we need to do it now. That is why platforms like IPBES matter more than ever. At a time when some are stepping back from international cooperation, the rest of us must step forward. Together we will demonstrate that protecting and restoring nature isn’t just an environmental necessity; it’s essential for our security, our economy, and our future.”

Obura said the plenary in Manchester was symbolic, as it had been at the forefront of historical and business transformation.

“This is especially important just days after the World Economic Forum’s 2026 Global Risks Report again spotlighted biodiversity loss as the second most urgent long-term risk to business around the world.”

Dziba said IPBES was on course.

“IPBES is therefore on track to deliver—over the coming years—crucial knowledge and inspiration to support the implementation of current goals and targets and to provide the scientific foundation needed by the many processes now shaping the global agenda beyond 2030.”

Professor Ximena Rueda-Fajardo, Co-chair of the BizBiodiversity Assessment. Credit: IPBES

The Business and Biodiversity Assessment report, the first of its kind, presents scientific evidence on how global business depends on and affects nature. Aimed at governments, businesses, financial institutions, civil society, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities, the assessment will provide key insights and options for businesses and financial institutions to derive better outcomes for biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.

After three years of work by 80 of the world’s leading experts from science, the private sector, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities across 35 countries, the assessment will help promote business accountability and transparency while improving producer and consumer knowledge of their impacts and dependencies on nature. The Business and Biodiversity Assessment was completed in a shorter time than other IPBES assessments, which typically cover four years. It was completed in two years at a total cost of more than USD 1.5 million.

Why the Assessment on Business and Biodiversity?

The assessment comes at a time scientists are warning of a climate crisis, as we are off track to reducing carbon emissions and slow progress on phasing out fossil fuels. Global business has a complex link with nature, which provides resources that drive industry, yet nature  impacts global business too.

Speaking to IPBES’s Nature Insight Speed Dating with the Future podcast, co-chair of the IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment, Professor Ximena Rueda Fajardo, says engaging with nature is not a business option but a necessity.

“Businesses are both beneficiaries of nature and major contributors to its decline—so they have a critical role in ensuring the wise stewardship of our environment,” says Fajardo, adding that, “This is vital for their bottom line, long-term prosperity and the transformative change needed for more just and sustainable futures.”

IPBES highlights that over half of global GDP (USD 117 trillion of economic activity in 2025) is generated in sectors that are moderately to highly dependent on nature.

Matt Jones, chief impact officer at the UN Environment Programme’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre and co-chair of the report. Credit: Anastasia Rodopoulou ENB/IISD

Business and nature depend on each other. However, there are opposing views between those who advocate for nature and those involved in business on the relationship between the two. But science has found that there are interdependent linkages between nature and business.

More than half of the global economy is dependent on nature through the goods and services it provides, known as ecosystem services.

According to the World Economic Forum, biodiversity is shrinking faster than at any point in human history, and if left unchecked, up to 50 percent of all species may be lost by mid-century. In the last 50 years, land and sea-use change, climate change, natural resource use and exploitation, pollution and invasive alien species have been the major drivers of over 90 percent of the loss of biodiversity.

While it is difficult to quantify ecosystem services like food, medicines, clean air, disease control and climate regulation, they are estimated to be worth more than USD 150 trillion a year. Conservative estimates suggest that the loss of nature could cost the global economy at least USD 479 billion per year by 2050.

The Nature of Business Is Not Always Nature Friendly

Business operations have had a profound impact on nature, from pollution of the environment to waste and loss of biodiversity as a result of manufacturing and processing activities. What’s more, the current use of fossil fuels in powering industries has contributed to the rise in carbon emissions. Should businesses be adopting a new economic model that protects and preserves nature?

The rapid expansion of economic activity, without proper attention to its negative side effects, has taken its toll on nature, which in turn poses serious threats to business, IPBES found.

Engaging with nature is not optional for business but a necessity, says  Ximena Rueda, Co-chair of the IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment Fajardo and Professor at the School of Management at Universidad de los Andes in Colombia.

“Businesses are both beneficiaries of nature and major contributors to its decline—so they have a critical role in ensuring the wise stewardship of our environment,” says Fajardo, adding that, “This is vital for their bottom line, long-term prosperity and the transformative change needed for more just and sustainable futures.”

A Map for Business To Impact Biodiversity and Nature

The IPBES methodological assessment of the impact and dependence of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people is expected to be approved at the 12th session of the IPBES Plenary, which opened in Manchester, United Kingdom, this week.

According to IPBES, the assessment categorizes dependencies and impacts of businesses and financial institutions on biodiversity and  nature’s contributions to people. The assessment will further highlight collaborations needed between governments, the financial sector, consumers, Indigenous Peoples, local communities and civil society. It will also, through recommendations, strengthen efforts by businesses to achieve the goals and targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework by 2030 and the global vision of a world living in harmony with nature by 2050.

Expected Impacts

The IPBES Business and Biodiversity Report will provide critical information to governments, businesses and the financial sector to best measure the dependencies and impacts of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. It will also inform more integrated business and financial decisions and actions to simultaneously achieve the SDGs, the Global Biodiversity Framework and the Paris Agreement

Matt Jones, chief impact officer at the UN Environment Programme’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre and co-chair of the report, is convinced that there is no business that doesn’t depend on biodiversity. For example, do hairdressers depend on biodiversity?

“There are so many personal care products. There are so many things to do with shampoos that are derived from botanicals, which are derived from the natural world. A huge amount of their value chain is actually contingent on people being able to access products that are naturally derived. Think about it. You look at the adverts for these products. How often are they somebody in a waterfall or somebody in a forest… So even a hairdresser, where you go to get your haircut, absolutely depends on nature.”

Jones notes that the economic system encourages businesses to extract resources from nature. It is almost by default that business will have an impact on nature.

“As soon as you start talking about nature loss and the dependency that businesses have, the conversation changes,” he said. “What we found after people started understanding the risk to the business from nature loss was actually that the level of the conversation fundamentally changed. A business doesn’t just impact nature, but it depends on it.”

“And those interactions, they all create risk to the business if we see nature continuing to decline.”

Conservative estimates suggest that a collapse of essential ecosystem services, including pollination, marine fisheries and timber provision in native forests, could result in annual losses to the global GDP of USD 2.7 trillion by 2030. Similarly, biodiversity loss is believed to be costing the global economy 10 percent of its output annually.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report,

Two men at a pond wash and bathe in the shadow of wind energy in West Bengal Country, India. Credit: Climate Visuals

By Umar Manzoor Shah
NAIROBI & SRINAGAR, India, Jan 22 2026 (IPS)

The world is pouring trillions of dollars each year into activities that destroy nature while investing only a fraction of that amount in protecting and restoring the ecosystems on which economies depend, according to a new United Nations report released on January 22.

The State of Finance for Nature 2026 report by the United Nations Environment Programme finds that finance flows directly harmful to nature reached USD 7.3 trillion in 2023. By contrast, investment in nature-based solutions amounted to just USD 220 billion in the same year. The imbalance means that for every dollar invested in protecting nature, more than USD 30 is spent degrading it.

“Globally, finance flows continue to be heavily skewed toward negative activities, which threaten ecosystems, economies and human well-being,” the report titled Nature in the red. Powering the trillion dollar nature transition economy says. Nearly half of global economic output depends moderately or highly on nature, yet current financial systems continue to erode what the authors describe as humanity’s collective nature bank account.

Nathalie Olsen of the Climate Finance Unit at UNEP  and the report’s lead author said that the barriers to reforming environmentally harmful subsidies are primarily political and structural, rather than economic.

“Our report identifies several key challenges in this regard. On the political front, entrenched interests pose a significant obstacle. Many harmful subsidies benefit powerful industries, such as fossil fuels and industrial agriculture, which actively resist change,” she said in an exclusive interview with IPS.

An ex-coal mine reworked as North Macedonia’s first large solar plant. Credit: WeBalkans EU/Climate Visuals

She added subsidy reform often leads to increased costs for consumers or producers in the short term, making such reforms politically unpopular, even when the long-term benefits are clear. Furthermore, many subsidies are deeply embedded within tax codes and budget structures, making them difficult to isolate and reform.

According to Olsen, structural challenges also play a crucial role. She says that the subsidies tend to create path dependency, establishing business models and infrastructure investments that lock in nature-negative practices.

“For instance, free or underpriced water can lead to the depletion of aquifers for irrigation, while fossil fuel subsidies artificially lower energy costs across the economy, including for products like fertilizers. Despite international commitments, such as the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) Target 18—which aims to reduce harmful incentives by at least USD 500 billion per year—implementation remains weak due to a lack of political will.”

Economically, however, the case for reform is strong, according to Olsen.  She says that reforming harmful subsidies would free up government resources for nature-positive investments and reduce economic risks.

“Currently, the USD 2.4 trillion in public environmentally harmful subsidies far exceeds the USD 220 billion invested in Nature-based Solutions.

Successful reform is feasible.

As highlighted in our Nature Transition X-Curve framework, it requires just transition strategies to support workers and businesses during the shift, clear communication about long-term economic benefits, concurrent investment in nature-positive alternatives, and gender-responsive approaches to ensure equitable outcomes,” She said.

Olsen  says that notable examples, such as Costa Rica’s fossil fuel levy financing reforestation and Denmark’s energy taxes supporting the transition to wind energy, demonstrate that reform is politically achievable when accompanied by visible investment in sustainable alternatives.

The report warns that business as usual will deepen ecosystem degradation and expose economies to rising risks. It argues that governments, businesses, consumers and investors still have the power to redirect capital flows and unlock resilience, equity and long-term growth if they act quickly.

In 2023, public and private finance that directly damaged nature totaled USD 7.3 trillion. About USD 2.4 trillion came from public sources, mostly in the form of subsidies that hurt the environment. These included USD 1.1 trillion for fossil fuels, about USD 400 billion each for agriculture and water use, and significant support for transport, construction and fisheries.

Private finance made up the larger share, at about USD 4.9 trillion. A small number of high-impact sectors received the majority of these flows. Utilities alone accounted for around USD 1.6 trillion, followed by industrials at USD 1.4 trillion, energy at about USD 700 billion and basic materials, including fertilizers and agricultural inputs, at a similar level.

The report notes that public subsidies and private investment often reinforce each other, locking capital into nature-negative sectors. Below-market prices for water, energy and other government-provided goods encourage overuse of natural resources and increase financial risks over time.

Against this backdrop, finance for nature-based solutions remains limited. Total global spending on nature-based solutions reached USD 220 billion in 2023, a modest five percent increase from the previous year. Public finance dominated, accounting for about USD 197 billion, or roughly 90 percent of the total.

Transition pathways to nature-positive outcomes. Credit: UNEP

“Our Nature Transition X-Curve framework shows these tools work best when deployed together—combining regulatory “push” (disclosure, subsidy phase-out) with financial “pull” (de-risking, incentives). Over 730 organizations representing $22.4 trillion in assets have adopted TNFD, showing willingness exists when clear frameworks are provided. The challenge isn’t lack of tools—it’s political will to deploy them at scale,” Olsen said.

Public domestic expenditure was the single largest source of funding, reaching USD 190 billion in 2023, as per the report. Spending on biodiversity and landscape protection grew by 11 percent, although support for agriculture, forestry and fisheries declined. Even so, public spending on nature-based solutions remains small compared to the more than USD 2 trillion governments spend each year on environmentally harmful subsidies.

Official Development Finance targeted at nature-based solutions reached USD 6.8 billion in 2023. This represented a 22 percent increase from 2022 and a 55 percent rise compared to 2015. The report describes development finance as a critical enabler for scaling nature-based solutions in developing countries, while warning that geopolitical pressures could constrain future budgets.

Private finance for nature-based solutions reached USD 23.4 billion in 2023. Although small in absolute terms, the report says these flows show positive momentum. Biodiversity offsets channelled more than USD 7 billion, certified commodity supply chains attracted over USD 4 billion, and biodiversity-related bonds and funds mobilized around USD 5 billion. Nature-based carbon markets accounted for about USD 1.3 billion.

“With the right enabling environment, standards and risk-sharing instruments, private capital could scale rapidly and become a game changer in closing the nature-based solutions finance gap,” the report says.

To meet global commitments under the three Rio Conventions on climate change, biodiversity, and land degradation, the report estimates that annual investment in nature-based solutions must rise to USD 571 billion by 2030. This would require a two-and-a-half-fold increase from current levels. The report projects that annual investment needs will reach approximately USD 771 billion by 2050.

The report frames investment in nature-based solutions as a form of essential maintenance for natural infrastructure. It highlights evidence that restoring degraded land can yield returns of between USD 7 and 30 for every dollar invested, if ecosystem services such as water regulation, soil fertility and disaster risk reduction are taken into account.

A review cited in the report found that in 65 percent of disaster risk reduction projects, nature-based solutions were more effective at reducing hazards than traditional engineering approaches. Floodable wetlands and permeable pavements in cities are two examples. They soak up stormwater and take some of the stress off drainage systems.

Despite these benefits, the authors contend that increasing investments in nature won’t suffice unless they eliminate harmful finance. Nature-negative finance, they say, remains the single biggest obstacle to a transition toward nature-positive outcomes.

The report introduces a new analytical framework called the Nature Transition X curve. The framework illustrates the dual challenge facing policymakers and investors. On one side, harmful activities and finance flows must be reduced and phased out. On the other hand, investment in nature-based solutions and other nature-positive activities must be scaled up rapidly.

Olsen said that the X-Curve is a diagnostic tool helping policymakers identify context-specific leverage points, sequence reforms to build political support, and ensure coherence between phasing out harmful finance and scaling up nature-positive alternatives.

“This is not just an environmental agenda but an economic transformation,” the report says. Redirecting harmful subsidies, integrating nature into fiscal frameworks and mobilizing private finance are described as central to building resilient and inclusive economies.

Olsen told IPS news that there is a need for a “Big Nature Turnaround” that repurposes trillions of dollars currently flowing into destructive activities. Key priorities include reforming environmentally harmful subsidies, aligning national budgets with biodiversity and climate targets, and mandating disclosure of nature-related risks and impacts.

More than 730 organizations have now adopted the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures framework, representing assets under management worth USD 22.4 trillion. According to the report, this growing awareness of nature-related financial risks is starting to influence corporate and investment decisions, although progress remains uneven.

The report also points to rising legal and regulatory pressures. In some jurisdictions, courts are increasingly questioning whether financial leaders are meeting their fiduciary duties if they ignore environmental risks. At the same time, the authors warn that regulatory rollbacks in other regions could create uncertainty and delay action.

While the scale of the challenge is daunting, the report strikes a cautiously optimistic tone. Better data, a clearer framework, and growing awareness are creating conditions for faster action. The transition to a nature-positive economy, the authors argue, could unlock a trillion-dollar nature transition economy across sectors ranging from food and agriculture to construction, energy and urban infrastructure.

“Turning the wheel towards nature-positive finance is essential,” the report concludes. Without a decisive shift in how money flows through the global economy, the gap between what nature needs and what it receives will continue to widen, with profound consequences for ecosystems, livelihoods and long-term economic stability.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

After condemning pragmatic responses to the 1997-98 Asian financial crises, the West pursued similar policies in response to the 2008 global financial crisis without acknowledging its own mistakes.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

US exports could barely compete internationally, particularly with Germany and Japan. During his first term, Trump initially pursued a strong dollar policy, which undermined exports and encouraged imports.

The September 1985 ‘Plaza Accord’ among the G7 grouping of the world’s largest economies, held at New York’s Plaza Hotel, agreed that the Japanese yen and the Deutsche mark must both appreciate sharply against the US dollar.

The ‘strong yen’ period, or endaka in Japanese, ensued for a decade until mid-1995. This made Japanese imports less competitive, enabling the Reagan era boom.

By accelerating reunification with the East and the new euro currency, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl prevented the mark strengthening as much as the yen.

Thus, Germany avoided the Japanese catastrophe after its decades-long post-war miracle ended abruptly with the disastrous 1989 Big Bang financial reforms.

Liberalising capital flows
As the IMF urged national authorities to abandon capital controls, East Asians borrowed dollars, expecting to repay later on better terms.

Meanwhile, the dollar only stopped weakening after the US allowed Japan to reverse yen appreciation in mid-1995.

Under Managing Director Michel Camdessus, the IMF began pushing capital account liberalisation. This contradicted the intent of the Fund’s sixth Article of Agreement, affirming national authorities’ right to manage their capital accounts.

Despite considerable evidence to the contrary, Camdessus’ IMF preached the ostensible virtues of capital account liberalisation.

East Asian emerging financial markets were initially delighted by the significant capital inflows before mid-1997. After the strong yen decade, the US dollar appreciated from mid-1995.

When financial inflows reversed after mid-1997, some East Asian monetary authorities were unable to cope and turned to the IMF for emergency funding .

Many paths to crises
The Asian financial crisis is typically dated from 2 July 1997, when the Thai baht was ‘floated’ and its value quickly fell without central bank support. The ensuing panic quickly spread like contagion across national boundaries via financial markets.

Financial investors – in Bangkok, Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, London and New York – hastily withdrew their funds, often mindlessly following perceived ‘market leaders’ without knowing why, like animal herds in panic.

Funds fled economies in the region, like frightened audiences in a dark theatre hearing a fire alarm. Capital even fled the Philippines, which had received little finance, because it was in Southeast Asia, the ‘wrong neighbourhood’.

After earlier celebrating Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand as ‘East Asian miracle’ economies, confidence in Southeast Asian investments fell suddenly.

Central banks in the region were sceptical of IMF prescriptions but believed they had little choice but to comply.

Press photographs showed Camdessus standing sternly, with arms folded like a displeased schoolmaster, over the Indonesian President bowing deeply to sign the IMF agreement.

This humiliating image probably expedited Soeharto’s shock resignation soon after, in mid-1998, over three decades after he seized power in a brutal military putsch in September 1965.

Following an earlier financial crisis, a 1989 Malaysian law had prohibited some risky banking and financial practices, but the authorities sought to attract foreign investments into its stock market.

Thailand had become vulnerable by allowing borrowers direct access to foreign banks through the Bangkok International Banking Facility and its provincial counterpart.

Debtors could thus bypass central bank regulation and supervision. The Thai currency float prompted massive funds outflows from the country.

As market confidence waned, funds fled Malaysia’s bourse, triggering a massive collapse in the currency’s value against the dollar, which had steadily weakened against the yen between 1985 and 1995.

Following massive capital outflows, Malaysia finally introduced capital controls on outflows from September 1998, fourteen months after the crisis began!

The controls enabled Malaysia to stabilise its currency and the economy temporarily, but also ended the earlier decade of accelerated industrialisation and growth.

Learning from experience
Rather than acknowledge and address the worsening problem due to earlier capital account liberalisation, the Fund made things worse with its prescriptions.

It insisted on keeping capital accounts open and raising interest rates to reverse outflows. This slowed economic growth as borrowing – and hence, both spending and investing – became more costly.

As investment and spending are necessary for economic growth, IMF prescriptions exacerbated the problems instead of providing a solution.

The East Asian financial crisis was undoubtedly avoidable. Experience has shown that financial markets and capital flows do not function as mainstream theories claim.

Thus, financial dogma and its influence on economic theory and policy obscured more realistic understanding of how markets actually operate and the ability to develop more pragmatic and appropriate policy alternatives.

History never fully repeats itself. But better policymaking for financial crisis avoidance and recovery will only emerge from more informed, historically grounded analysis.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

While US President Donald Trump has blamed the BRICS and foreign investors for de-dollarisation, his rhetoric, actions and policy measures are mainly responsible for the trend’s recent acceleration.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Despite some temporary reversals, the dollar’s post-World War II role as world reserve currency has gradually declined over the decades, especially since the 1970s. Ben Norton has argued that several Trump measures have accelerated this trend.

Trump claims his supposedly ‘reciprocal tariffs’ will reduce the US trade or current account deficit with the rest of the world. But if countries cannot export to the US, they cannot earn dollars to meet their trade and investment needs.

Many believe Trump’s tariffs and other threats are enhancing US leverage vis-à-vis others, but their reactions, including defensive countermeasures, are accelerating de-dollarisation.

Trump’s measures, such as his insistence on bilateral negotiations, have alarmed most nations, including long-time allies. As nations, including allies, rethink their economic relations with and vulnerability to the US, de-dollarisation inadvertently accelerates.

Trump vs the Fed
The US Federal Reserve Bank’s overnight lending or funds rate has been higher since 2022, responding to higher consumer price inflation following the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

As the Fed raised interest rates, yields on US government debt rose. But Trump now wants the Fed to cut interest rates to reduce the high debt servicing costs of both the government and private corporations.

In 2024, the US federal government paid about 3% of GDP in debt interest alone. Although such debt exceeds 120% of GDP, debt service costs are deemed manageable as long as interest rates remain low.

Trump’s pressures on the Fed to cut interest rates have inadvertently undermined investor confidence and prompted ‘flights [from dollar assets] to safety’.

Trump’s recent campaign against his earlier Fed chair appointee, Jerome Powell, has inadvertently raised investor concerns about his espoused monetary policy priorities.

Inflation fears persist
Investors now worry that Trump is pressuring the Fed to cut interest rates. They believe this will stoke inflation and cause the dollar to fall against other major currencies. As Trump is seen forcing down interest rates, he risks being blamed for persistent inflation.

If the Fed buys US Treasuries to reduce yields, for a new round of ‘quantitative easing’ (QE), dollar asset investments will realise lower, if not negative, real yields.

Although inflation hawks’ worst fears of higher inflation have not materialised so far, few believe tariffs will not raise inflation.

Expecting Trump 2.0 to impose more tariffs, many US companies stockpiled imports before April 2. As tariffs took effect and stocks declined, prices rose.

Many investors have sold their dollar assets as monetary authorities worldwide seek alternatives to the greenback. Such sell-offs lower the dollar’s value, further spurring de-dollarisation.

Trump now wants to lower US Treasury bond yields as foreign governments and investors seek alternatives to holding dollar assets.

Many are considering switching to non-dollar assets despite stagnation tendencies elsewhere in the Global North, especially in Europe and Japan. If investors stop buying dollar assets or sell them to purchase non-dollar assets, de-dollarisation will gain momentum.

Foreign demand falling
Washington is understandably worried that foreign investors will dump Treasury securities. In 2015, a third was held by foreigners, but this has since fallen to under a quarter.

The ‘Mar-A-Lago Accord’ proposal, which requires foreign governments to hold US Treasury ‘century bonds’ for 100 years despite assured losses, will compound resentment.

Lowering Treasury bond yields is both risky and difficult due to the highly financialised US economy. Past bond market turmoil has triggered stock market selloffs, lowering Treasury yields, share prices and tax revenue.

Government and corporate borrowing costs rise together. As trillions of dollars’ worth of corporate bonds mature over the next two years, high interest rates will raise corporations’ borrowing costs. Many want to refinance at lower interest rates.

These efforts to bring down interest rates are apparent to all. But lower interest rates and negative ‘actual yields’ for Treasury securities will ensure high inflation persists.

De-dollarisation accelerating?
Trump’s actions, especially threats of tariffs and sanctions, have elicited diverse reactions, often undermining dollar hegemony and accelerating de-dollarisation.

Many recent developments have undermined public confidence in the US government and the rule of law, accelerating de-dollarisation.

As investors sold US assets in mid-2025, the dollar saw its biggest fall since the 1973 oil price hike. It fell by over 10% against other major currencies, triggering temporary falls in the prices of many financial assets, including equities and bonds.

Since then, there has been increased capital market uncertainty and volatility, as in the US bond market, although a strong rally followed the ensuing stock market crash.

In many recent episodes of financial volatility, dollar liquidity was considered the safe option. But in 2025, confidence in dollar assets fell, prompting selloffs and de-dollarisation.

Thus far, Trump has been adept at managing short-term volatility, but his style implies no one knows when the music will stop.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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 44^th 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
  

By Rabab Fatima
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 1 2025 (IPS)

As we gather in Doha for the High-Level Meeting on “Forging Ambitious Global Partnerships for Sustainable and Resilient Graduation of Least Developed Countries,” the stakes could not be higher. A record number of fourteen countries-equally divided between Asia and Africa are now on graduation track. Graduation from the Least Developed Country (LDC) category is a landmark national achievement—a recognition of hard-won gains in income, human development, and resilience. Yet, for too many countries, this milestone comes with new vulnerabilities that risk undermining the very gains that enabled graduation.

Since the establishment of the LDC category in 1971, only eight countries have graduated. Today, 44 countries remain in the group, representing 14% of the world’s population, but contributing less than 1.3% to global GDP. The Doha Programme of Action (DPoA) charts an ambitious yet achievable target: enabling at least 15 additional countries to graduate by 2031. But as the DPoA underscores graduation must be sustainable, resilient and irreversible. It must serve as a springboard for transformation— not a moment of exposure to new risks.

USG Rabab Fatima

Yet within these challenges also lie opportunities. With the right policies, partnerships, and incentives, graduation can catalyse deeper structural transformation, expand access to new financing windows, strengthen institutions, and unlock pathways to diversified, resilient, and inclusive growth. The task before us is to manage risks while harnessing these opportunities—ensuring that no country graduates without momentum.

Smooth Transition Strategies: A National Imperative
The DPoA calls for every graduating country to develop inclusive, nationally owned Smooth Transition Strategies (STS) well-ahead of the graduation date. These strategies must be fully integrated into national development plans and SDG frameworks, ensuring coherence and resilience. They should prioritize diversification, human capital investment, and adaptive governance, while placing women, youth, and local actors at the center of design and oversight. STS must be living documents—flexible, participatory, and backed by robust monitoring and financing.

Reinvigorated Global Partnerships: The essential Pillar
No country can navigate this transition alone. The Doha Programme of Action calls for an incentive-based international support structure that extends beyond graduation. For LDCs with high utilization of trade preferences – the withdrawal of preferential market access must be carefully sequenced to avoid abrupt disruptions. For climate-vulnerable SIDS and LLDCs, enhanced access to climate finance, debt solutions, and resilience support are key elements in their efforts to tackle post-graduation challenges.

Deepened South-South and triangular cooperation, innovative financing instruments, blended finance, and strengthened private-sector engagement will be essential to building productive capacities and unlocking opportunities in digital transformation, green and blue economies, and regional market integration.

iGRAD: A Transformative Tool
The operationalization of the Sustainable Graduation Support Facility—iGRAD—is a concrete step forward. By providing tailored advisory services, capacity-building, and peer learning, iGRAD can serve as a critical tool to help countries anticipate risks, manage transitions, and sustain development momentum. Its success, however, hinges on strong political support and adequate, predictable resourcing from development partners.

Graduation as a Catalyst for Transformation
Graduation should not be the end of the story—it should be the beginning of a new chapter of resilience and opportunity. With integrated national strategies and reinvigorated global partnerships, we can turn graduation into a catalyst for inclusive, sustainable development. Let us seize this moment in Doha to reaffirm our collective commitment: no country should graduate into vulnerability. Together, we can ensure that graduation delivers on its promise—for communities, for economies, and for future generations.

Rabab Fatima is UN Under Secretary General and High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau