Anup Jagwani, Global Director for Farming and Agribusiness at the World Bank Group, addresses the World Seed Congress. Credit: Supplied

By Friday Phiri
LISBON, May 26 2026 (IPS)

It is often said that the quality of seed determines the quality of the produce and, consequently, the sustainability of the entire agricultural value chain, influencing everything from crop yields to nutritional value.

The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) emphasises that “we cannot have good crops if we do not have quality seeds”, a principle that underpins global efforts to improve food and nutritional security. It may thus be safe to conclude that seed is the foundation of good health.

The week of 18 to 23 May 2026 witnessed two related but parallel global events: one on global health, the 79^th World Health Assembly in Geneva by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the other on the importance of seeds to global agriculture and food security, the World Seed Congress, organised by the International Seed Federation (ISF).

With a record attendance of more than 1,700 delegates and guests representing over 900 companies and organisations in Lisbon and held under the theme “Joint Actions, Resilient Futures”, the seed congress called for a collective commitment and action at a moment when the multilateral frameworks underpinning global food and nutritional security are under unprecedented strain.

The Congress took place amid mounting pressure on global agri-food systems, sparked by conflicts and worsened by climate change. In 2025, two famines were declared in a single year for the first time. This year, recent geopolitical tensions continue to threaten global trade and economic stability, while an estimated 700 million people worldwide, primarily in Africa and Western Asia, still face hunger each year.

And experts have warned that climate change, including a predicted El Niño event in mid-2026, could push an additional 132 million people in vulnerable contexts into food and nutrition insecurity within five years due to rising temperatures’ impacts on crop yields.

Michael Keller, Secretary General of the International Seed Federation. Credit: Supplied

“It would be easy to look at the state of the world and conclude that international cooperation is in retreat. But the seed industry tells a different story,” says Michael Keller, Secretary General of ISF. “We are here in Lisbon in record numbers in this critical year because we know that collaboration, innovation, and joint actions are practical and appropriate responses to the scale of the truly global challenges we face now and in the future. Unfortunately, in Africa, non-flexible legal and regulatory frameworks still hamper innovation by private seed companies.

And about 2,000 km away in Geneva, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus delivered a similar message, focused on the theme “Reshaping global health: a shared responsibility”, strongly reinforcing the interconnected nature of global health and climate change resilience with several important social determinants of health, including food systems and nutrition.

Ghebreyesus highlighted the importance of not treating health as a standalone sector but rather ensuring that all social determinants of health are well-functioning in support of resilience, sovereignty, and protection of communities from crises.

The chain is simple: climate change threatens agricultural production, food systems, and access to nutritious food, leading to malnutrition, and malnutrition in turn increases vulnerability to infectious diseases and public health emergencies.

Role of Seed Breeding Innovations for Health

Seed innovations alone account for 74 percent of the yield gains observed in crops in the European Union, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights. However, the global system of crop variety development depends heavily on cross-border trade, with the typical novel varieties bred, tested, produced, and distributed across multiple countries before they reach a farmer’s hands.

“Seed companies invest up to 30 percent of their turnover in research and development because we believe that innovation is key to solving problems at scale and for generations to come,” said Arthur Santosh Attavar, ISF President and Managing Chair of the international seed company Indo-American Hybrid Seeds. “ISF continues to work with national and regional seed associations, as well as governments, to create enabling policy environments that help ensure innovations reach farmers quickly and without unnecessary delays or restrictions.”

In the wake of increased climate-induced extreme weather events, one of the key innovations in seed breeding has been ‘climate-resilient seed’ to withstand not only intensified droughts but also the increased prevalence of pests and diseases related to drought conditions.

But the World Bank believes breeding seed that could go beyond being drought tolerant to high nutritional value could be a game changer.

“Until now, we have been dealing with climate resilience largely from the drought and sometimes excess rainfall perspective, but can we also start looking at developing seed varieties by building in additional nutritional aspects such as high protein content? At the World Bank, we are looking at different ways of how to build food systems resilience in a holistic way—covering the entire value chain from seed, infrastructure, markets and all the in-between, with a clear focus on sustainability,” said Anup Jangwani, Global Director of Farming and Agribusiness at the World Bank Group.

Sustained Awareness is Key for Sustainability  

Environmental sustainability has, in recent years, become a buzzword in the wake of increasing climate impacts. Unfortunately, there have been some cases of greenwashing linked to environmental sustainability – the promotion of false solutions to the climate crisis that distract from and delay concrete and credible action.

However, at Companhia das Lezírias the largest agricultural and forestry holding in Portugal, “environmental sustainability is a lived reality,” says Sandra Alcobia, who serves as a biologist and is responsible for tourism and visitation.

“Here we live and practice environmental sustainability in reality; our production is organic in every sense. In 2015, the drought conditions that we suffered provided us with an awakening to make a drastic change, and we have not looked back. We are proud to be a certified carbon-neutral establishment.”

Established in 1836, the farm boasts 20,000 hectares of land for crop farming, animal rearing and forestry – all premised on the principles of sustainability, emphasising organic practices.

But Antonio Farrim, Veterinarian and Director of Agriculture Production at Companhia das Lezírias, believes public awareness is key to the climate-resilient and sustainable agenda.

“Governments must take full responsibility for sensitising the public on the health benefits of sustainably grown food,” he says. “For example, in beef production, the colour of meat produced organically is not usually appealing to the eye; it is slightly dark with yellow fat. In terms of nutrition, however, this is the most healthy beef one can get, and yet most consumers don’t understand this fact. It is, therefore, incumbent upon governments to undertake sustained awareness for both environmental sustainability and good health. For us here at Companihia, we don’t only produce for sustainability but also for the good health of the consumers.”

Head of External Communication at Syngenta, one of the world’s biggest agricultural innovation companies, Dimitri Houtart agrees with the importance of the public awareness narrative.

Houtart says the growing global population poses a challenge as the global community races to produce enough for everyone, sustainably, with limited land. This, he states, can only be achieved through innovation and sustained public awareness for uptake of innovative technologies that support high productivity.

However, he notes, “misinformation on catalytic research and innovations to improve productivity while preserving environmental integrity is one of the drawbacks.”

“The need for a well-informed cadre of agricultural journalists cannot be over-emphasised. For me, Agricultural journalism is the most important branch of this profession because the agricultural information needs of the public, especially in this era of social media, are immense.”

Breeding Innovations for Africa’s Unique Challenges   

A quick search on post‑harvest losses in Africa reveals that it ranges between 20 and 40%, especially in crops such as maize, cassava, cowpea, and bananas, some of the continent’s staple crops

Losses are largely attributed to pests, diseases, poor storage and climate stress. While technological advancement is a critical means of enhancing agricultural productivity and improving food and nutrition security in many low- and middle-income countries, it has been slow to gain traction in Africa.

Thus, one of the innovations being tried is to breed crops that resist the noted stresses and reduce losses before they happen.

Professor Mohammed Ishiyaku of the Institute for Agricultural Research in Nigeria is one of the lead scientists behind Pod Borer Resistant cowpea – a variety developed by Nigerian scientists over three decades, now approved and growing commercially in Nigeria, with regulatory approvals advancing across the region.

“Legume Pod Borer (Maruca vitrata) is one of the most damaging insect pests limiting cowpea production,” says Prof. Ishiyaku. “The damage caused by the pod borer to cowpea plants reduces the size and quality of the cowpea harvest. It can reduce grain yield by up to 80%. Farmers typically spray pesticides up to 6 – 10 times within a planting season in an attempt to control this insect pest, but this is often not effective because the chemicals do not reach the pest larvae inside the plant tissues. The chemicals are also expensive, their availability to farmers is limited, and inadequate training in their use often leads to unintended dangerous human health and safety impacts. Therefore, a Cowpea product that can protect itself from Legume Pod borer damage makes it easier and cheaper for farmers to produce cowpeas in areas where this pest is a problem.”

An international public-private partnership, managed and coordinated by the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF), is developing Pod-Borer Resistant Cowpeas.

Sticking with innovation, Bruce Knight of Legume Technology, based in the United Kingdom, has been conducting trials on how to support smallholder farmers in Africa with affordable means of accessing inoculants for legume seeds.

With limited resources, most smallholder farmers on the continent still use untreated seeds, usually kept from the previous harvest. To help boost productivity, Dr Bruce Knight has, through support from the Gates Foundation, developed an affordable and tailor-made small-packaged inoculant solution that is able to treat at least a hectare of legume seeds.

“After 10 years of trials, we have finally got it right; we have developed an affordable inoculant solution for smallholder farmers in Africa,” says Knight. “So far, our product has outperformed other inoculant producers on the continent, and we are geared to roll out and support smallholder farmers with this tailor-made solution.”

A well-known health phrase, “You are what you eat”, implies that food is the foundation of good health. What you eat dictates your general well-being. Seed, from which most food is cultivated, is therefore the foundation of optimal health.

The author is the Climate Change and Health Advocacy Lead at Amref Health Africa.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Odo Tevi, Permanent Representative of Vanuatu to the UN, speaks at the General Assembly. Credit : UN WEB TV

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, May 21 2026 (IPS)

Member states this week (May 20) deliberated over a draft resolution on states’ obligations in respect of climate change following the advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The General Assembly agreed to take measures to uphold the ICJ’s advisory opinion for member states to meet their existing obligations to climate justice under international law and multilateral frameworks.

The draft resolution (A/80/L.65) passed with 141 votes in favor, 8 votes against, and 28 abstentions. It was brought forward by the Republic of Vanuatu, along with the Core Group of States leading the UN General Assembly resolution responding to the ICJ advisory opinion. The resolution was introduced after a long period of consultations between member states. It outlines member states’ obligations to ensure the protection of the climate system by calling for multilateral cooperation to address what the ICJ has called an “existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.”

“This day will be remembered. It will be remembered as the moment the United Nations received the considered judgment of its highest court of its defining challenge of our time and decided what to do with it. Vanuatu and the Core Group believe this Assembly should meet that moment with unity, with seriousness, and with respect for the law and one another,” said Odo Tevi, Permanent Representative of Vanuatu to the UN.

Voting Record of Resolution A-80-L.65. Credit: UN TV

When introducing the draft resolution to the Assembly, Tevi remarked that the ICJ opinion “confirms that the protection of the climate system is a matter of legal obligation, not political discretion.” It would not replace or challenge existing agreements such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol or the Paris Agreement, but rather reinforce them as the primary legislations and forums for the world’s response to climate change.

Amendments to the resolution were brought forward by a small group of member states, which included Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Algeria. Those that argued for the amendments posited that the current resolution required further legal clarity, particularly as it related to the measures required to support developing countries in mitigation and adaptation. At the same time, there were concerns that the amendments weakened the language around the actions and responsibilities of member states, and tabling them so late into the provision would risk undermining the careful negotiations. Ultimately though, the amendments did not pass and the resolution was adopted without them.

In their remarks following the vote, member states welcomed the adoption of the resolution in light of recognizing climate change as a defining existential issue of the modern age, commending Vanuatu for its leadership in pushing for the resolution.

Speaking on behalf of the Pacific Small-Island Developing States (SIDS), Filipo Tarakinikini, Permanent Representative of Fiji to the UN, welcomed the resolution, remarking that it was an “affirmation of survival” for island nations that have been uniquely threatened by climate change, experiencing lasting damages to their homes and their connection to heritage.

“We do not come to this hall asking for mercy. We come demanding justice. Justice that is today grounded in the authoritative voice of the world’s highest court. The Pacific will not disappear, and neither will our resolve,” said Tarakinikini.

Jérôme Bonnafont, Permanent Representative of France, said that this General Assembly decision was welcome in light of an “international context marred by many crises.”

“[France] will continue to defend ambitious climate action, multilateralism, respect for international law, and a science-based approach for sustainable development and for future generations,” Bonnafont said.

James Larsen, Permanent Representative of Australia, hoped that this resolution would “galvanize practical efforts” to protect the climate system and that the case for multilateralism has “never been stronger.” With Australia set to host COP31 later this year, Larsen remarked his country would continue working together with member states to accelerate climate action.

Among those that abstained from voting or were against the resolution are states accused of being major carbon emitters, including G77 members like India and Saudi Arabia. Both the United States of America and the Russian Federation voted against the resolution.

Prior to the vote, the United States expressed that their opposition was based on their “serious legal and policy concerns” about the resolution. The U.S. delegate noted that the resolution called for states to fulfill alleged obligations based on a non-binding ruling from the ICJ, and opposed the resolution’s “inappropriate political demands” to address climate issues.

The Russian Federation’s delegate argued after that member states’ climate obligations, such as the 1.5 degree Celsius threshold, were more of a political obligation rather than normative and that the resolution was an effort to circumvent existing climate agreements.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the adoption of the resolution, commending the leadership of Pacific Island countries, SIDs and the students and activists whose “moral clarity helped bring the world to this moment.”

“The world’s highest court has spoken. Today, the General Assembly has answered,” said Guterres. “This is a powerful affirmation of international law, climate justice, science, and the responsibility of states to protect people from the escalating climate crisis… Those least responsible for climate change are paying the highest price. That injustice must end.”

Reacting to the debate, Yamide Dagnet, NRDC’s Senior Vice President, International, said, “Climate justice prevails! The world sent a loud signal that multilateralism and science matter and can deliver for the people and the planet.”

While congratulating the Small Island States, the youths and frontline communities who refused to stand down for their energy, tenacity and leadership, she noted,  “There will be a lot of noise about the difficulty in enforcing this resolution, but the reality is that it represents a watershed moment for polluter accountability. Moving forward, regulators and courts have an additional tool in their arsenal to force nations and companies to look at how they can put people over pollution and better protect the world’s most impacted communities and countries with dignity.”

The Prime Minister of the Republic of Vanuatu, Jotham Napat, said the country expressed profound gratitude to 141 Member States that voted in favor of the UNGA resolution welcoming the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ on climate change and to the 90 States that stood together as co-sponsors of this historic initiative.

“This outcome is a powerful affirmation that the international community remains committed to the rule of law, multilateral cooperation, and climate justice at a time when these principles are being tested,” Napat said while acknowledging that the resolution was the first step in a new journey.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Claude Gascon, Interim CEO and Director of Strategy and Operations at the Global Environment Facility. Credit: The GEF

By Stella Paul
WASHINGTON D.C. & HYDERABAD, India, May 19 2026 (IPS)

As governments prepare for the Eighth Assembly of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) – scheduled to be held from May 30 to June 6 in Samarkand, Uzbekistan – the stakes are unusually high.

Climate change, biodiversity collapse, pollution, debt distress and geopolitical fragmentation are converging at a moment when environmental finance is under growing scrutiny. For many countries in the Global South, the challenge is no longer only about ambition but also about whether global systems can deliver fast enough and fairly enough.

For Claude Gascon – Interim CEO and Director of Strategy and Operations at the GEF – the question facing the organisation is how to turn urgency into action while operating in an increasingly volatile world.

“A meaningful outcome is turning urgency into action,” Gascon says in an exclusive interview with IPS, describing what success at the upcoming Assembly would look like. That includes public confirmation of country pledges to the GEF and final approval of a strong GEF9 package that will guide investments for the next four years. He also points to endorsement of several priorities that the institution sees as central to its future direction: integrated programming, blended finance, whole-of-government approaches, and stronger support for Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs).

“All this signals that multilateralism is delivering and positions us to accelerate impact in the final sprint toward the 2030 global environmental goals,” he says.

Gascon stepped into the role of Interim CEO during a period of overlapping crises and mounting pressure on international institutions. While many governments continue to demand bigger environmental outcomes, donor fatigue, economic instability and competing geopolitical priorities are tightening the availability of public finance.

“We need to do more with less, and to accomplish that, we chose disciplined ambition,” he says.

The full interview follows:

IPS: The Eighth GEF Assembly comes at a time of overlapping crises – climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. What, in your view, would define a meaningful outcome from this Assembly?

Claude Gascon: A meaningful outcome is turning urgency into action. This includes public confirmation of country pledges to the GEF and final approval of a strong GEF-9 package that will guide our investments for the next four years. The Assembly is also an opportunity for clear endorsement of the ambitious priorities we’ve agreed on: a focus on integration and integrated programs, mainstreaming blended finance to mobilise private capital, whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches, and strengthened support for Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and Indigenous People and local communities (IPCLs). All this signals that multilateralism is delivering and positions us to accelerate impact in the final sprint toward the 2030 global environmental goals.

IPS: As the Interim CEO, you are navigating a volatile global context. What difficult trade-offs have you had to make between ambition and feasibility?

Gascon: We need to do more with less, and to accomplish that, we chose disciplined ambition. For example, we are channelling resources through integrated programs in nature, food, urban, energy, and health systems and setting a target of programming 25 percent of our resources to mobilise private capital and stretch scarce public funds. We are also simplifying access and speeding decisions, so countries see real progress sooner. And finally, we are working to expand our partnerships with new stakeholders such as private philanthropies to collaborate on joining our public investments with the private investments of foundations so that together we can scale up the outcomes that are critical to achieving the 2030 goals.

IPS: Countries facing debt and instability say targets feel out of reach. Should expectations be recalibrated or should financing mechanisms evolve?

Claude Gascon: We need to acknowledge these difficulties, but our response must be by evolving financing and delivery instead of lowering the goals. The GEF-9 opens more space for innovation and expands tracking of socio-economic co-benefits and transformational outcomes. There will also be a full review of the resource allocation model during the GEF-9 investment cycle to inform comprehensive changes in the GEF-10 cycle (from 2030 to 2034). The aim is faster, more flexible access that mobilises private and domestic finance alongside official development assistance (ODA). We must also work to support countries in their efforts to align national policies and eliminate perverse subsidies that could help in achieving global environmental goals.

IPS: With climate finance increasingly tied to geopolitical priorities, is there a risk of weakening multilateral funds like the GEF?

Claude Gascon: The opposite signal is coming through this replenishment. Even amid competing priorities, contributors have pledged an initial US$3.9 billion, with final approval due at the end of May from the GEF Council and public country announcements at the Assembly. The GEF’s family of funds and role across six international environmental conventions uniquely positions us to align diverse finance streams with agreed-upon global goals. That provides coherence and stability countries can count on.

IPS: Several Global South governments argue the GEF cycles are still too slow. What concrete changes can countries expect in speed and flexibility?

Gascon: I can give you three examples of practical shifts. First, the GEF is expanding the successful model of the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund’s one-step project approval process where appropriate. Second, we are increasing multi-trust-fund programming so countries can access multiple windows through a single operation. And finally, we have a cap on allocation of resources per GEF Implementing Agency that increases competition and a target to increase disbursements through Multilateral Development Banks. All these measures are designed to move from pledge to project to results faster.

IPS: The GEF is a connector across CBD, UNFCCC, and UNCCD. How can it strengthen this role without overstretching?

Gascon: By doing what only the GEF can: translate multiple international environmental conventions’ mandates into integrated programs while fostering policy coherence. We operate a family of funds under a shared architecture, coordinating smarter, sharing what works, and aligning with 2030 milestones. This means that one GEF dollar invested can deliver multiple benefits across several of the Conventions.

IPS: Private finance is key to closing gaps, but investors avoid fragile contexts. How realistic is this approach – and what lessons has the GEF learned so far about both its potential and its risks?

Claude Gascon: It’s realistic when structured well. From GEF-6 to GEF-8, US$369.5 million in GEF blended finance mobilised US$6.4 billion in co-financing. That is 17 dollars for each GEF dollar, with more than US$3.5 billion coming from private sources. The GEF also has deep experience with fragile contexts: over the last 35 years, 45 percent of our investments have included at least one conflict-affected country and 88 percent of country-level projects were in fragile situations. The main lesson we learned is to pair risk-sharing instruments and strong local partners around projects that fit local realities.

IPS: How is the GEF improving tracking and communication of real-world impact, especially at the community level?

Claude Gascon: The GEF-9’s results framework strengthens environmental outcome tracking and explicitly expands measurement of socio-economic co-benefits and contributions to transformational change. A Council-approved Knowledge Management & Learning strategy aligns data, learning, and communications, and we will continue spotlighting community-level results through platforms like the Small Grants Program and the Inclusive Conservation Initiative, with expanded inclusion under the whole-of-society approach.

IPS: Critics say global environmental finance reflects donor priorities more than recipient needs. How is the GEF addressing equity, voice, and decision-making for the Global South?

Claude Gascon: Equity is built into GEF-9. We have a goal of allocating 35% of total programming to benefit LDCs and SIDS; and an aspirational target of 20% of GEF-9 financing directed to support IPLCs. These targets are supported by updated guidance and a policy to strengthen IPLC engagement. It is also important to note that all funding decisions are made by recipient countries as to the use of GEF resources. This means that recipient country priorities are well supported in the GEF model.

IPS: How will the GEF remain relevant in an increasingly crowded and complex landscape?

The GEF will stay relevant by being more catalytic, coherent, and faster to impact. We will deepen systems-focused integrated programs; mainstream blended finance, maintain a high but disciplined innovation risk appetite, and streamline access and delivery so countries can deliver once and meet several global goals at the same time.

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

A cruise ship docks in Roseau, Dominica. The World Meteorological Organization says parts of the Caribbean are experiencing sea level rise above the global average as climate impacts intensify across the region. Credit: Alison Kentish/IPS

By Alison Kentish
CASTRIES, Saint Lucia , May 19 2026 (IPS)

Faster-than-average sea level rise, intensifying hurricanes, extreme heat and worsening swings between drought and flooding are increasing pressure on Latin America and the Caribbean, according to a new report released Monday, May 18 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

The State of the Climate in Latin America and the Caribbean 2025 report warns that rising land and ocean temperatures, increasingly erratic rainfall patterns and rapidly intensifying tropical cyclones are hurting food systems, water security, public health and coastal communities across the region.

“The signs of a changing climate are unmistakable across Latin America and the Caribbean,” WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo said in a statement accompanying the report, warning that climate impacts are intensifying across both coastal and inland communities.

The report found that parts of the tropical Atlantic and Caribbean are experiencing sea level rise above the global average, while marine heatwaves and ocean acidification are compounding risks for fisheries, coral reefs and coastal ecosystems.

Extreme weather events affected communities across the region throughout 2025. The report highlighted Hurricane Melissa, which became the first Category 5 hurricane on record to make landfall in Jamaica, causing 45 deaths and economic losses estimated at US$8.8 billion,  more than 41 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.

Despite the unprecedented storm, the WMO noted that advance preparedness measures and risk modelling helped reduce loss of life.

Heat-Related Illness and Mortality

The report also warned of growing public health risks linked to extreme heat. Recurrent heatwaves pushed temperatures beyond 40 degrees Celsius across large parts of Central and South America, with experts warning that heat-related mortality in the region is likely underreported.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, rainfall patterns are also becoming increasingly erratic, with longer dry spells and more intense rainfall events contributing to both severe drought and devastating flooding.

While some parts of the region experienced deadly floods and landslides in 2025, severe drought conditions and water shortages affected sections of Central America, the Caribbean and South America, impacting agriculture, reservoirs and food production.

“As extreme heat events intensify, reducing avoidable mortality will require moving from recognition to institutionalized action,” the report stated.

It urged governments to strengthen climate-informed health surveillance systems, improve tracking of heat-related illnesses and deaths, and better integrate meteorological warnings into public health planning.

It also called for greater investment in heat-resilient health infrastructure and stronger coordination between climate and health agencies as extreme heat events become more frequent and severe.

The WMO said climate impacts are increasingly affecting agro-food systems across the region, threatening rural livelihoods, food access and economic stability.

The report comes as Caribbean Small Island Developing States continue to face disproportionate climate risks despite contributing minimally to global greenhouse gas emissions.

Scientists and regional leaders have repeatedly warned that rising ocean temperatures are contributing to stronger storms, coral bleaching and ecosystem disruption across the Caribbean Sea.

Early Warning Systems to Save Lives

The report also highlighted the growing importance of early warning systems and climate services as extreme weather events become more frequent and severe across the region.

The findings come as the United Nations continues to expand its “Early Warnings for All” initiative, which aims to ensure every person on Earth is protected by early warning systems by 2027. It is a goal seen as particularly critical for climate-vulnerable Caribbean Small Island Developing States.

The WMO said advances in forecasting, disaster preparedness and risk modelling are helping countries better anticipate and respond to climate-related hazards, particularly hurricanes, floods and heatwaves.

Jamaica’s response to Hurricane Melissa was highlighted as an example of how advance planning and risk modelling can help reduce loss of life even during unprecedented events.

Despite progress, the WMO warned that gaps remain in climate monitoring and early warning coverage across parts of Latin America and the Caribbean, particularly for vulnerable communities with limited adaptive capacity.

“Climate information is not only about data. It is about people,” Saulo said. “It is about protecting communities from floods, droughts, hurricanes, heatwaves and other hazards.”

For Caribbean nations already grappling with rising seas, stronger storms and mounting economic vulnerability, the report adds to growing calls for greater investment in climate adaptation, resilient infrastructure and early warning systems – tools the WMO says will be critical to helping vulnerable communities adapt to a warming world.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Excerpt:

Transnational agribusinesses increasingly shape food policies worldwide. Claiming to best address recent food security concerns, they seek to profit more from innovations in food production, processing, and distribution.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

The early post-WWII and post-colonial eras saw new emphases on food security, especially following severe food shortages before, during, and after the war.

Many starved as millions experienced acute malnutrition. The wartime Bengal famine in India claimed over three million lives as Churchill prioritised British imperial interests and military priorities.

After WWII, colonial powers weaponised food supplies for counterinsurgency and population control purposes, especially to overcome popular anti-imperialist resistance.

Many who died were not military casualties but victims of deliberate counter-insurgency food deprivation. Unsurprisingly, food security efforts became a popular policy priority after WWII.

Western-controlled research organisations, including the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), became highly influential, shaping and even developing post-colonial food security policies.

Felice Noelle Rodriguez

The Green Revolution initially focused on increasing yields of wheat, maize, and rice. These efforts increased cereal production unevenly during the 1960s and 1970s.

Malthusian logic held that rising life expectancies meant population growth outstripped the increase in food supply, constrained by limited agricultural land.

As government funding from wealthy nations declined, powerful corporate interests and philanthropies became even more influential. They often promoted their own interests at the expense of farmers, consumers, and the environment.

The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) was established in the 1970s, channelling a small share of windfall petroleum incomes into food and agricultural development.

Soon after, the US transformed its Public Law (PL) 480 program into the World Food Programme (WFP). Thus, some FAO functions were ceded to donor-controlled UN funds and programmes also set up in Rome.

Embarrassingly, an FAO report found WFP food supplies were withheld from Somalia to avoid being taken by the ‘Islamist’ As-Shabaab militia. Chatham House also estimated two to three hundred thousand deaths as a consequence.

Neoliberalism
The counter-revolution against national development efforts in the 1980s undermined government fiscal capacities, import-substituting industrialisation, and food security efforts.

Neoliberal structural adjustment policies involving economic liberalisation were imposed on heavily indebted developing countries, mainly in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa.

The Global North promoted trade liberalisation, undermining earlier protection of and support for food and industrial production.

Powerful food conglomerates sponsored and promoted import-friendly food security indicators, undermining FAO and other civil society research and advocacy efforts.

Countries hardly producing any food were highly ranked, as civil society organisations tried to counter with their own indicators, mainly focused on food sovereignty.

Trump 2.0
A new phase has begun with Donald Trump’s re-election as US president.

Trump 2.0’s weaponisation of economic policies and agreements, including food supplies, has ominous implications for countries trying to assert some independence.

Economic and military threats have been used for diverse ends, including economic, political, and other ‘strategic’ goals. Tariffs and sanctions are now part of a diverse arsenal of such weapons deployed for various purposes.

Governments have even been threatened with tariffs and sanctions for personal reasons. Trump has demanded Brazilian ex-President Jair Bolsonaro’s freedom following his failed coup after losing the last presidential election.

Deploying such economic weapons has worsened the deepening worldwide economic stagflation, as various Trump economic and military policy threats exacerbate contractionary and inflationary pressures.

The US-controlled WFP was long used to provide food aid selectively. But there is little sympathy left in Washington for other nations’ food security concerns.

To cut federal government spending, Trump has ended official development and humanitarian assistance, including food aid, while the US remains the world’s leading food exporter.

Nevertheless, Trump may take unexpected new steps to boost farmers’ earnings to recover electoral support before the November mid-term election.

Weaponisation of food aid took an ominous turn during the Israeli siege of Gaza, by calibrating food access to enable selective ethnic cleansing.

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation attracted hungry residents to its food centres, causing hungry families desperately seeking food to be shot while seeking food.

Poverty is primarily defined by inadequate access to food, while the FAO considers income the main determinant of food insecurity.

Although World Bank poverty measures have generally continued to decline, FAO indicators suggest a reversal of earlier progress in food security over the last decade.

These contradictory trends not only reflect problems in estimating and understanding poverty and food security but also suggest that resulting policies are poorly informed, if not worse.

Professor Felice Noelle Rodriguez is Director of the Centre for Local History and Culture, Universidad de Zamboanga, Philippines.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

LDC Future Forum Banner. Credit: OHRLLS

By Rabab Fatima
UNITED NATIONS, May 8 2026 (IPS)

The future of the world’s least developed countries (LDCs) will be shaped by a critical choice they make today- strategic investment in their youth. Rich in human potential, the young people in LDCs embody ingenuity, resilience and ambition. With the right opportunities, they can transform challenges into opportunities and put their countries strongly on track to sustainable development.

In the 44 LDCs, more than 60 per cent of the population is under 25. That is more than 315 million young people – innovators, entrepreneurs and problem-solvers – in a world being reshaped by technology, climate pressures and shifting economic realities. Their energy, creativity and ambition represent an extraordinary opportunity not only for national development, but for global prosperity and stability.

The question is simple: will we act with the urgency this moment demands? In May 2026, governments, development partners, private sector leaders, researchers and young changemakers will convene in Helsinki for the Fourth LDC Future Forum, under the theme “Transforming LDCs by Empowering the Youth Population through Education, Innovation, and Inclusive Growth.”

Rabab Fatima, USG and High Representative, OHRLLS. Credit: OHRLLS

Opportunity is expanding—but unevenly

The global economy is evolving at speed. Artificial intelligence, digital platforms, green technologies and geopolitical shifts are reshaping how we live and work. By 2030, an estimated 170 million new jobs will be created worldwide, even as 40 per cent of core workplace skills are transformed.

Youth in LDCs are ready to be part of this future. Already, they demonstrate remarkable entrepreneurial initiative: nearly 70 per cent are engaged in self employment, compared to about 50 per cent in other developing countries.

Yet opportunity remains deeply uneven. Tertiary enrolment in LDCs stands at just 11 per cent. Fewer than a quarter of graduates specialize in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Millions of young people—especially girls and rural youth—remain excluded from quality education, digital connectivity and formal employment. Without urgent and targeted investment, demographic strength risks becoming a demographic strain.

The DPOA: Investing in youth as a development imperative

The Doha Programme of Action (DPoA) is unequivocal: investing in people – especially youth – is central to sustainable development and smooth graduation from the LDC category.

It places strong emphasis on education, skills and science, technology and innovation (STI) as engines of structural transformation. Critically, it advances concrete deliverables, including the establishment of an Online University for LDCs, designed to expand access to quality, affordable higher education – particularly in STEM fields. It also promotes digital learning, innovation ecosystems, and stronger linkages between education systems and labour market needs.

The Fourth LDC Future Forum will focus squarely on these priorities. It will advance practical solutions to close skills gaps, expand digital learning, strengthen innovation hubs and promote inclusive growth models that leave no young person behind.

Inclusion must be intentional

True transformation cannot happen if opportunity is accessible only to a few.

Gender gaps in education, skills acquisition and labour force participation continue to hold back progress. The digital divide—between countries, communities and genders—threatens to widen existing inequalities unless deliberately addressed. Inclusive growth requires inclusive design: policies and investments that actively reach girls, marginalized youth and those in rural and underserved areas.

By placing equity at the centre of youth empowerment, LDCs can ensure that growth is not only faster, but fairer—and therefore more sustainable.

A shared responsibility

No country can undertake this transformation alone. Governments must lead by prioritizing youth in national development strategies and aligning education with future economic needs. Development partners must scale up predictable, high quality financing for education, skills and digital infrastructure. Academia must help generate evidence based solutions. And the private sector must play a central role—by investing, mentoring, innovating and creating decent jobs.

The LDC Future Forum exists to forge these partnerships. Through rigorous research, policy dialogue and multi stakeholder collaboration, it aims to deliver actionable recommendations that will inform both national action and the 2027 Midterm Review of the Doha Programme of Action.

The choice before us

History will judge this generation not by the challenges we faced, but by the choices we made. We can allow structural barriers and underinvestment to hold back millions of young people—or we can unlock the dynamism that resides within them.

Empowering youth is not a long term aspiration. It is the fastest, most reliable path to sustainable growth, resilience and global stability.

The message from Helsinki must be clear: invest in young people now – and they will transform their countries, and our shared future.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Malawian Farmers harvest sweet potatoes in fields where no chemicals have been used. Credit: Albert Khumalo

By Benson Kunchezera and Tanka Dhakal
LILONGWE & VIENTIANE, May 7 2026 (IPS)

For decades, pesticides have been a quiet pillar of Malawi’s agriculture, guarding crops against pests, improving yields, and sustaining millions of livelihoods. But beneath this success story lay a troubling reality: weak regulation, unsafe handling practices, and growing threats to human health and the environment.

Between 2015 and 2023, USD 2.55 million by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) set out to confront these challenges head-on. Today, it is leaving behind a legacy that is transforming how Malawi manages pesticides from importation to disposal and reshaping the way farmers think about crop protection.

At the centre of this shift is a stronger institutional framework. The project supported a comprehensive review of national pesticide regulations, bringing them closer to international standards. It also invested in training regulatory staff in pesticide registration, monitoring, enforcement, and lifecycle management, areas that had long remained underdeveloped.

“We invested heavily in strengthening systems, not just solving immediate problems,” said Precious Chizonda, Registrar of the Pesticides Control Board of Malawi and former National Coordinator for the GEF project. “This has positioned Malawi to better manage pesticides across their entire lifecycle, from importation to disposal.”

A major milestone was the development of a strategic plan for the Pesticides Control Board (PCB), aimed at improving efficiency and aligning operations with global best practices. Collaboration played a crucial role. The Malawi Bureau of Standards provided laboratory services for pesticide quality testing, while the Ministry of Agriculture ensured policy coordination. Together, these institutions helped elevate the PCB’s effectiveness and national visibility.

Some examples of pesticide-free farming include bananas grown using manure and tomatoes grown using neem water to deter pests and a woman farmer is shown mixing ash with her pigeon peas for storage to protect them from weevils. Credit: Albert Khumalo

Obsolete Pesticides

The project also delivered concrete environmental results. Approximately 208 tonnes of obsolete pesticides — including highly hazardous persistent organic pollutants — were safely destroyed through high-temperature incineration. Another 40 tonnes of contaminated waste were secured in an engineered landfill. These efforts eliminated long-standing sources of soil and water pollution, protecting ecosystems and communities.

Equally significant was the introduction of a pilot system for managing empty pesticide containers. Initially constrained by regulatory challenges, the initiative has since gained traction and continues beyond the project’s lifespan. Supported by industry stakeholders such as CropLife, it now collects used containers from farms across the country, demonstrating a viable model for environmentally sound waste management.

A field of irish potatoes grown without using chemicals. Credit: Albert Khumalo

Farm Level Changes

But perhaps the most profound change is happening at the farm level.

In Lichenza, under Chiladzulu’s Thumbwe Extension Planning Area, 39-year-old farmer Emily Zuwedi recalls how deeply rooted pesticide use once was. “We used to believe in pesticides when growing our crops, but that is now a thing of the past,” she said.

Zuwedi joined a farmer training group in 2017, where she learned about integrated pest management (IPM) and alternative methods that reduce reliance on chemicals. Today, she grows onions and beans using these techniques, cutting costs while protecting her health and the environment.

“I am spending less money now, and my crops are still doing well,” she said.

Her experience reflects a broader shift among smallholder farmers. Albert Khumalo, an Extension Development Officer in Chiladzulu, said the transition was not immediate. “At first it was difficult for farmers to accept, but after the trials they get along,” he explained.

Since 2024, Khumalo and his team have trained at least 100 farmers in pesticide-free farming methods. The results are encouraging – farmers are reducing production costs, improving soil health, and becoming more environmentally conscious.

“This program is helping farmers conserve the environment while also saving money,” Khumalo said. “And those who learn are now able to share knowledge with others.”

The project has also strengthened Malawi’s compliance with international chemical conventions by building expertise in risk assessment and regulatory procedures, an area where the country previously faced challenges.

While gaps remain, particularly in scaling up initiatives to reach more smallholder farmers, the progress is undeniable. Malawi is demonstrating that agricultural productivity and environmental protection do not have to be at odds.

Across the country’s fields, a quiet transformation is underway – one in which safer practices, stronger systems, and informed farmers are cultivating not just crops but also a more sustainable future.

In Lao PDR, the UNDP and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry lead a $4.2 million GEF-funded FARM project. Credit: Lao farmer network

Laos Sustainable Farming

However, GEF funding is being used in several parts of the world, including Asia.

In Lao PDR, GEF funding is helping farmers adopt and apply practices that promote sustainable agriculture.

Laos farmers are being trained and given extension support to “reduce dependence on hazardous pesticides while integrating environmentally friendly pest management approaches”, Saithong Phengboupha, project manager at the Department of Agriculture under the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, said.

“This aligns their practices with good agricultural standards, translating upstream policy gains into tangible on-farm change.”

According to the Ministry, GEF funding has been helpful to create the foundation by strengthening the legislative and regulatory environment governing pesticide and agricultural input management.

“Key milestones include the promulgation of the Law on Crop Production and the development of decrees on fertiliser regulation and good agricultural practices (GAP), currently in the final stages. The instruments establish the legal basis for sustained enforcement and compliance beyond the project lifecycle,” Phengboupha said, explaining how FARM funding is being used to improve the agricultural future of the country.

The $4.2 million initiative through the FARM project is led by the UNDP and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

The FARM project is establishing a pilot on agrochemical container and plastic waste management in Viengphoukha District, Luang Namtha Province.

Smallholder farmers have responded to the pesticide management training and promotion of alternatives to chemical pesticides. Credit: Marco J Haenssgen/Unsplash

Integrated Pest Management

According to the ministry, the pilot is designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of a structured approach for the collection, interim storage, and environmentally sound management of empty pesticide containers.

“It also aims to strengthen institutional coordination among relevant government agencies, local authorities, and private sector stakeholders, while enhancing farmer awareness and compliance with recommended practices, including triple rinsing, segregation, and safe return mechanisms,” he said.

The project has supported awareness-raising and capacity building among local authorities, extension workers, and farmers on the risks associated with obsolete and banned pesticides, as well as on safe handling, repackaging, and temporary storage practices. In selected locations, pilot measures have been introduced to improve containment, labelling, and secure storage to minimise environmental and health risks.

Phengboupha says smallholder farmers in Lao PDR have generally responded positively to Integrated Pest Management (IPM) training and the promotion of alternatives to chemical pesticides supported by the FARM project. He added “training interventions have contributed to improved understanding of pest ecology, safer pesticide use practices, and the benefits of adopting non-chemical and low-toxicity control methods, including biological control, cultural practices, and mechanical measures.”

However, adoption rates vary depending on access to extension services, market pressures, availability of alternative inputs, and perceived short-term effectiveness of chemical pesticides.

“Constraints remain, including limited access to certified biopesticides, weak input supply chains for IPM alternatives, and continued reliance on agrochemical vendors for technical advice in some areas,” he added.

Note: The Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly will be held from May 30 to June 6, 2026, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.

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

In the low tide, an i-Taukei fisherwoman gathers cockles along the Nasese sea wall in Fiji, a tradition weathered by time and tide. The assessment Climate Change Implications for Fisheries and Aquaculture in the Pacific Island Region looks at women’s contributions across fisheries and aquaculture systems, from harvesting to trade. Credit: Josh Kuilamu/SPC

By Sera Sefeti
SUVA, Fiji, May 4 2026 (IPS)

For generations, Pacific people have understood the ocean not as a resource but as identity, sustenance, and survival. Today, that relationship is being tested in ways science is only just beginning to fully capture.

For the first time in the region’s history, every Pacific Island country now has a clear, data-driven picture of what climate change will mean for its waters and its own Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

This shift marks more than just a scientific milestone. It is a turning point in how the Pacific can understand, manage, and defend its ocean in a rapidly changing climate.

From Regional Averages to National realities

The updated assessment, “Climate Change Implications for Fisheries and Aquaculture in the Pacific Island Region”, builds on a 14-year-old vulnerability study. But unlike its predecessor, this version moves beyond broad regional trends.

It goes deeper into country-specific realities.

In a region where ocean territories dwarf landmass, this matters. The Pacific controls around 27 million square kilometres of ocean, yet only about 2 percent of that is land. Fisheries are not just an industry – they are the backbone of economies, cultures, and food systems.

“This is quite amazing,” says SPC Climate Change Project Development Specialist Marie Lecomte, referring to the ability to assess climate impacts at the EEZ level. “The ocean is so big, and land masses are so tiny… it has always been very difficult to downscale ocean models to something meaningful for countries.”

Now, that gap is beginning to close.

Rising ocean temperatures and changing chemistry are reshaping marine ecosystems, impacting people’s livelihoods and national economies. Credit: Douglas Picacha/IPS

Why This Science Matters Now

For Pacific leaders, the climate crisis is not abstract. It is negotiated in global forums, defended in policy rooms, and lived daily in coastal communities.

Yet one persistent challenge has been the lack of evidence.

This report begins to change that.

It provides:

• Updated scientific data on ocean conditions
• Country-level projections of fisheries decline
• A clearer understanding of how climate change cascades from ocean systems into economies and livelihoods

In doing so, it transforms science into something actionable:

• A diagnostic tool showing what lies ahead
• A planning guide for adaptation
• A negotiation tool for global advocacy

For a region often described as the moral voice of climate negotiations, this evidence adds weight to that voice.

The Pacific controls around 27 million square kilometres of ocean, yet only about 2 percent of that is land. Now each country in the region will have a data-driven picture of the effects of climate change in its waters. Credit: Francisco Blaha/SPC

What the Science Reveals

The findings are sobering.

Rising ocean temperatures and changing chemistry are already reshaping marine ecosystems. The report maps, with unprecedented clarity, a chain reaction: warming waters alter fish biology, leading to fish stocks’ decline, which will ultimately result in the impact on people’s livelihoods and national economies.

At the centre of this crisis are coastal ecosystems, i.e. coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds, the ecological foundations of Pacific fisheries.

These systems are under intense pressure from both climate change and human activity.

“For mangroves, they are also constrained by infrastructure development,” Lecomte explains. “If you build a new hotel, then you get rid of the mangrove.”

For scientists, the assessment Climate Change Implications for Fisheries and Aquaculture in the Pacific Island Region offers the most comprehensive dataset for policymakers and communities. Credit: John Nihahuasi/SPC

Across the Pacific, the risks are not evenly distributed.

Low-lying island nations, already facing sea-level rise and extreme weather, are doubly exposed. Their dependence on fisheries for food and income leaves little buffer against decline.

The consequences are stark:

• Reduced food security
• Declining incomes
• Increased vulnerability of coastal communities

Yet even in this “doom and gloom” narrative, the report resists fatalism. Instead, it offers a framework for adaptation and resilience.

However, in the Pacific, the situation is not starting from zero.

For centuries, communities have managed fisheries through customary practices like tabu areas, seasonal closures, and community governance.

The report reinforces these approaches while introducing new strategies:

• Climate-smart aquaculture
• Diversifying target species
• Improving value chains (earning more from less catch)
• Protecting and restoring coastal/blue ecosystems

It also highlights a critical but often overlooked dimension, which is women’s contributions across fisheries and aquaculture systems, from harvesting to trade work that remain under-recognised despite their central role.

Science, Power, and the Politics of Survival

Perhaps the most powerful implication of the report lies beyond science — in politics.

Despite being one of the most climate-impacted sectors, fisheries are largely absent from global climate negotiations.

This is where the findings become more than a report. It becomes leverage.

With pre-COP discussions and COP31 on the horizon, Pacific countries now have something they have long needed.

“If Pacific delegations can come to pre-COP saying we have the latest science… and we all agree on how we want to act with the regional climate change strategy for coastal fisheries being pre-endorsed,” Lecomte says, “it’s a unique chance to showcase fisheries as part of the ocean–climate nexus.”

Beyond the Data: A Call to Act

This report does not just document change but also demands a response.

It bridges worlds:

• Between science and storytelling
• Between policy and lived experience
• Between global negotiations and village shorelines

For scientists, it offers the most comprehensive dataset yet when it comes to the Pacific and its EEZ; for policymakers, it is a roadmap; for communities, it is a validation of what they already know.

That the ocean is changing and so must we.

But in that change lies something powerful. For the first time, the Pacific is not just speaking from experience. It is speaking with scientific evidence.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Displaced mothers and children at a malnutrition treatment center in Chuil, Jonglei State, South Sudan. Credit: WFP/Gabriela Vivacqua

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, May 1 2026 (IPS)

In 2026, the humanitarian situation in South Sudan has taken a considerable turn for the worse, with widespread food shortages, ongoing disruptions to food production systems, and rising rates of malnutrition affecting over half of the population. Compounded by the vast scale of needs and an overwhelming lack of access to basic services, humanitarian experts warn that nationwide levels of hunger are projected to worsen to catastrophic levels if urgent intervention is not secured.

On April 28, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the World Food Programme (WFP) published a joint statement underscoring the escalation of the hunger crisis in South Sudan, noting that approximately 56 percent of the population, or roughly 7.8 million people, are projected to face acute food insecurity by July. They stress that the main drivers of food insecurity are climate shocks, flooding, mass displacement, and protracted armed conflict, all of which hinder effective agricultural yields and reduce food availability for hundreds of thousands of families.

“Hunger in South Sudan is intensifying, not stabilizing,” said Ross Smith, WFP Director of Emergencies and Preparedness. “Between April and July of this year, more than half of the population is projected to face crisis levels of hunger or worse, including people already in catastrophic conditions, where starvation and a collapse of livelihoods are a daily reality. This is among the highest proportions of any country’s population facing crisis levels of hunger today.”

The latest figures from the Integrated Food Security Classification Phase (IPC) show that over 280,000 additional civilians have been pushed into acute food insecurity since late 2025, including 73,000 civilians who are facing catastrophic (IPC Phase 5) levels of hunger. This marks a 160 percent increase from last year’s figures. An additional 2.5 million people face emergency (IPC Phase 4) levels of hunger, and 5.3 million have been reported to rely on unsustainable coping mechanisms to survive.

Children have been hit particularly hard, with UNICEF reporting that approximately 2.2 million children between the ages of six months and five years suffer from acute malnutrition, marking an increase of over 100,000 cases compared to last year. Over 700,000 children are projected to face the highest levels of hunger by July. Roughly 1.2 million pregnant and breastfeeding women are acutely malnourished, which has significantly dangerous, long-term implications for both mothers and children.

“Every day of delayed humanitarian access and supply delivery is a day a child’s life and future hangs in the balance,” said Lucia Elmi, UNICEF Director of Emergencies. “We are calling on all parties to grant timely, safe access to conflict-affected, including areas of displacement, and scale up nutrition interventions. We must act now if we are to save children’s lives.”

Widespread displacement continues to hinder South Sudan’s road to recovery, with rampant insecurity, overcrowding, and a shortage of critical supplies in displacement shelters complicating humanitarian relief efforts. The UN agencies note that nearly 300,000 people have been displaced this year in the Jonglei state alone, with many communities entirely cut off from humanitarian assistance. Numerous families report being unable to access food services due to rising prices, disrupted markets, and economic decline, which has significantly reduced household purchasing power.

Additionally, displaced communities face elevated risks of contracting infectious diseases due to persistent overcrowding and unsanitary conditions. The agencies have recorded a sharp rise in cholera, malaria, and measles infections, particularly among “vulnerable and already acutely malnourished children”. Furthermore, treatment for malnutrition has been severely compromised over the past several months, with a substantial portion of the nation’s healthcare and nutritional support facilities having been damaged or closed entirely due to conflict. Life-saving medical interventions are largely unavailable due to continued shortages of medical supplies.

In April, IPC conducted a detailed Risk of Famine Analysis, assessing hunger conditions across seven counties to determine which regions were at a high risk of developing famine. The analysis identified four counties that are projected to contract famine in the coming months, a significant increase from just one county identified last year. The Upper Nile and Jonglei regions are particularly vulnerable, as the renewed escalation of armed hostilities has driven further displacement and reduced humanitarian reach to the most at-risk communities.

Risks are especially pronounced in Akobo, where IPC projects the return of over 100,000 South Sudanese civilians currently displaced in Gambela and Ethiopia. This large-scale return could further exacerbate hunger conditions, as humanitarian and healthcare personnel face severe shortages of supplies, funding, and staffing in assisting already strained communities.

IPC also warns that hunger conditions could escalate to catastrophic levels (IPC Phase 5) in the coming months across multiple areas, including Doma and Yomding in Ulang County; Pulturuk, Waat, and Thol Lankien in Nyirol County; and Kuerenge Ke and Mading in southern Nasir County. All of these regions remain largely inaccessible due to ongoing conflict, which has limited humanitarian reach.

In response, the UN has called for an end to the isolation of these communities in relief efforts, stressing the urgent need for closer monitoring and a strengthened humanitarian response.

“Now, more than ever, we cannot afford to lose the hard-won gains made in recent years, especially as South Sudan works to strengthen its agrifood systems and build on encouraging signs of local agricultural production,” said Rein Paulsen, FAO Director, Office of Emergencies and Resilience. “These gains remain highly vulnerable to conflict, insecurity, and climate shocks—the very forces driving today’s food crisis. We must act urgently and collectively to protect livelihoods, sustain food production, and prevent millions more people from falling deeper into hunger.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Coastal villages throughout the Solomon Islands rely on selling fish for household incomes. Selling fish in Auki, Malaita Province, Solomon Islands. Credit: Catherine Wilson/IPS

By Catherine Wilson
SYDNEY, Australia, Apr 29 2026 (IPS)

It is an invisible contaminant that has been found in fisheries, an essential part of the food chain for many Pacific Islanders. Mercury, emitted from fossil fuel power generation and other industrial processes around the world, has now penetrated marine ecosystems in the Pacific Islands with detrimental consequences for people’s health and wellbeing.

But island states, supported by scientific expertise at the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and funding by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the world’s largest multilateral fund  for the environment, are implementing the action needed. The Mercury Free Pacific campaign is forging progress to protect islanders and their natural habitats from poisoning.

“Our communities face mercury risks from two main sources: what we eat, fish, and what we use in our homes and workplaces,” Emelipelesa Sam Panapa, Chemical Management Officer at the Department of Environment in the Polynesian atoll island nation of Tuvalu, told IPS. “Fish is the most widespread and challenging risk. It is not just food; it is central to our culture, livelihood and food security.”

The Mercury Free Pacific Campaign has brought together Pacific Island nations and the expertise of the SPREP and UNEP and been made possible with funding by the GEF. Credit: GEF

Mercury is a natural element in the Earth that has been released into the atmosphere for millennia through volcanic events and rock erosion. But human-generated, mostly industrial, processes have accelerated the build-up of mercury emissions. Metal processing facilities, cement works, the production of vinyl monomer and coal-fired power stations are the biggest contributors to the high levels of mercury in the atmosphere today.

From 2010 to 2015 alone, global anthropogenic mercury emissions rose by 20 percent, reports the UNEP. Coal-burning processes account for about 21 percent of all emissions. And this is projected to increase if a further 1,600 planned coal-driven power stations, on top of the existing 3,700 worldwide, are built. Already mercury in the atmosphere is about 450 percent above natural levels, reports UNEP.

After travelling long distances, mercury emissions then deposit in oceans. And toxicity begins when natural bacteria in aquatic environments mix with mercury, transforming it into Methylmercury, which is a neurotoxin. In the Pacific region, Methylmercury has contaminated beaches, coral reefs and fisheries, including swordfish, shark, tuna and mackerel, that are commonly consumed daily. Seafood is an important source of protein for up to 90 percent of Pacific Islanders and contributes to cash-based livelihoods for about 50 percent, reports the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

Today mercury is named one of the top ten chemicals of concern to public health by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the danger is especially acute in women and children. It can, in higher doses, inflict damage on cardiovascular organs, kidneys and the nervous systems of pregnant women and subsequently affect organ development of the foetus.

A fisherman on the coast of Funafuti, Tuvalu, throwing a weighted net out into the seawater, a traditional form of fishing. Credit: Rodney Dekker / Climate Visuals

The results of a medical study conducted by the Biodiversity Research Institute (BRI) confirmed health concerns.  Testing for traces of mercury in 757 women, aged 18-44 years, in the developing island states of the Caribbean, Indian and Pacific Oceans, including the Cook Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Tonga and Marshall Islands, revealed that 58 percent possessed a level in their bodies that exceeded the safe threshold of 1ppm Hg. Researchers concluded the most likely cause was the high consumption of contaminated fish. In comparison, women who consumed lower amounts of fish and seafood recorded the lowest levels of mercury.

However, islanders also encounter toxicity in their households. Mercury is used in the production of common imported consumer products, such as fluorescent light tubes, electrical switches, dental amalgam fillings and skin lightening cosmetics. But it is when these products reach the end of their lives and are discarded that mercury is at risk of lingering indefinitely in the environment.

“The core of the problem is that mercury-added products are not being separated from municipal solid waste, and there are no local facilities for the environmentally sound disposal of mercury waste,” Soseala Tinilau, SPREP’s Hazardous Waste Management Advisor, told IPS. Also, “medical waste incineration sites are identified as potential sources of mercury emissions to the air.” And in some locations, raw sewerage flows have contributed mercury waste due to affected products being washed down drains into waterways and the sea.

A challenge is that waste management systems in many Pacific Island countries are constrained by lack of capacity, technology, resources and infrastructure. “There are no local facilities for the environmentally sound disposal of mercury waste. Therefore, a system for packing, exporting and disposing of this waste in an approved facility abroad is a critical need,” Tinilau specified.

Fisheries, susceptible to mercury contamination, are a major source of food and protein for Pacific Islanders. Fish market, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Credit: Catherine Wilson/IPS

Several years ago, numerous Pacific Island states, including Kiribati, Palau, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu, joined the Minamata Convention. The first global agreement to reform the ways in which mercury is used, phase it out in industries and develop better waste management practices, among other measures, came into effect in 2017.

Now governments in the region are drawing further on the power of multilateral collaboration in the Mercury Free Pacific initiative. The expansive mandate of the GEF-funded project includes conducting national surveys of mercury contamination, educating local communities about the risks, reviewing exposure to mercury-added consumer products, reforming waste management practices and assisting governments to develop relevant legislation.

The GEF is funding US$12.6 billion in environmental projects currently underway globally, which are expected to generate a further US$80.5 billion in co-financing. And it has a long view of its commitment to the Mercury Free Pacific project through its GEF Islands program, with goals outlined until at least 2030.

Anil Bruce Sookdeo, the GEF’s coordinator for Chemicals and Waste, elaborated that in the Pacific the GEF has provided US$1.5 million for gathering mapping data, its analysis and developing action and remedial plans in eleven Pacific Island nations, including the Federated States of Micronesia, Samoa, Kiribati, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

A further US$2 million is allocated to supporting national responses, such as devising effective legislation, community awareness programs and improving waste management processes. The campaign “represents a long-term regional objective, rather than a time-based project and requires sustained commitment and coordinated action by Pacific countries, regional institutions and partners,” he emphasised.

GEF funding has empowered Tuvalu, a country comprising nine coral islands and 11,800 people in the South Pacific, to make strides in its whole-of-society response to the issue.  The government has been able to strengthen its capacity and expertise, organise media awareness campaigns and oversee consultation with industries, communities and civil society organisations.

“For the first time, we have a national estimate of where mercury is coming from…we are beginning to understand the risks to our people and we have a roadmap for future action,” Panapa said in outlining the benefits of the Mercury Free Pacific initiative. At the same time, “these efforts represent the beginning of a longer journey to build community understanding and change behaviours related to mercury-added products, waste disposal and dietary choices.”

But a mitigation goal at the top of the list is to prevent mercury from reaching the islands. “Making marine life safe from mercury contamination is not about eliminating mercury already present in the ocean, but about preventing further contamination and managing the risk of exposure,” Tinilau said.

This means, among other measures, restricting the importation of mercury-added consumer products and galvanising global action to halt mercury emissions. Global consensus on phasing out coal-fired power stations and reforming industrial processes would be a start.

Pacific Island countries are demonstrating the political will and action with “regional coherence, national ownership and sustained momentum toward reducing mercury risks to human health, the environment and food systems in the Pacific,” emphasised Sookdeo from the GEF. Now, big emitters need to heed the urgency of reducing emissions at their source.

Notes: The Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly will be held from May 30 to June 6, 2026, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.
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

Seychelles’ pioneering blue bond offers a compelling lesson in practical ocean finance. Credit: Michaela Rimakova/Unsplash

By James Alix Michel
VICTORIA, Seychelles, Apr 29 2026 (IPS)

As the world prepares for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) meeting in Samarkand next month, Seychelles’ pioneering blue bond offers a compelling lesson in practical ocean finance.

For small island states, the ocean is not merely a natural resource; it is the foundation of national life, economic opportunity, and long-term resilience against climate threats.

As President of Seychelles, I introduced the blue economy as a national vision as early as 2008. I did so because I believed then—as I do now—that for an island nation spanning 1.4 million square kilometers of ocean, sustainable development must begin with responsible stewardship of our marine resources. Our future depended on learning how to protect biodiversity, manage fisheries sustainably, and build economic models that serve both present needs and future generations. This vision positioned Seychelles as an early advocate for integrating ocean health with national prosperity.

That vision was not developed in isolation. It was strengthened through deliberate steps and high-level conversations that bridged policy ambition with financial innovation. A key milestone came with the debt-for-nature swap, finalized with the Paris Club creditors and The Nature Conservancy in 2014. This landmark agreement restructured approximately US$21.6 million in debt, freeing resources for marine conservation and climate adaptation. It directly led to the creation of SeyCCAT, the Seychelles Conservation and Climate Adaptation Trust, which has since become a vital mechanism for channeling funds into ocean protection, sustainable fisheries, and resilience projects.

As President, I also discussed the blue bond concept directly with the then Prince of Wales, Prince Charles, during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka in November 2013.

Meeting with the Prince of Wales in Sri Lanka in 2013 at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). Credit: James Alix Michel

His International Sustainability Unit was already promoting innovative ocean finance mechanisms, and our conversation highlighted the urgent need for small island states to access capital markets tailored to blue economy priorities.

This exchange, combined with early engagement from the World Bank and Commonwealth partners, helped refine the idea into a viable sovereign instrument. It underscored a growing global recognition that traditional financing was inadequate for the unique challenges of climate-vulnerable, ocean-dependent nations.

The blue bond represented the culmination of this journey. Structured with technical support from the World Bank, a US$5 million guarantee from the multilateral lender, and a US$5 million concessional grant from the GEF, it raised US$15 million from private investors including Calvert Impact Capital, Nuveen, and Prudential Financial.

On 29 October 2018, Seychelles launched the world’s first sovereign blue bond at the Our Ocean Conference in Bali — an event I had the privilege of attending. This was not just a financial milestone for Seychelles; it was a global proof of concept for ocean-positive investment.

Launch of the Seychelles Blue Bond in Bali at the Ocean Conference in 2018. Credit: James Alix Michel

The bond’s structure was as innovative as its purpose. Proceeds were allocated to expand marine protected areas to 30% of Seychelles’ exclusive economic zone, improve fisheries governance, and develop sustainable blue economy sectors like eco-tourism and seafood value chains. Managed through SeyCCAT and the Development Bank of Seychelles, the funds supported grants and loans for projects that delivered measurable environmental and economic returns. Investors benefited from blended finance that de-risked the instrument, while Seychelles gained long-term capital for priorities that traditional aid could not address.

For small island developing states (SIDS), this model holds profound significance. Nations like Seychelles grapple with high public debt (often exceeding 60% of GDP), acute climate exposure, a heavy reliance on marine resources for 20-30% of GDP, and limited fiscal space. Conventional loans and grants are frequently too rigid, too short-term, or misaligned with ocean realities.

The blue bond demonstrated that sovereign debt instruments can be repurposed for sustainability, attracting private capital while advancing public goods like biodiversity protection and community livelihoods.

Its broader impact extends beyond the US$15 million raised. The Seychelles blue bond lent credibility to the blue economy as a bankable asset class, inspiring subsequent issuances by Gabon (2022), Ecuador (2024), and others. It proved that nature-based solutions and financial innovation are complementary, not competitive. By linking debt restructuring, conservation trusts, and market-based finance, Seychelles created a replicable blueprint that has influenced global discussions at forums like the UN Ocean Conference and G20 sustainable finance tracks.

Yet this success should not be romanticized. Innovative finance alone cannot resolve systemic inequities in the international financial architecture. Blue bonds require robust institutions, transparent governance, technical capacity, and a pipeline of investable projects—foundations that not all SIDS possess. Seychelles benefited from strong political commitment, capable partners like the World Bank and GEF, and a pre-existing conservation framework. Without these, such instruments risk becoming symbolic rather than substantive.

This is precisely why the GEF assembly in Samarkand is so timely. Oceans face escalating crises: overfishing depletes 35% of stocks, plastic pollution chokes marine life, warming waters trigger coral bleaching, and habitat loss threatens 40% of global biodiversity. Yet ocean finance remains woefully inadequate—less than 1% of climate finance targets marine ecosystems, despite the ocean’s role in absorbing 25% of CO₂ emissions and producing 50% of planetary oxygen.

Samarkand offers a platform to scale solutions like Seychelles’ model.

The GEF, as a catalytic funder, should prioritize blue finance architecture for SIDS and coastal states. This means expanding blended finance facilities, providing first-loss guarantees, offering concessional capital, and building capacity for project pipelines. It also requires policy reforms to integrate blue bonds into debt sustainability frameworks, ensuring they complement—rather than compete with—multilateral debt relief initiatives.

Seychelles took a calculated risk in 2008 by centering the blue economy in national strategy. We persisted through debt swaps, presidential diplomacy, and patient institution-building. The blue bond was the reward: a tool that converted vulnerability into opportunity.

As delegates converge on Samarkand, let Seychelles’ story serve as both inspiration and imperative. The blue economy will not thrive on declarations or pilot projects. It demands instruments that harness private capital for public purposes, turning ocean ambition into enduring action. Seychelles opened the door.

The GEF and global community must now widen it—for islands, for coasts, and for the shared blue planet we all depend on.

Note: The Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly will be held from May 30 to June 6, 2026, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.

James Alix Michel is the former President of Seychelles (2004–2016) and a global advocate for the blue economy, ocean conservation and climate resilience.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By HMGS Palihakkara
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, Apr 28 2026 (IPS)

As delegates from 191 countries, including the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, gathered Monday at UN headquarters for a month of diplomacy at the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the stakes could hardly be higher.

They meet in the shadow of a war of choice, waged by the United States and Israel against Iran—ostensibly to prevent nuclear proliferation. It is a war steeped in tragedy and laced with irony. The human toll and global economic costs speak for themselves.

The irony is starker.

The United States, a principal depositary of the NPT, unilaterally caused the collapse of a UN-authorised agreement it had itself initiated to verify Iran’s non-nuclear status—the JCPOA. Having done that, the US, alongside Israel—a state that rejects the NPT—now bombs a hitherto NPT-compliant Iran to achieve the same end: a non-nuclear Iran.

This oxymoronic irony lies at the heart of America’s war of choice. Waged in the name of non-proliferation, it may accelerate the very outcome it seeks to avoid. By demonstrating that even a state short of nuclear weapons can be subjected to unilateral unauthorised force, Washington risks sending a stark message: survival may depend not on restraint and diplomacy, but on possession of the bomb.

This paradox exposes a longstanding fragility in the global nuclear matrix. Built around the NPT and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s safeguards regime, it rests on a bargain: non-nuclear states forgo weapons in exchange for security assurances, access to peaceful nuclear technology and good-faith progress towards disarmament.

This system, discriminatory but functional, endures only so long as it is seen as credible. When a treaty-compliant non-nuclear state becomes the target of military action over suspected ambitions, that credibility erodes.

At the centre of this erosion is the doctrine of nuclear deterrence. Before the conflict, Iran’s posture was widely understood as “hedging”—developing technical capacity without crossing the weapons threshold.

This allowed Tehran to retain leverage while avoiding the full costs of weaponisation. But hedging depends on a shared understanding: that ambiguity will be tolerated—or at least not punished with illegal use of force.

War shatters that assumption. The lesson is stark: nuclear latency does not deter attack; nuclear possession might. The comparison with North Korea is instructive. Its overt arsenal has largely insulated it from large-scale intervention despite decades of hostility with Washington.

For policymakers in Tehran—and elsewhere—the implication is difficult to ignore. If ambiguity invites vulnerability, clarity in the form of a deterrent may appear rational. Nuclear weapons risk being recast from political liabilities into strategic necessities.

The damage extends beyond Iran. The non-proliferation regime has long depended on the belief that compliance will not be punished. Yet recent history has already weakened that assumption. Ukraine relinquished the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal in the 1990s in exchange for security assurances, only to face Russian invasion decades later.

Libya abandoned its programme and soon after saw regime collapse following the US initiated external intervention. These precedents have chipped away at trust.

Against this backdrop, war with Iran reinforces a troubling pattern: states without nuclear weapons appear vulnerable, while those with them appear secure. This is the opposite of what the non-proliferation regime is meant to uphold.

Officials at the IAEA have warned such dynamics could trigger a “domino effect”, with multiple countries reconsidering their options. Across the Middle East and beyond, governments are quietly reassessing their assumptions.

Military aggression also reshapes domestic politics in ways that complicate non-proliferation. External pressure strengthens hardliners while marginalising advocates of engagement. This is not unintended but predictable. Hardliners are less inclined toward compromise and more likely to view nuclear weapons as essential to survival.

The space for diplomacy narrows as nuclearisation gains appeal. War, in other words, transforms not just capabilities but preferences.

There is also a practical limit to military solutions. Airstrikes can damage or even ‘obliterate’ facilities, but they cannot erase knowledge. Scientific expertise cannot be bombed out of existence. Indeed, intervention may accelerate the very processes it seeks to halt by pushing them underground. A programme once visible to inspectors may become more secretive and harder to monitor.

The regional implications are equally concerning. The Middle East is already marked by rivalry and fragile security arrangements. An Iranian move towards nuclear weapons—especially one accelerated by conflict—would likely prompt countervailing responses.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey have both signalled they would not remain passive. The result could be a cascading arms race, turning an already volatile region into a multipolar nuclear environment.

This is a classic security dilemma: one state’s attempt to enhance its security leaves others feeling less secure, prompting reciprocal measures that leave all worse off. By seeking to eliminate a potential threat through unauthorised force, the United States may multiply such threats. Instead of one threshold state, the region could face several.

These dynamics point to a deeper flaw: the belief that military force can resolve nuclear proliferation. Nuclear ambition is not merely technical; it is a political response to insecurity. Bombing addresses symptoms, not causes.

Without addressing the security concerns that drive states towards nuclear capabilities, coercion alone cannot produce lasting results. All successful non-proliferation goals-ranging from NPT to JCPOA- were reached through calculated diplomatic negotiations, not by military means.

Past experience underscores this. Diplomatic agreements, however imperfect, have constrained nuclear programmes. The collapse of the JCPOA removed mechanisms that had limited Iran’s activities. In the absence of a credible diplomatic alternative, military action amounts to little more than a delay—buying time at the cost of increasing long-term incentives to pursue nuclear weapons.

The war also risks reinforcing the perception that international law is subordinate to power politics. If rules can be bypassed by powerful states, weaker ones are unlikely to rely on them. Instead, they may turn to capabilities that cannot easily be neutralised. Nuclear weapons become not just tools of deterrence, but symbols of sovereignty and survival.

Perhaps the most enduring impact will be psychological. States learn from precedent. From Iraq to Libya to Ukraine—and now Iran—a pattern appears: vulnerability invites intervention, while nuclear capability deters it. This conclusion may be uncomfortable, but it reflects a cold logic of international politics. Once such a perception takes hold, it is difficult to reverse.

For this reason, the war may prove a watershed moment not only for Iran but for the global non-proliferation regime. It alters perceptions of risk and security in ways that favour proliferation over restraint. Even states with no immediate intention of pursuing nuclear weapons may begin hedging against a future in which international guarantees appear unreliable.

The tragedy is that a policy intended to prevent proliferation may instead accelerate it. By undermining trust, empowering hardliners and reinforcing deterrence logic, the United States risks achieving the opposite of its stated aim. Even if military action sets back Iran’s programme in the short term, the long-term consequences may be far more damaging.

A more secretive, more determined and more widely emulated pursuit of nuclear weapons would not represent a victory for non-proliferation. It would mark its gradual unravelling—an “own goal” in geopolitical terms.

If the aim of non-proliferation is to reduce the role of nuclear weapons, this conflict points in the opposite direction. It suggests that security cannot be reliably guaranteed by treaties or norms alone, and that in an uncertain world the ultimate insurance policy remains the bomb.

That message will resonate far beyond Iran. Its consequences may shape nuclear choices for decades.

The question the Iran war poses to the world is not polemical but stark: is it a new normal that a depositary state of the NPT and a covert nuclear power not party to the treaty can preclude diplomacy and bomb their way to non-proliferation?

If the current NPT Review Conference in New York, like its predecessor conferences, fails to reach consensus on the way forward for the Treaty’s three pillars—non-proliferation, peaceful nuclear cooperation based on sovereign equality, and disarmament—it will amount to an answer in the affirmative, to that question. This may then signal the onset of the treaty’s terminal decay.

HMGS Palihakkara is a former Sri Lankan Ambassador to United Nations; one time Chair /Member of UNSG Advisory Board on Disarmament; a member of the UN Intergovernmental Panel updating the ’Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons’; Advisor to the President of the 1995 NPT Review & Extension Conference.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A worker operates a geothermal pipeline at the Laudat plant in Dominica, part of a clean energy project supported by the Global Environment Facility. The project illustrates the kind of system-wide transition GEF-9 aims to scale across small island developing states. Credit: Alison Kentish/IPS

By Alison Kentish
SAINT LUCIA, Apr 27 2026 (IPS)

The gap between global environmental ambition and real-world progress is widening, with less than five years left to meet key climate and biodiversity targets.

Against that backdrop, attention is increasingly turning to how international environmental finance can deliver faster, deeper change on the ground.

Earlier this month, nations pledged $3.9 billion to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for its latest funding cycle, known as GEF-9, running from July 2026 to June 2030.

The new cycle is being positioned as part of the response to lagging global environmental action. The GEF will aim for an important upscaling of conservation efforts across terrestrial and marine environments and, importantly, will also aim to influence and transform how economies produce, consume and develop.

What GEF-9 Is Trying to Change

The Global Environment Facility is the world’s largest multilateral environmental fund, supporting developing countries to meet commitments under multilateral environmental agreements on climate change, biodiversity, land degradation, chemicals and ocean governance.

That comprises six global environmental agreements, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

But officials say GEF-9 reflects a shift in thinking, adding that incremental environmental action is no longer enough to keep pace with accelerating ecological decline.

“The global community has set very ambitious goals for 2030 and, regrettably, we are nowhere close to achieving them,” said Fred Boltz, Head of Programming at the GEF. “As a consequence, the shared environmental challenge we now face is to manage a changing Earth system to sustain a healthy planet for healthy people.”

In this context of change and uncertainty, existing approaches have reached their limits.

“Upscaling conventional solutions is not sufficient to address our planetary-scale, existential challenge,” Boltz said.

From Projects to Systems Transformation

At the core of GEF-9 is a deliberate shift toward what the organisation describes as “systems transformation”, consistent with the GEF Integrated Programs (IPs) which are an important complement to funding traditional environmental projects that are necessary but not sufficient to address planetary challenges.  Systems transformation through the GEF IPs aims to change underlying incentives, institutions and pathways that currently drive climate change, ecosystem and biodiversity loss, land degradation, and pollution.

Rather than treating environmental damage as a series of isolated problems, the GEF IPs are built around the idea that economies themselves must be reshaped to operate within ecological limits. That includes the major systems that determine environmental outcomes at scale: food systems and agriculture, urban development, production supply chains, and land, water and ocean use.

The approach reflects what GEF describes in its strategic framework as a response to “accelerating global environmental crises” and the need for a more integrated response that aligns multilateral environmental agreements and development efforts.

“In addition to conserving the most important areas, restoring degraded ecosystems and preserving the adaptive capacity of our Earth, we must urgently focus on transforming human production and consumption practices,” said Boltz, pointing to the scale of change required to meet global environmental targets.

Under GEF-9, this shift is being operationalised through four linked pathways.

The first is expanding and diversifying environmental finance, including through blended finance models that combine public funding with private investment to close persistent financing gaps.

The second is embedding nature more directly into national development planning, ensuring environmental priorities are not treated as stand-alone goals but integrated into economic decision-making, fiscal policy and sector planning.

The third focuses on what the GEF calls “valuing nature in the economy”, including internalising the value of nature in economic designs and decisions, mobilising private capital, and aligning investment flows with environmental agreements through tools such as natural capital accounting and nature-positive value chains.

The fourth is broader “whole-of-society” engagement, which places Indigenous peoples, local communities, civil society, youth and women more centrally in the design and implementation of environmental programmes. The GEF considers that, as stewards of the Earth, all of them must take part in its conservation while also benefiting from the wealth of nature.

Taken together, these approaches reflect what the GEF describes as a shift toward nature-positive development. This is where economic growth and environmental protection are no longer treated as competing priorities but as interdependent goals.

Rather than funding isolated conservation projects, GEF-9 is therefore designed to operate across entire landscapes and seascapes, recognising that ecosystems, economies and communities are deeply interconnected and must be managed as such.

A Shift in How Environmental Finance Works

A key change under GEF-9 is how environmental action will be financed.

The fund is expanding its use of blended finance by combining public funding with private investment to unlock significantly larger flows of capital.

While earlier cycles used this approach in limited ways, GEF-9 is expected to scale it up as part of a broader strategy to close persistent environmental financing gaps.

Boltz said the focus is now on upscaling and transformative change rather than incremental gains.

“We are really focusing on transforming human production and consumption practices and operating at a scale in the conservation of ecosystems that enables planetary adaptation to a changing climate and to unrelenting human demand for ecosystem goods and services,” he said.

New financial instruments, including outcome-based bonds and nature-linked investment mechanisms, are also expected to play a greater role in attracting long-term private capital.

What It Looks Like on the Ground

In practice, the shift is already visible in energy transitions in small island states.

In Dominica, geothermal energy development supported through GEF-linked financing is expected to replace around 65% of fossil fuel-based electricity generation.

The impact goes beyond emissions reductions.

For island economies dependent on imported fuel, such transitions can reduce energy costs, ease fiscal pressure and improve resilience to global price shocks.

“This systems transformation benefits the environment in Dominica and benefits the global community by reducing greenhouse gas emissions while also ensuring lasting human benefits for the people of this island nation, in turn increasing the likelihood of success and sustainability for those investments,” Boltz said.

GEF-9 approach. Graphic: IPS

Integration Replaces Silos

Another defining feature of GEF-9 is integration across sectors and across the GEF “family of funds” – a shift away from treating the conservation of biodiversity, land and ecosystems, marine and freshwater systems, chemicals and waste management, and climate change mitigation and adaptation as separate sectors with distinct investments and isolated efforts.

Instead, projects are increasingly being designed to address these challenges together, reflecting the reality that environmental systems do not operate in isolation.

The approach is driven by both efficiency and impact. Combining interventions is expected to deliver multiple benefits at once, while avoiding fragmented efforts that can undermine long-term results.

Under this model, a single intervention can generate overlapping gains across different environmental priorities. Mangrove restoration, for example, can strengthen coastal protection against storms, support biodiversity habitats and store carbon. Sustainable agriculture initiatives can improve food security while also reducing pressure on soils, forests and freshwater systems.

The approach is also linked to broader GEF-9 priorities around scaling impact across landscapes and seascapes, rather than limiting action to protected areas or project boundaries. That includes managing ecosystems as connected systems, where upstream land use, coastal resilience and marine health are interdependent.

Boltz said this shift reflects how environmental pressures are actually experienced by countries on the ground.

“Countries face a spectrum of environmental challenges that do not neatly fall into different categories and the GEF must operate and support the achievement of lasting environmental outcomes in this reality,” he said.

Focus On Vulnerable Countries and Communities

The new cycle also places stronger emphasis on countries and communities most exposed to environmental risks, reflecting greater equity in how global environmental finance is distributed.

Small island developing states and least developed countries are expected to receive a larger share of resources under GEF-9, alongside increased support for Indigenous peoples and local communities who are often on the frontlines of conservation but historically underfunded.

Boltz said this shift is now embedded in the fund’s programming priorities, including a formal commitment to expand Indigenous-led environmental action.

“We have committed to an aspirational target of 20% of GEF financing to support Indigenous peoples’ efforts in environmental stewardship across the GEF family of funds. We have also significantly expanded a dedicated financing instrument to support Indigenous peoples’ stewardship. That has increased fourfold. It was 25 million in GEF-8. It’ll be 100 million in GEF-9.”

He added that the increase reflects growing recognition that environmental outcomes are stronger when local and Indigenous communities are directly resourced and involved in decision-making, particularly in areas such as forest management, land, water and ocean stewardship and biodiversity protection.

What Success Will Look Like

By 2030, success under GEF-9 will not be measured only by financial commitments or project delivery.

Instead, it will be judged by whether structural changes begin to take hold, whether energy systems become cleaner, ecosystems more resilient and economies less damaging to nature.

Boltz said the benchmark is long-term transformation.

“Success looks like maintaining the core elements of what is necessary for a vibrant and resilient planet,” he said, pointing to shifts in the conservation of large marine, terrestrial and freshwater systems and transformations in food systems, supply chains, and urban development.

Why It Matters Now

With global environmental targets under increasing pressure, GEF-9 represents a test of whether international finance can move at the speed and scale required to influence real-world systems.

The initial $3.9 billion commitment pledged by GEF donors in April secures the financial foundation for the next cycle, but it also raises expectations about delivery.

For countries already experiencing the impacts of climate change, particularly small island states, the question is no longer about ambition.

It is about whether systems can be reshaped quickly enough before environmental thresholds are crossed.

Note: The Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly will be held from May 30 to June 6, 2026, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.
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

Excerpt:

Injured civilians, having escaped the raging inferno, gathered on a pavement west of Miyuki-bashi in Hiroshima, Japan, at about 11 a.m. on 6 August 1945. Credit: UN Photo/Yoshito Matsushige

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Apr 21 2026 (IPS)

It is hard to exaggerate the dire implications of Trump’s April 7 post on Truth Social, stating that a civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” if no deal is reached with Iran. Such a damning statement implies that he would use ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ i.e., nuclear, to execute his threat.

Obviously, he cannot destroy such a huge country and annihilate a population of 95 million with conventional weapons. Even though Trump was unlikely to carry out his threat, what he said was not taken lightly by either Iran or much of the international community.

International Outrage Over Trump’s Threat

Trump’s outrageous statement has drawn an extraordinary wave of condemnation, from Tehran to the Vatican to international rights bodies.

Amnesty International’s Secretary General denounced Trump’s screed as an “apocalyptic threat,” warning that his vow to end “a whole civilization” exposes “a staggering level of cruelty and disregard for human life” and should trigger urgent global action to prevent atrocity crimes.

Pope Leo XIV called the language “truly unacceptable,” and UK Prime Minister Starmer condemned Trump’s threat, stating that “they are not words I would use — ever use — because I come at this with our British values and principles.”

Together, these reactions, among many others, underscore that Trump’s rhetoric is not being treated as mere bombast, but a genocidal threat that shreds basic norms of international law.

Iranian Officials’ Reaction to Trump’s Statements

The Iranian Embassy in Pakistan mocked the idea that Trump could erase a culture that survived Alexander and the Mongols, insisting that civilizations “are not born over a night and will not die over a night.”

Trump’s vows to “bring [Iranians] back to the Stone Ages” and to let “a whole civilization…die” have, indeed, landed in Tehran not as an outburst. Iranian leaders are treating this language as an open admission of an intent to commit war crimes—and they are already treating it as a narrative of existential struggle with Washington.

In the hands of the Revolutionary Guard, the “Stone Age” threat becomes a propaganda gift: it is proof, they claim, that the United States does not merely oppose the regime, but dreams of erasing an entire people.

The IRGC’s response has been defiant rather than cowed, promising “stronger, wider, and more destructive” retaliation and signaling that any American escalation will be met in kind.

To be sure, many Iranian leaders see Trump’s posts as desperate brinkmanship—a schoolyard bully bluffing nuclear annihilation he cannot deliver. That interpretation may calm nerves around the country, but it might also tempt Tehran to call his bluff, raising the risk of miscalculation.

Under any circumstance, Trump has provided Iran’s rulers the opportunity to claim that any concession wrung from Washington under such apocalyptic pressure is not capitulation. Still, Iran’s millennium-old history attests that these proud people with the richest civilization will not succumb to any threat.

The Iranian Public’s Reaction

Trump’s promise to “hit Iran extremely hard” also operates as psychological warfare against an already exhausted society. They place the threat of physical destruction on top of years of sanctions, economic meltdown, and repression.

For many Iranians, especially parents and the elderly, hearing a US president casually warn that “a whole civilization will die tonight” converts abstract geopolitics into an intimate dread they can imagine and quantify: hospitals without power, children without food and water, people starving to death, and cities lying in ruins.

This deepens their anxiety, concerns, and a sense that they are being collectively punished for decisions made by a mad authoritarian whose genocidal tone hardens a defensive nationalism. Even the Iranians who despise the regime still view the threat as an assault on a 3,000-year-old culture. They would rally around the flag, as they see their own lives as expendable in a struggle where the alternative, as Trump himself spells out, is civilizational extinction.

On the Iranian street and in the diaspora, one hears echoes of Trump’s rhetoric triggering a volatile mix of fear, fury, and contempt that the regime can readily weaponize. For some Iranians, talk of a “civilization” dying reopens the psychic wounds of crippling sanctions and war, making American threats feel dreadfully real, not figurative.

For others, it’s an insufferable insult to an ancient culture that predates the United States by millennia, reinforcing national pride and engendering support even among critics of the clerics.

Trump’s Fitness to Command American Power

These Iranian reactions rebound into US politics because a president whose threats are interpreted abroad as genocidal, unhinged, or clearly insane is not projecting resolve but publicizing volatility and strategic incoherence.

This inevitably undermines deterrence and hands Iran both a recruitment tool and a pretext for escalation if they must.

On the home front, the perception of a man on the loose feeds directly into already fierce debates over Trump’s mental fitness to command American power—arming critics who argue that his apocalyptic language is not just morally repugnant but operationally unthinkable.

This led even some Republicans and national security conservatives to ask whether a commander in chief who casually talks of destroying a “civilization” and whose finger is on the nuclear button can be trusted with the judgment, discipline, and national security on which the US ultimately depends.

When a president of the United States threatens that a whole civilization will die, the world must listen—not because the threat is necessarily credible, but because it exposes the peril of letting unrestrained rhetoric shape global realities.

Trump’s words are not the tantrum of a man out of power; they echo a worldview that wields extinction as diplomacy and gambles civilization itself for theatrical dominance and projection of raw power.

Trump’s declaration that millions might perish is not merely the ravings of an unbalanced mind—it is a chilling testament to how easily words can imperil peace when uttered by one who commands the world’s most formidable military.

His invocation of civilizational death transcends political recklessness; it reveals a moral collapse that renders him ominously unfit to wield influence over American power and global order.

There seems to be no level of disgrace that Trump will not embrace. One day, he threatens to wipe out a whole civilization and exterminate 95 million Iranians; the next, he portrays himself in an AI-generated image as Jesus Christ-like savior healing the sick—a blasphemy that only Trump can commit, debasing the exalted and sublime values of Christianity only to feed his sick soul.

What was once dismissed as bluster must now be recognized for what it is—a warning that when dangerous mendacity meets bottomless ego, humanity itself becomes collateral. The world cannot allow a madman’s narrative to become the language of statecraft.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

North Korea’s ballistic missile. Credit: Wikipedia

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 21 2026 (IPS)

The ongoing military conflicts in the Middle East—involving the US, Israel, Palestine, Iran and Lebanon—have indirectly bolstered North Korea’s plans to expand its nuclear arsenal.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is quoted as saying the American attacks on Iran justified his decision to strengthen his military power and would eventually make his country safe in a world shaped by President Trump’s foreign policy.

The headline in a New York Times article last week read: “North Korea Tests New Weapons, Drawing Lessons from War in the Middle East”.

Among the weapons tested were missiles carrying cluster munition and graphite bomb payloads, much like weapons that have appeared in the Middle East, the Times said.

The testing signals that North Korea is trying to learn from the Middle East war.

Responding to President Trump’s interest in meeting with him, the North Korean leader has said he would agree to a meeting, only if the US formally recognizes his country as a nuclear power—and argued that leaders of Iraq and Libya would have survived US attacks if they possessed a nuclear deterrent.

“I don’t see any reason not to get along well with the United States if it withdraws its hostile policy towards us and respects our current (nuclear) status”, he said in a speech last February.

Trump met with the North Korean leader three times during his first term in office (2017–2021), including summits in Singapore (June 2018) and Hanoi (February 2019), followed by a brief meeting at the DMZ (June 2019), where Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to enter North Korea.

Meanwhile, the Washington-based Stimson Center points out that despite stringent international economic sanctions imposed primarily through the UN Security Council, North Korea’s progress in nuclear and missile development as well as in its nuclear doctrine has been remarkable, particularly since negotiations with the Trump administration stalled in 2018-19.

North Korea’s position that denuclearization is non-negotiable was again emphasized at their most recent Party Congress held in February 2026.

Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, Director pro tem, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told Inter Press Service the attacks by the United States and Israel on Iran are unprovoked and further add to the incentive for countries to acquire nuclear weapons.

“There is no way to be sure that such acquisition would shield such countries under all circumstances, especially when military powers like the United States act with such belligerence”.

But rather than go down that direction, he pointed out, “our efforts should be focused on ensuring that countries do not resort to military violence and attacking other countries, and differences are settled through peaceful and diplomatic means.

While the current leaderships in many countries might not be inclined to act in such ways, it is up to civil society and social movements to help steer governments in a more peaceful direction, declared Dr Ramana.

North Korea has made “very serious” progress in its ability to produce more nuclear weapons, the head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog has said, in another sign that the regime is seeking to use its nuclear arsenal to ensure its survival, according to the London Guardian.

North Korea is thought to have assembled about 50 nuclear warheads, although some experts are skeptical of its claims that it is able to miniaturize them so they can be attached to long-range ballistic missiles.

Speaking during a visit to Seoul, Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), confirmed reports of a rapid rise in activity at North Korea’s main nuclear complex, Yongbyon.

Grossi said work had intensified at Yongbyon’s 5MW reactor, reprocessing unit, light water reactor and other facilities, and the country was believed to possess several dozen nuclear warheads.

In an interview with IPS, Alice Slater, who serves on the Boards of World Beyond War and the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space and is also a UN NGO Representative for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, told IPS “once again, North Korea is being singled out as a rogue state for complaining that its plans to strengthen its military capacity is justified given the US destruction of Iraq and Libya which never made any effort to go nuclear as North Korea did.”

It was widely unreported, she said, that North Korea was the only nuclear country to support a vote in 2016 at the UN First Committee that authorized negotiations to go forward on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons which resulted in the 2017 adoption of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Every single nuclear state as well as the states sheltering under the US nuclear umbrella, she pointed out, boycotted the meeting (except the Netherlands which was ordered to attend the UN meeting by a vote of its Parliament).

Which ones were the real rogue states? she asked.

While the news, dominated by what has been described by Ray McGovern founder of Veterans Intelligence Professions for Sanity as part of the MICIMATT (the Military Industrial Congressional Intelligence Media Academic Think Tank complex), is now trumpeting the new nuclear dangers and the frightening prospects of potential proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional nations, no attention is being paid to the opportunities to put a halt to the burgeoning nuclear arms race and the US race to weaponize space, characterized most recently by US plans for a “Golden Dome” estimated to cost 1.5 billion over the next years.

“There is a clear connection,” said Slater, “between maintaining space for peace and the willingness of Russia and China to negotiate for nuclear disarmament, going back to the time when Gorbachev proposed to Reagan that the US and Russia eliminate their nuclear arsenals provided the US gave up its plans to dominate and control space in its Vision 2020 document.”

While Reagan liked the idea of nuclear abolition, he refused to give up his Star Wars plans. Russia and China tabled a draft treaty in the consensus-bound UN Committee in Geneva in 2014 and 2018 which the US blocked, refusing to allow any discussion.

This past May 2025, on the 80th Anniversary of WWII, they issued a stunning proposal calling for global cooperation, supporting the “central coordinating role of the UN” and asking for a number of steps that could increase “strategic stability”

In particular, they criticized the US Golden Dome program, urging the need for the early launch of negotiations to conclude a legally binding multilateral instrument based on their draft treaty on the prevention of weapons and the use of force in outer space. They even pledged to promote an international commitment “not to be the first to deploy weapons in outer space”.

“Were the peace and arms control movements in the world to take up this extraordinary call and opportunity to reverse the disastrous course we appear to be plummeting towards—and demand that our governments enter negotiations on a treaty to guarantee that we will maintain a weapons and war free environment in space, there is little doubt that a new path will also be opened to finally ban the bomb”.

Time to give peace a chance, declared Slater.

Meanwhile, States Parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) will be meeting at the United Nations for the 2026 NPT Review Conference April 27-May 22.

The Review Conference comes at a time of increased nuclear threats arising from armed conflicts involving nuclear armed States, in particular the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the US/Israel invasion of Iran.

“This will make the deliberations and negotiations in New York very difficult, but also extremely important”, according to Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (PNND).

The PNND says it will be actively involved in the Review Conference – in conjunction with activities in parliaments around the world – to support the NPT by advancing nuclear risk-reduction, nuclear arms control, common security and the global elimination of nuclear weapons.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A sea turtle is released from the hatchery in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh to begin its hazardous journey to the sea. Credit: UNDP Bangladesh

By Rafiqul Islam
COX'S BAZAR, Bangladesh, Apr 20 2026 (IPS)

Every winter thousands of sea turtles come ashore at Cox’s Bazar, in the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh, to lay eggs.

Their path to their breeding grounds is hazardous – fishing nets, propellers, light pollution, coastal developments, stray dogs and other dangers conspire against their success.

The area is rich in biodiversity, with five out of seven ancient reptiles present in Bangladesh’s waters, with three – the Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas), and the Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) – coming ashore for nesting.

Stefan Liller, UNDP Bangladesh representative, gently releases the young turtles from the hatchery. Credit: UNDP Bangladesh

Amid such unfavourable odds for the aquatic creatures, a group of young people volunteer to protect the turtles on the beach at Cox’s Bazar during the breeding season from November to March, contributing to their successful conservation.

“In the past, we did not know how sea turtles help conserve marine ecosystems. Now we know sea turtles play an important role in conserving biodiversity,” Rezaul Karim, a resident of Shafir Beel village in Cox’s Bazar, told Inter Press Service (IPS).

Karim is one of the youths trained for sea turtle conservation under a project run by the Arannayk Foundation, a non-profit conservation organisation in Bangladesh. The foundation established a sea turtle conservation group involving 25 local youths (11 women, 14 men) under its Ecosystem Awareness and Restoration Through Harmony (EARTH) project. EARTH is supported by the Forest Department, the Department of Environment (DoE), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) with funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

A youth group performs a play designed to sensitise the community to conservation issues. Credit: Arannayk Foundation

The group is working to raise awareness about sea turtle conservation among fishermen, youth, and the local community. They are also aiming to encourage a shift in local attitudes by engaging community members.

Group leader Delwar Hossain, a resident of Sonarpara village under Ukhyia upazila, said sea turtles play a crucial role in maintaining marine ecosystems, as different species of sea turtles help sweep or clean the ocean by managing various food sources and habitats.

He said there is a superstition among the marine fishermen that if turtles are caught in their fishing gear, it will bring bad luck and that is why they kill turtles caught in their nets.

“We held meetings with the fishermen several times and made them aware of sea turtle conservation,” Delwar said.

Turtle conservation group leader Delwar Hossain with others on Cox’s Bazar Beach, Bangladesh. Credit: Rafiqul Islam/IPS

Gabriella Richardson Temm, Lead of the Small Grants Program at the GEF, says civil society, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and youth and women groups around the world “play critical roles in shaping global development agendas. They deliver transformational solutions to global environmental problems, bring rights holders and marginalised voices into national policy dialogues, and elevate local priorities in international environmental negotiations and financing.”

The small grants program has served as a cornerstone of civil society engagement within the GEF partnership since its inception in 1992.

“Over three decades, the program has demonstrated remarkable reach and impact, administering over US$1.5 billion through nearly 30,000 grants to Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, and youth across 136 countries. This extensive network has successfully secured US$990 million in co-financing, demonstrating the program’s effectiveness in mobilising additional resources for environmental action at the grassroots level,” says Temm.

Grassroots community protection has been acknowledged as contributing to the success of moving one of the sea turtles – the green turtle – to the International Union for Cons

ervation of Nature’s (IUCN) ‘Least Concern’ list. Other factors include international trade bans, reduced poaching, and improved fishing gear.

However, the species predominantly nesting in the Cox’s Bazar beaches, the Olive Ridley is classified as ‘Vulnerable’ on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, while the Hawksbill Turtle remains ‘Critically Endangered’ due to population declines.

Many sea turtles don’t survive the hazardous journey to the nesting grounds at Cox’s Bazar Beach, Bangladesh. Credit: Bangladesh Forest Department

Establishment of Turtle Hatchery

In Cox’s Bazar, with the help of the foundation, the youth group surveyed a 10 km stretch from Reju Khal to Balia Khali beach to identify sea turtle nesting sites. It also gathered insights from local communities on sea turtle breeding seasons, nesting frequency, preferred locations, and community perceptions regarding conservation.

Following the assessment, a sea turtle hatchery was established in Boro Inani, Cox’s Bazar. The hatchery is now playing a crucial conservation role, as these statistics show.

Between January and April 2024, 5,878 Olive Ridley eggs were collected from various nests at Swankhali, Ruppati, Imamer Deil, and Madarbunia sea beaches, resulting in 3,586 hatchlings hatching, with an average hatching success of 61 percent.

Also, from February to April 2025, a total of 3,199 eggs were collected, and by May 2025, 716 hatchlings had been released.

Stefan Liller, UNDP Bangladesh representative in the turtle hatchery. Credit: UNDP Bangladesh

Delwar said that stray dogs often eat the turtle eggs so the hatchery makes a significant contribution.

“We collect eggs that turtles release on the shore and bring those to the hatchery for hatching. Besides, we ask the community people to give turtle eggs to the hatchery. We, the group members, collect the turtle eggs from them too.”

Nurul Afsar, another TCG member, said many ethnic communities living in Cox’s Bazar consume turtles and their eggs – so the group plays a role in encouraging them not to consume but instead protect them.

ABM Sarowar Alam, program manager (species and habitats) at the IUCN in Bangladesh, said Cox’s Bazar Beach was once the ideal breeding ground for sea turtles, but it has dwindled due to habitat loss, poaching, and human disturbance.

He believes that several areas of the beach should be declared as “protected areas for sea turtles” to ensure safe breeding and that fishing should be restricted in the canals connecting to the sea so that turtles can move freely for nesting.

The group also addresses other hazards, such as the issue of stray dogs that kill the turtles and consume the eggs.

Firoz Al Amin, range officer of Inani Forest Range in Ukhiya, said the Forest Department has been working to control the stray dogs on the beach, aiming to protect the turtles.

A sea turtle moves toward the sea. Local conservationists are making a difference to the future of these ancient aquatic animals. Credit: UNDP Bangladesh

EARTH Project, More Than Turtle Conservation

Dr Mohammed Muzammel Hoque, national coordinator of the GEF Small Grants Program at UNDP Bangladesh, said the EARTH project’s role went beyond turtle conservation in the region.

It has elephant-response teams to mitigate conflicts between elephants and humans. The Five Crab Conservation Groups (CCG), comprising 25 youth members, and five sea Turtle Conservation Groups (TCG), also consisting of 25 youth members, remain active. The project was also working towards restoring habitats, with over 7,780 seedlings planted with support from the EARTH Project, with around 80% surviving.

However, Hoque said that the success is dependent on funding – and it’s hoped that once a Forest Trail becomes operational, it can generate revenue from tourists.

Abu Hena Mostafa Kamal, program coordinator of the Arannayk Foundation, said the project, by integrating livelihoods with conservation, “helped grow a sense of ownership among community members and youth, ensuring that environmental protection is not just a project outcome but a sustained, collective commitment.”

Note: The Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly will be held from May 30 to June 6, 2026 in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.

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
  

Mangroves, reefs and coastal ecosystems are more than natural assets — they are frontline climate solutions. Across Pacific villages, including Naidiri on Fiji’s Coral Coast, these systems are helping reduce erosion, protect livelihoods and support long-term resilience. Credit: Ludovic Branlant/SPC

By Sera Sefeti
NAIDIRI, FIJI, Apr 17 2026 (IPS)

Climate change is no longer a distant threat. Across the Pacific, it is a daily reality reshaping coastlines, livelihoods, and the delicate balance between people and the environment. But in a region long defined by resilience, solutions are not being invented from scratch. They are being remembered, strengthened, and scaled. Nature-based solutions (NbS) approaches that use ecosystems to address climate, disaster, and development challenges have always existed in Pacific communities. For generations, villages have relied on mangroves, agroforestry, and customary practices to protect their land and sustain their people. But as climate impacts intensify, the scale and speed of change demand more.

Now, a new regional effort is working to bridge the gap between tradition and modern policy.

The Pacific Community’s Promoting Pacific Islands Nature-based Solutions (PPIN) project is designed to do exactly that: connect what communities already know with the systems that govern development and investment.

Dr Rakeshi Lata, Training and Capacity Building Officer for Nature-based Solutions at SPC, explains that the project is not about replacing traditional knowledge but elevating it.

“It functions as a bridge connecting community practices with national policies to secure resources and scale up proven local methods,” said Lata.

Naidiri village on Fiji’s Coral Coast shows how nature-based Solutions are put into practice, with communities restoring mangroves and reefs to protect their coastline and sustain livelihoods. Credit: Ludovic Branlant/SPC

At its core, PPIN challenges a long-standing imbalance in development thinking where engineered, “grey” infrastructure is prioritised, and nature is treated as secondary.

“More specifically, PPIN addresses the fact that Pacific countries are highly vulnerable to climate change, disasters, and ecosystem degradation, yet development decisions still prioritise grey, engineered solutions while nature is treated as secondary or only an environmental issue,” Lata said.

This disconnect is especially stark in the Pacific, where people’s lives, cultures, and economies are deeply intertwined with the natural environment. When ecosystems fail, communities feel it immediately through food insecurity, coastal erosion, and increased disaster risks.

Yet despite the proven value of nature-based solutions, their adoption has remained limited—often fragmented, underfunded, and confined to small pilot projects.

“There is limited policy integration, technical capacity, economic evidence, and financing to make NbS ‘business as usual’ across sectors such as infrastructure, finance, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and tourism,” Lata said.

That gap between what works locally and what is scaled nationally is where PPIN steps in.

Importantly, the project rejects the idea that traditional knowledge and modern science are in competition.

“The core philosophy of PPIN is that traditional knowledge and modern policy are not opposing forces but complementary strengths, this project aims to formalise what communities have already been practising successfully for centuries,” she said.

“PPIN actively incorporates modern science to strengthen traditional approaches.”

Across Fiji, Vanuatu, and Tonga, this integration is already visible not in theory but in practice.

Mangrove restoration, for example, is being used to reduce coastal erosion and storm surges, offering a natural alternative to costly seawalls. During Cyclone Vaiana in Fiji, boats sought shelter within mangrove systems, shielded from powerful winds and waves,  an example of ecosystem protection delivering real-time resilience.

These same mangroves also trap sediment, protecting downstream communities and coral reefs without the need for concrete infrastructure.

In rural areas, traditional agroforestry systems are being strengthened, combining trees and crops to improve soil stability, enhance food security, and build drought resilience. These systems reduce the need for engineered irrigation and land stabilisation while maintaining ecological balance.

Despite these successes, scaling such solutions has historically been difficult. Fragmented governance, siloed implementation across ministries and NGOs, and limited technical capacity have slowed progress.

Coral restoration helps rebuild reef ecosystems that protect Pacific coastlines, support fisheries and sustain community livelihoods. Credit: Ludovic Branlant/SPC

PPIN is designed to dismantle these barriers.

“A central pillar of PPIN is targeted capacity-building, which includes training programmes and communities of practice by establishing peer-to-peer learning networks focusing on specific sectors to foster continued knowledge exchange and collaboration,” she said.

Beyond policy integration, the project is investing in people, particularly those closest to the land.

Training programmes, including Farmers’ Field Schools and coastal resilience initiatives, focus on practical, livelihood-based applications of NbS. Participants gain hands-on skills in climate-smart and organic farming, linking ecosystem health directly to food production and household wellbeing.

The response has been strong. Women make up more than half of participants over 80 out of 146 with youth and community practitioners also actively engaged.

As the project moves toward closure, its legacy is already taking shape not just in outcomes but also in systems that will endure.

“To ensure sustainability and long-term accessibility, materials from trainings, technical guidance, needs assessment findings and more are being consolidated and hosted within a regional NbS knowledge hub led by SPREP,” Lata said.

“This hub provides a single, trusted platform where governments, practitioners, communities, women and youth can access the PPIN resources.”

But perhaps its most lasting impact will be less tangible and more powerful.

“Beyond materials, PPIN leaves behind strengthened regional networks and communities of practice, which will continue to connect practitioners across countries and sectors.”

In a region on the frontline of climate change, the future may not lie in choosing between tradition and science but in weaving them together.

Because in the Pacific, resilience has never been built on one system alone. It is carried across generations, across knowledge systems, and now, increasingly, across policy and practice.

IPS UN Bureau Report

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
  

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) announced that donor countries ​p​ledged an initial ​U​SD 3.9 billion to ​the facility for the ninth replenishment cycle​, indicating that nature remains a priority, as in this image, where a veterinary team applies a collar to a sedated elephant​ in KwaZulu-Natal​, South Africa, as part of an ambitious project aimed at conserving the animals. Credit: Dan Ingham/IPS

By Alison Kentish
SAINT LUCIA, Apr 9 2026 (IPS)

With just four years left to meet a series of global environmental targets, governments are committing to shore up one of the world’s main environmental funds, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), with a $3.9 billion pledge.

The funding will form the backbone of the GEF’s ninth replenishment cycle, known as GEF-9, a four-year financing round running from July 2026 to June 2030. Those years are widely seen as decisive for slowing biodiversity loss, tackling pollution and keeping climate goals within reach.

While the $3.9 billion pledge signals renewed momentum, it comes at a moment of deepening environmental strain. Ecosystems are continuing to decline, coral reefs are bleaching at scale and small island states are already grappling with the economic and social fallout of environmental change.

“This replenishment sends a clear message: the world is not giving up on nature,” said Claude Gascon, the GEF’s interim chief executive. He noted that donor countries had “risen to the challenge and made bold commitments towards a more positive future for the planet” despite competing global priorities.

“The coming four years of the GEF-9 cycle will reflect this high-ambition push to achieve the 2030 environmental goals,” he said.

The GEF, the world’s largest multilateral environmental fund, supports developing countries in meeting commitments under major global agreements on climate change, biodiversity, land degradation, chemicals, and ocean governance. Since its establishment, it has provided more than $27 billion in grants and mobilised a further $155 billion in co-financing.

GEF’s next funding round, its ninth replenishment cycle, aims to scale investment and mobilise private capital to close widening environmental financing gaps. Credit: Kea Mowat/Unsplash

Rewiring Economies Around Nature

At the centre of the new funding cycle is a push toward what the GEF calls “nature-positive development”. It is an effort to embed environmental value into economic decision-making rather than treating it as a secondary concern.

That includes reworking systems that drive environmental degradation, such as food production, energy, urban development and public health, so they operate within ecological limits.

The strategy also leans heavily on attracting private investment. Around 25% of GEF-9 resources are expected to be used to mobilise private capital, reflecting a growing recognition that public funding alone cannot close the global environmental financing gap.

Focus on the Most Vulnerable

The allocation of funds carries a clear political signal.

At least 35 percent of resources are expected to go to Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), countries that contribute least to environmental degradation but face some of its most severe impacts. A further 20% is earmarked for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

For Caribbean nations, where coastal erosion, stronger storms and coral reef loss are already reshaping economies, the funding could prove significant if it translates quickly into action on the ground.

“We need multilateral cooperation more than ever to protect our planet for future generations,” said Niels Annen, describing the replenishment as a “joint effort” between countries in the Global North and South. “Environmental action and sustainable development have to go hand in hand. In GEF-9, we see Germany’s priorities very well reflected: innovative finance for nature and people, better cooperation with the private sector and stable resources for the most vulnerable countries.”

Support for the funding round has also come from Spain and Mexico, with Inés Carpio San Román emphasising the importance of “effective multilateralism” and Mexico backing “country-driven solutions” to global environmental challenges.

Calls to Deliver Results

Civil society groups have welcomed the increased emphasis on inclusion, particularly the allocation for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

“This will strengthen a whole-of-society approach,” said Faizal Parish, Chair of the GEF’s Civil Society Organization Network, while Aliou Mustafa, of the GEF’s Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group, said the shift reflects efforts to place Indigenous groups “at the centre of decision-making.”

Still, expectations are high and time is short.

“The environmental crises we face are accelerating,” said Richard Bontjer. He described the  replenishment as “a vote of confidence” while stressing that “every dollar must count.”

“This replenishment will sharpen the GEF’s focus on impact, drive greater efficiency and mobilize private finance alongside public investment. It will also strengthen support to SIDS and LDCs and give recognition to the importance of supporting Indigenous Peoples and local communities.”

With the 2030 deadline fast approaching, the success of this funding round will ultimately be judged not by the size of the pledges but by how quickly they translate into measurable gains—restored ecosystems, protected coastlines and more resilient economies.

For countries on the frontlines, including those in the Caribbean, the $3.9 billion is not just another funding cycle.

It is a narrowing window of opportunity.

Additional pledges are expected before the end-of-May GEF Council meeting, when countries will lock in the final size and ambition of the four-year funding round.

The 71st GEF Council meeting will be held in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, from May 31 to June 3, 2026. The meeting will take place in advance of the Eighth GEF Assembly, when individual country pledges will be publicly announced.

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
  

Excerpt:

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
TOKYO, Japan, Apr 7 2026 (IPS)

As tensions surrounding Iran deepen and uncertainty spreads across global energy markets, Japan is once again confronting a structural weakness: its heavy dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

For decades, Japan has relied on crude imports from a region repeatedly shaken by war, confrontation and instability. With the stability of the Strait of Hormuz and surrounding waters once again under threat, Tokyo is accelerating efforts to diversify both supply sources and transport routes. In that process, Kazakhstan has emerged as an increasingly important partner.

Yet the strengthening relationship between Japan and Kazakhstan is not limited to oil, uranium or logistics. It also has a deeper historical and ethical dimension. Both countries carry the memory of nuclear suffering and have sought to transform that memory into a foundation for dialogue, cooperation and advocacy for peace.

Central Asia plus Japan Dialogue” (CA+JAD) Credit: Primi Minister’s Office of Japan

That framework has since taken on even greater urgency.

One important element is the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, the so-called Middle Corridor. Connecting Central Asia and Europe without passing through Russia, this route has drawn attention as a new transport channel for energy and strategic goods. In an era shaped by war, sanctions, shipping disruptions and intensifying rivalry among major powers, such corridors have become increasingly important for Japan.

Kazakhstan stands at the center of this calculation.

Middle Corridor. Credit: TITR

Japanese energy interests are already present in the Caspian region. INPEX, a Japanese company, holds stakes in major oil projects including Kazakhstan’s Kashagan field and Azerbaijan’s ACG field. Crude from these fields could serve as an alternative supply source to Middle Eastern oil for Japan. In addition, routes through the Caspian and Mediterranean can avoid the Strait of Hormuz, although that means longer transport times and higher shipping costs.

Karipbek Kuyukov(2nd from left) and Dmitriy Vesselov(2nd from right). Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

Even so, energy alone cannot fully explain the distinctiveness of Japan-Kazakhstan ties.

What gives this relationship unusual depth is their shared historical experience of nuclear suffering. Kazakhstan endured the grave consequences of 456 nuclear tests conducted at the Semipalatinsk test site during the Soviet era. Japan remains the only country ever attacked with atomic bombs in wartime, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki continue to stand as enduring symbols of the catastrophic human cost of nuclear weapons.

The two histories are different. But the ethical language that emerged from them has much in common.

The remains of the Prefectural Industry Promotion Building, after the dropping of the atomic bomb, in Hiroshima, Japan. This site was later preserved as a monument. Credit: UN Photo/DB

What matters here is the “dialogue” dimension of Kazakhstan’s diplomacy.

A Group photo of participants of the regional conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and nuclear-free-zone in Central Asia held on August 29, 2023. Credit: Jibek Joly TV Channel

Through the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions, held in Astana since 2003, Kazakhstan has sought to position itself not merely as a supplier of resources or a transit country, but as a hub for dialogue across political, religious and civilizational divides. This initiative has become part of the country’s diplomatic identity, grounded in denuclearization, mediation and coexistence.

For Japan, this adds another layer to Kazakhstan’s significance. Kazakhstan is not only a country with oil, uranium and transport routes. It is also a state that has sought to transform its own history of suffering into diplomacy centered on peace, trust and human security.

7th Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions Group Photo by Secretariate of the 7th Congress

This approach resonates with the realities of today’s world, where multiple crises overlap.

Credit: akorda.kz

In this context, the relationship between Japan and Kazakhstan carries a broader lesson.

Cooperation between states does not have to be shaped only by economic and strategic interests. It can also incorporate shared memory, moral purpose and a commitment to dialogue. In practical terms, that means cooperation on energy and transport. Politically, it means contributing to a more stable and diversified regional order. Humanitarianly, it means sustaining the argument that security must not be separated from its human consequences.

Of course, this relationship is not free from limits or contradictions. Alternative routes are costly. State behavior is still heavily shaped by strategic calculation. Dialogue alone cannot neutralize the pressures of war.

Even so, in an international environment marked by fragmentation, coercion and renewed nuclear anxiety, the growing closeness between Japan and Kazakhstan means more than a tactical adjustment. It is also an attempt to connect realism with responsibility.

That is why this relationship deserves attention.

At a time when many countries are retreating into narrower and more inward-looking definitions of national interest, Japan and Kazakhstan are seeking to build a partnership that links resource security and diplomacy, memory and strategy, and national resilience with the search for peace.

Credit: UN photo

This article is brought to you by INPS Japan in collaboration with Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with UN ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

While media coverage of Iran’s restrictions on passage through the Hormuz Straits focuses on fuel prices, partial closure is also disrupting crucial fertiliser and other supplies, risking catastrophe for billions worldwide.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Hormuz is not just a chokepoint on a shipping lane for oil and gas; it has strategic implications for fertiliser, helium, and other energy-intensive exports as well as for food and other imports to the region.

Higher energy costs affect most transportation and farming requirements, such as tilling and harvesting, as well as fertiliser supplies.

Wars, especially protracted ones, have lasting effects, including for agrifood systems. Without earlier investments, output elsewhere cannot be easily increased.

Alternative fertiliser supply sources are not readily available, especially as agro-ecological options have rarely been seriously pursued despite their proven viability.

As with renewable energy generation to reduce the need for petroleum imports, it is unclear whether the looming food crisis will accelerate the needed and feasible agro-ecological transition for enhanced food security.

Disrupted food supplies
Shipping delays and port congestion disrupt food supplies, trade and availability.

K Kuhaneetha Bai

Many states have recently tried to improve their food security, expanding strategic reserves, investing in food agriculture and alternative supply routes.

Such measures have improved resilience but cannot address a prolonged blockade of the Persian Gulf. About 70% of the food for Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Gulf emirates passes through Hormuz.

Replacing disrupted food imports for about 100 million people would require moving almost 100 million kilograms (kg) of food into the region daily by other means.

Supplying food to the Gulf region under blockade would require an unprecedented operation, possibly through contested airspace.

In 2024, the UN World Food Programme delivered about 7 million kg of food daily to 81 million people in 71 countries.

Weather-driven food shortages and price spikes triggered political instability in 2008 and 2010-11. With food systems worldwide increasingly vulnerable to climate shocks, food insecurity threatens regimes everywhere.

Fertilisers
Farmers worldwide need stable supplies of fertilisers and fuel.

The Iran war threatens to disrupt these supplies, so crucial to agricultural production. Staple crops like wheat, rice and maize rely heavily on fertilisers.

Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Bahrain all ship petroleum products through Hormuz, including a fifth of the world’s liquefied natural gas (LNG).

As LNG is key to producing many fertilisers, Gulf exports have become more significant, especially after the war cut Ukraine’s exports, and China and Russia reduced theirs as well.

In 2024, the Middle East accounted for almost 30% of major fertiliser exports, including nitrogen, phosphate and potash.

The Gulf alone exported 23% of the world’s ammonia and 34% of its urea, while 30-40% of the world’s nitrogen fertiliser exports pass through Hormuz!

In mid-2025, Kpler estimated that a Hormuz closure could reduce fertiliser supplies by 33%, with sulphur-based ones falling by 44% and urea by 30%.

Reduced nitrogen-based fertiliser exports would hurt major food exporters such as Brazil, the US, Thailand, and India, all heavily reliant on fertiliser imports. However, the impact of shortages may be delayed until imported stocks run out.

As the war drags on, farmers may cut fertiliser use by planting less or switching to crops requiring less. Poorer harvests would, in turn, adversely affect later investment, planting and fertiliser use.

Who suffers most?
The economic consequences of the unprovoked US-Israeli assault on Iran and Tehran’s responses are spreading fast and catastrophically, especially for the most vulnerable.

Iran’s new leadership mistrusts Washington and will keep Hormuz closed – choking fuel, food, and fertiliser flows through it – to secure the guarantees it needs to reduce its vulnerability.

As attacks on Iran continued, Tehran stepped up targeted attacks on infrastructure in the Gulf kingdoms hosting US military facilities. US-led efforts have provided little relief to its allies.

The worldwide impact is uneven, with the poorest taking the brunt. Asia and Africa have been hard hit by heavy reliance on oil, gas, and fertiliser imports.

Rich nations’ aid cuts to increase military spending have worsened poverty and hunger for millions, many of whom are also victims of war and aggression.

Unlike the rich, many migrant workers in the Gulf who cannot leave will struggle to make ends meet and send money home to their families.

And as the world’s attention has turned to the Gulf, Israel has worsened conditions in Gaza while taking over southern Lebanon and increasing Yemen’s pain.

Concerned about retribution in November’s mid-term elections, the White House is keen on a ceasefire.

But it has not offered terms acceptable to Iran, which remains suspicious of the US commitment to its own promises, let alone the rule of law.

Hence, the Iranian leadership is unlikely to agree to a ceasefire without credible guarantees for its future security from renewed Israeli and US aggression.

The Iran war has highlighted, yet again, the collateral damage of war and the food system’s vulnerability. Meanwhile, the suffering of the more vulnerable is ignored by the greater powers, who pay little heed to their plight.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Vivian van de Perre, Deputy Special Representative for Protection and Operations in the United Nations Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) and Interim Head of MONUSCO, addresses the Security Council meeting on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 27 2026 (IPS)

In the month following the reopening of the Burundi-Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) border, the humanitarian crisis in the DRC has deteriorated considerably, recently marked by an influx of Congolese refugees returning home, where they face overcrowded conditions and a severe shortage of essential services. This comes in the midst of escalating clashes between rebel groups AFC and M23, and forces affiliated with the Kinshasa government, with drone strikes causing widespread destruction and pushing violence closer to Burundi’s borders, where conditions are most dire.

Vivian van de Perre, Deputy Special Representative for Protection and Operations with the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO), described the current humanitarian situation as “extremely volatile”. During a press stakeout on March 26, she highlighted that the rapid spread of the conflict from North and South Kivu into Tshopo Province and toward Burundi’s borders is a major concern, warning that it increases the risk of a broader “regional conflagration.”

Van de Perre also warned that armed militants have been increasingly relying on the use of heavy weapons and drone strikes in densely populated urban areas, which have caused great damage to civilian infrastructure as well as serious risks to civilian safety, underscoring recent violent incidents at the Kisagani Bangoka International Airport and in Goma, the largest city in North Kivu. Additionally, she warned of M23’s growing presence in Goma, where the coalition has managed to gain influence, undermine state authority, and disrupt humanitarian aid deliveries.

Furthermore, the United Nations Joint Human Rights Office in the DRC (UNJHRO) has uncovered a considerable rise in human rights violations committed by armed groups. Since December 2025, approximately 173 cases of conflict-related sexual violence have been documented, affecting at least 111 victims, the majority of whom were women and girls.

Van de Perre described these findings as “only the tip of the iceberg,” and highlighted growing rates of exploitation, particularly along artisanal mining sites, where child labour is especially pronounced. Armed groups have also been alleged to hamper monitoring, investigation, and justice mechanisms, and subject human rights defenders, journalists, and civil society actors to intimidation and arbitrary detention.

This follows a sharp escalation of hostilities between the armed groups in December 2025, which forced hundreds of thousands of Congolese to flee to Burundi, most coming from Uvira in South Kivu Province and the surrounding areas. Figures from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) show that after M23’s withdrawal from Uvira in January and a relative return of stability, more than 33,000 refugees began returning home since the border’s reopening on February 23, with most crossing through the Kavimira border point. Many of these returnees already received little humanitarian assistance in Burundi due to chronic underfunding.

“Conditions in many areas of return in the DRC remain fragile, with acute humanitarian needs,” said Ali Mahamat, UNHCR Head of Sub-Office in Goma, DRC, on March 24 at a press briefing at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. “Initial UNHCR assessments in Uvira and Fizi show families arriving with few belongings, in urgent need of shelter, basic household items, health care, and access to water and sanitation. Many returned to find their homes destroyed and belongings looted, leaving them in deep despair and unable to resume normal life without substantial support.”

According to the latest updates from the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), roughly 60 percent of returnees are living in damaged shelters and over 30 percent face challenges accessing their land. Returnees face heightened risks of gender-based violence, forced recruitment into armed groups, extortion, and exploitation, with female-headed households disproportionately affected due to limited livelihood opportunities for women, which leave these communities entrenched in poverty and especially vulnerable.

Figures from UNHCR show that approximately 30 percent of returnees had been taking refuge in Burundi’s Busama displacement camp, where they faced significant levels of overcrowding and limited access to clean water, sanitation services, healthcare, and shelter. Currently, roughly 4,500 Congolese refugees remain stuck at transit points as they await being relocated to Busama. Additionally, Burundi continues to host over 109,000 Congolese refugees, with 67,000 of them in Busuma alone.

Additionally, internal displacement remains widespread in the DRC, with more than 6.4 million people currently displaced. IFRC estimates that over 5.2 million internally displaced Congolese are concentrated in North and South Kivu, as well as Ituri, 96 percent as a result of ongoing armed violence. According to van de Perre, over 26.6 million people, roughly a quarter of DRC’s population, are projected to face food insecurity this year.

Currently, UNHCR’s response plan to assist returnees, refugees, and displaced Congolese civilians is only 34 percent funded, seeking a total of USD 145 million. MONUSCO is currently on the frontlines providing protection services for nearly 3,000 civilians in Djaiba village. Through the mission, the UN has been able to support over 18,000 farmers in harvesting and transporting crops and has conducted 204 patrols. Van de Perre stressed that stronger governance and security enforcement are crucial in protecting vulnerable civilians, and disarmament and repatriation efforts must be conducted to resolve broader regional tensions.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Who benefits from a war of choice against Iran?

The immediate political winners may include President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But if the war continues for a longer period, the political consequences for both Trump and Netanyahu could be uncertain. However, the most consistent beneficiaries are defense contractors, defense manufacturers and military lobbyists, who profit regardless of the outcome.

A. K. Abdul Momen

Despite vast reserves of oil and gas, the very engines of global prosperity—many nations across the region continue to face instability, poverty, and insecurity. From Palestine to Yemen, and from Iraq to Afghanistan, millions lack basic necessities, including food, safety, and economic opportunity.

In fact, millions of people in Muslims countries like Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Oman, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Algeria, Tunisia, Nigeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, etc have been suffering from war and terror, from food deficiency and safety and security of life and liberty.

No wonder, their wealth often flows outward, with elites investing in more stable, non-Muslim countries rather than building productive industries, infrastructure, or research capacity at home. Their investment, if any, in their home countries or Muslim communities are mostly concentrated in building a mosque, a prayer house or a madrassa for poor students.

They are reluctant to build a hospital, a road, a manufacturing or industrial plant, a bridge, a technical school or a research center. This imbalance contributes to long-term structural weakness.

A critical question emerges: what ensures national security?

Increasingly, it appears that states possessing nuclear weapons and long-range missile capabilities enjoy greater deterrence and stability. The case of North Korea illustrates this paradox.

Despite isolation and adversaries, it maintains regime security through nuclear capability. This raises a troubling implication: does survival in today’s world require nuclear armament? Should their leadership acquire nuclear capability to safeguard their national security and stability?

The consequences of a U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran would extend far beyond the battlefield. Even after hostilities end, the region would likely face prolonged economic damage, weakened infrastructure, and fractured political trust.

Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, Oman, Lebanon and Iran could suffer severe economic disruption and internal instability.

Moreover, the strategic dynamics of such a conflict risk deepening divisions within the Muslim world itself. Military actions and retaliations particularly involving foreign bases in regional states could lead to intra-regional damage, further destabilizing already fragile alliances.

Another question, should leadership allow foreign bases in its home turf to guarantee national security? Or will it welcome more insecurity and conflict? Should leadership deny foreign bases in its own territory? Can they avoid such bases?

In case of Bangladesh, the ousted popular Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina refused her territory to be used as a military base for a foreign government and it cost her job, her government was overthrown. Can they afford to deny a powerful foreign government?

From a geopolitical perspective, wars of this nature often reshape control over resources and influence. Economic motivations particularly access to energy and mineral resources cannot be overlooked in understanding strategic decision-making.

This leads to a deeper ethical question: do power and victory ultimately outweigh principles such as justice, human rights, and moral leadership? Ethics, human rights, fairness and morality are these the sermons of the weak and priests only? Does Machiavelli sounds right— survival of the fittest?

In fact, the logic often resembles the political realism associated with Niccolò Machiavelli—where success is measured by survival and dominance rather than ethical conduct. Machiavelli describes a sneaky, cunning, and manipulative personality that uses deceit, duplicity, and unethical methods to achieve goals often in politics and business as a success story.

And history tends to remember the victors only. Yet the long-term cost—human suffering, instability, and moral compromise—raises the question of whether victory alone defines true leadership.

Professor Dr. A. K. Abdul Momen is Former Foreign Minister of Bangladesh

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Michaela Stache/AFP

By Samuel King
BRUSSELS, Belgium, Mar 20 2026 (IPS)

When German Chancellor Friedrich Merz opened the 62nd Munich Security Conference by declaring that the post-war rules-based order ‘no longer exists’, there was plenty of evidence to back his claim. Israel is committing genocide in Gaza in defiance of international law, Russia is four years into its illegal invasion of Ukraine, the last nuclear arms control treaty between Russia and the USA has just expired and the USA has withdrawn from 66 international bodies and commitments. Since the conference, Israel and the USA have launched another war on Iran, threatening to spark a broader regional conflict. Meanwhile the UN is undergoing a funding crisis, cutting staff and programmes, and civil society organisations that relied on US Agency for International Development funding are facing closure.

Inaugurated in 1963 as a transatlantic defence meeting, the Munich Security Conference has grown into the most significant annual global security meeting, with heads of state, foreign ministers, civil society, think tanks and the media taking part. The 2026 edition focused on the theme ‘Under Destruction’ and convened over 1,000 participants from more than 115 countries, including over 60 national leaders, alongside China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the directors of multiple UN agencies.

The conference’s Munich Security Report 2026 provided the analytical backdrop. It argued that the world has entered a period of ‘wrecking-ball politics’, with the post-1945 order being demolished by political forces that prefer disruption to reform. The report’s Munich Security Index showed the scale of the crisis. In France, Germany and the UK, absolute majorities of respondents said their government’s policies would leave future generations worse off. Across most BRICS and G7 countries, the USA is now rated as a growing risk.

In the build-up the conference, the world had been bracing for Rubio’s keynote address. Last year, US Vice President JD Vance’s aggressive speech accused European governments of suppressing free speech and aligning with political extremism, with no apparent acknowledgement of irony. Rubio took a more conciliatory tone, calling Europe America’s ‘cherished allies and oldest friends’. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said she was ‘very much reassured’. Half the hall rose to applaud.

The substance of the speech, however, followed every position Vance advanced the year before. Rubio defined the transatlantic relationship not around shared democratic institutions or international law, but around ‘Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, and ancestry’. This framing drew anger from global south delegates, who understood its explicit claim of global north cultural and racial superiority, excluding the majority of humanity.

The Trump administration was making a strategic calculation, having evidently concluded that Vance’s confrontational tone had backfired, bringing Europe closer to China and making it more reluctant to endorse US-led initiatives. So it switched to a softer messenger without changing the message.

Rubio’s post-conference itinerary made the USA’s current priorities clear. He flew directly from Munich to Budapest and Bratislava to meet two nationalist leaders, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico. Both are pro-Trump and friendly towards Vladimir Putin. These are the European politicians the Trump administration considers its true allies. Now the USA is planning to fund right-wing think tanks and charities across Europe in a blatant attempt to influence the continent’s politics.

Friedrich Merz’s diagnosis led to a historic and disturbing move: he and French President Emmanuel Macron announced they’d begun talks on extending France’s nuclear umbrella to cover other European countries. This is a development it would have been hard to imagine just a year ago. For decades European countries have based their security policies on NATO and its article 5, the collective defence commitment. But the Trump administration has threatened not to respect article 5, driving European states to embark on the long and expensive process of detaching themselves from relying on NATO. Now this evidently includes the exploration of nuclear alternatives.

Von der Leyen described the move as a ‘European awakening’ and called for a ‘mutual defence clause’ to be brought to life. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer called for ‘hard power’ and readiness to fight if necessary. Poland’s nationalist President Karol Nawrocki said his country should get nuclear weapons. By responding in this way to the unravelling of the multilateral order, European states are further weakening the norms of non-proliferation and arms control that the post-war order sought to sustain. Responding to crisis with a second nuclear arms race could bring still further instability. Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez was the only European leader at the conference to warn against this.

The conference’s conclusion was that those who care about the international order must build new institutions, coalitions and frameworks that are fit for purpose and accountable to the people they are supposed to serve. This reasonable framing sidesteps crucial questions: whose interests institutions will serve, and who’s excluded as the blueprints are drawn.

Instead of a new nuclear arms race, European states’ reaction to the fraying of their old alliances with the USA must be anchored in human rights, genuine multilateralism and a commitment to international law. This will only happen if civil society is present as a partner at the table.

It’s clear the old order is broken, and those committed to human rights and opposed to militarisation and naked power politics can’t afford to be bystanders. Their responses need to be more assertive and inclusive. A new international architecture that continues to exclude civil society and sideline the global south will simply reproduce the structures that have failed to address today’s crises.

Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The dead Ali Khamenei hands over the Iranian flag to a mirror image of his son, Mojtaba Khamenei. From the web site https://english.khamenei.ir/

By Jan Lundius
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Mar 12 2026 (IPS)

The US/Israeli war on Iran might be like messing with a hornets’ nest, spreading fear and chaos all around. The Israeli government claimed that the war was a “preventive” measure to address an immediate threat of Iran constructing a nuclear bomb. However, this war has obviously been meticulously planned over a long period of time and it now seemed to be the right time to put this plan into action. The Iranian air defences had been weakened through earlier attacks, while recent Israeli strikes decapitated Hezbollah’s Lebanese leadership, Iran’s allies north of Israel. With Gaza destroyed and Syria’s unreliable Assad gone, Netanyahu had succeeded in securing his party’s coalition with the far-right and could continue to count upon the support of the Trump Administration, providing Israel with a free hand vis-à-vis the Palestinians and turning a blind eye to the massacre of civilians. The U.S. is continuously supporting Isreal with missile-defence systems, coordination, cooperation, and intelligence sharing.

It appears as if the U.S./Israeli forces now intend to bomb everything in Iran – from its highest leaders, down to police stations and thus hope that Iran will exhaust its defence capacities. The aggressors furthermore claim they intend to achieve an Iranian regime change. However, even if Iran’s ninety-two million people now are trapped between a bloody war and a repressive regime it is highly unlikely that a tolerant government will emerge from a battered rump version of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is more probable that such a state will be governed by leaders even more determined to cling to their power after gaining more confidence after overcoming a terrible crisis. U.S. actions seem to be more improvised than Israel’s and it seems that they have not learned from the Afghanistan failure, i.e. the difficulties in achieving and maintaining a regime change through military means.

The U.S. government rejoiced from the killing of Ali Khamenei – a mid-ranking cleric who did not meet the constitutional requirements of being a marja, i.e. a cleric enabled to make legal decisions for followers and clerics below him in rank. Instead, Khamenei was during his 36 years and six months in power forced to rely on his close ties with the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Now, in spite of the fact that the Iranian revolution’s father, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had declared that “hereditary succession is sinister, evil, and invalid,” Khamenei’s son has been elected as Supreme Leader. So far Mojtaba Khamenei has acted in the shadow of his father and few Iranians have heard him speak. He has not made any public appearances, never given a sermon, or made any declarations; just working in close relation with the leaders of IRGC.

Whereas the Iranian Army acts as protector of the nation’s sovereignty, the IRGC “safeguards” the Islamic Republic. With more than 125,000 members it serves as Iran’s coast guard, operates a media outlet called Sepah News, and controls the nuclear program. From its origins as an ideological militia, the IRGC now controls nearly every aspect of Iranian politics, economy (including energy and food industries), as well as the nation’s social life. It counts upon a paramilitary volunteer militia with 90,000 active personnel. One of IRGC’s branches is the Qods Force, which specialises in unconventional warfare and military intelligence operations.

The presence, terror and fear created by IRGC have made it difficult for any internal opposition to get organised. In Iran there is nothing akin to the African National Congress with leaders like Nelson Mandela. If a leader would arise from the mess created by the U.S. and Israel it would more likely be a man like Alia Ardashir Larijani, a former commander of the IRGC who holds a B.Sc. in computer science and mathematics, as well as a PhD in Western philosophy.

Larijani has served as deputy minister in various cabinets, been head of the Republic’s broadcasting service, and Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council. Larijani also served as Iran’s top nuclear envoy. However, in late March 2025 he stated that if Iran would be attacked by the United States and Israel, the nation would have no other choice than to develop nuclear weapons. Larijani is accused of having played a key role in the deadly crackdown against opposition protests that gripped the country in January this year. Since the end of December 2025, he is regarded to be the de facto leader of Iran and after originally opposing the election of Mojtaba Khamenei, Larijani has now rallied his supporters behind the newly elected Supreme Leader.

Apart from the fear of an internal collapse of the Islamic Republic of Iran, there are concerns about the economic effects of the current war. Beyond the physical damage, Epic Fury has been quite costly for the Trump Administration that so far has deployed nearly half of the United States’ air power and roughly a third of its naval assets. So far, the Pentagon has not released an official estimate of the cost of the war, but it is currently believed to be USD 2 billion per day. Meanwhile, stocks have plunged all over the world and the price of crude oil spiked from USD 65 per barrel to USD 120 after the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquified gas passes, had been effectively closed.

89 percent of Saudi Arabia’s oil shipments used to pass through the Strait, while Kuwait and Qatar shipped 100 percent, Iraq 97 percent and the United Arab Emirates 66 percent. Qatar has so far been worst hit, particularly since it took the place of Russia for liquified gas exports to Europe. Kuwait has now been forced to suspended its production and export of crude oil and liquefied natural gas (of which it is second to the U.S. as the world’s largest provider).

Winners of this situation are large net energy exporters outside the Gulf whose ability to sell abroad remains unaffected, such as Norway, Russia and Canada, and to a lesser degree Nigeria and Angola. Not the least the U.S. is a winner thanks to its expanding fracking industry. At the other end of the spectrum sit economies where energy imports account for a large share of their GDP. This group includes countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, India and China, as well as most European economies including France, Germany and the UK.

It has even been speculated that the war on Iran is a means of USA to hurt China’s economy. In 2025, China bought more than 80 percent of Iran’s shipped oil, around 12 percent of China’s crude oil imports, while approximately 3 percent came from Venezuela (now subjugated by the U.S.).

In 2021, China and Iran signed a 25-year strategic partnership, meaning that China promised to invest USD 400 billion in exchange for keeping Iranian oil flowing. China does not view its “alliances” in the same way the West does, meaning that its government does not sign mutual defence treaties and will not come rushing to its allies’ aid. However, an unpredictable and dysfunctional actor as the U.S. has become under the Trump administration is a great source of unease for Beijing. Worries worsened by the fact that China’s annual economic growth target has reached its lowest level since 1991. Even as Beijing continues its rapid development of high-tech and renewables industries the country is currently battling with low consumption levels, a prolonged property crisis, and a huge local debt.

A big economy like China’s, as well as other wealthy nations, might find means to mitigate rising oil prices, but it’s much worse for smaller, poorer nations. Disruptions to energy supply as a result of a prolonged conflict will have far greater ramifications economically in the Global South than in the West. As an example, a country like Bangladesh, which is particularly dependent on Middle Eastern oil, not least for its garment industry, has already imposed daily limits on fuel sales after panic buying and stockpiling raised concerns about supply. Furthermore, approximately 13 million Bangladeshi expatriates are currently supporting the country’s economic stability through their remittances, of them 8 million live and work within the Middle East.

The same is true of Pakistan, with over 11 million Pakistanis living and working abroad, mainly in the Gulf states. In January 2025 alone, the country received USD 3 billion in remittances, reflecting a 25 percent year-on-year surge. Furthermore, Pakistan shares a 900-kilometre border with Iran and a collapse of Iran into civil war is a constant worry for Pakistan, which also maintains a military relationship with Saudi Arabia with an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 Pakistani troops stationed in the kingdom. If the situation worsens, as Saudi infrastructure is hit any further, it is only a matter of time that Saudi Arabia will ask Pakistan to contribute towards its defence. Pakistan’s border areas with Iran and its huge Shia population (generally well-disposed towards their fellow believers on the other side of the frontier) are already highly volatile and if internal strife within Iran spills over the border, the fallout for Pakistan would be severe. Pakistan is furthermore recently engaged in a war with Afghanistan. On 6 March, Pakistan carried out air strikes in more than twenty locations across Afghanistan, while the Taliban targeted dozens of Pakistani border posts.

Other neighbouring nations to Iran are equally nervous. In Turkmenistan prices have almost doubled compared with pre-war levels. With an average salary of around USD 714 a large portion of the population is hard hit, since Turkmenistan is importing a considerable amount of industrial goods from Iran – like steel, construction materials, and petrochemicals, as well as food and household items that constitute a critical lifeline for many of its residents.

Turkey is also alarmed by the present situation and worries what will happen if Iran collapses into warring factions. If the U.S./Israel confrontation with Iran deepens, particularly in ways that involve regime change with a spillover effect on Turkey, or security implications as a result of expanded U.S./Israeli cooperation with hostile Kurdish militants, this war could quickly evolve into another fault line in U.S.-Turkish relations.

To sum up – the U.S./Israel attack on Iran is very unlikely to result in a regime change, but might instead result in a chaotic and bloody collapse of the entire country. The war is a high-risk game that might have dangerous effects not only on Iran and its immediate neighbours, but the entire world as well.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Will AI kickstart a new age of nuclear power? Credit: Unsplash/Taylor Vick In a data centre (above), servers are high-performance computers that process and store data. Meanwhile, the United Nations has taken a firm stance that decisions regarding the use of nuclear weapons must rest with humans, not machines, warning that integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) into nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) presents an unacceptable risk to global security.

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 6 2026 (IPS)

As artificial intelligence (AI) threatens to dominate every aspect of human lives —including political, economic, social and cultural –there is also the danger of the potential militarization of AI.

The integration of AI into nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) systems, as well as its use in military decision-making, introduces severe, unprecedented risks to global security, according to one report.

Key negative effects include the acceleration of decision-making to “machine speed” (leaving little time for human judgment), increased vulnerability to cyberattacks, and the erosion of strategic stability.

According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, command and control of nuclear weapons is a delicate and complicated system, designed to prevent error while ensuring reliability under high-pressure conditions.

In environments where vast amounts of data shape high-stakes outcomes, artificial intelligence has become a natural consideration.

“The integration of a rapidly evolving technology raises fundamental questions about responsibility, data quality, and system reliability. When a single error could have irreversible consequences, how can confidence be built around the integration of machine learning into systems that have long relied on human judgment and oversight?”

“What guardrails should be maintained? Where are the opportunities for international collaboration and consensus?”

Tariq Rauf, former Head of Verification and Security Policy at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told IPS the role of and integration of Artificial Generative Intelligence (AGI) raises some of the most consequential questions of our technological era.

The integration of AGI into nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) systems is not merely an engineering challenge — it is a civilizational one.

The Problem of Machine Speed

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the integration of AGI into NC3 systems, he pointed out, is the compression of decision-making timelines to “machine speed.” Nuclear strategy has historically depended on deliberate human judgment — the ability of decision-makers to pause, assess ambiguous data, consult advisors, and choose restraint even under pressure or attack.

AGI systems, by contrast, are designed to process and respond at velocities no human can match. In a crisis, this creates a dangerous paradox: the very speed that makes AGI attractive also makes meaningful human oversight nearly impossible.

“If an AGI system misidentifies a sensor anomaly as an incoming missile — something that has happened with human-operated systems before, as the 1983 Soviet false alarm incident illustrates — the window for correction could shrink from minutes to seconds.”

The margin for error in nuclear decision-making has always been uncomfortably thin; AGI risks eliminating it entirely, said Rauf.

Data Quality and System Reliability

Data quality and integrity are foundational concerns regarding AGI. Machine learning systems are only as reliable as the data on which they are trained, he argued.

“Nuclear environments present unique ultra complex challenges: they involve rare, high-stakes events with limited historical data, adversarial actors who may deliberately feed misinformation into sensor networks, and geopolitical contexts that shift faster than training datasets can capture”.

An AGI system that confidently acts on corrupted or misrepresented data in a nuclear context could trigger escalation based on a fiction. Worse still, the opacity of many machine learning models — the so-called “black box” problem — means that even system designers may not be able to explain why a particular output was generated, let alone correct it in real time, declared Rauf.

Vladislav Chernavskikh, Researcher, Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme, at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) told IPS existing state approaches to AI-nuclear nexus already broadly converge on the principle of retaining human control in nuclear decision making, yet there is no consensus on how this should be defined or operationalized.

A formal recognition of this principle by nuclear-weapon states and elaboration of what human control constitutes in this context and how it can manifest in the nuclear weapons domain can be one of the first steps towards minimising risks, he declared.

At the AI Impact Summit in New Delhi last month, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the future of AI cannot be decided by a handful of countries and the whims of a few billionaires.

Last year, the General Assembly took two decisive steps, he said.

First, by creating an Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence, and second, by launching a Global Dialogue on AI Governance within the UN, where all countries, together with the private sector, academia and civil society, can all have a voice.

He told participants at the summit that real impact means technology that improves lives and protects the planet. And he called on them to build AI for everyone, with dignity as the default setting.

UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters last month, the Secretary-General is not calling for the United Nations to rule over AI. He’s calling for – and has put in place – an architecture with the help of Member States to try to ensure that everybody gets a seat at the table.

And as he said: “AI will and has already impacted all of us. It is vital that those countries who may not have the technology also have a voice and that science and fairness be put at the centre of AI.”

Responsibility and Accountability

In a further analysis, Rauf said when AGI recommendations or autonomous actions contribute to catastrophic outcomes, the question of accountability becomes deeply problematic.

Traditional chains of command assign clear human responsibility at each decision point. AGI integration fractures this clarity. Is it the software developer, the military commander, the government that deployed the system, or the algorithm itself that bears responsibility for a miscalculation? he asked.

The absence of clear accountability frameworks is not just a legal or ethical problem — it is a strategic one, because adversaries and allies alike need to understand who is in control and what decision logic is being applied.

Cyberattack Vulnerability

AGI-enhanced or dependent NC3 systems also expand the attack surface for adversaries. Sophisticated cyberattacks — including adversarial inputs designed to manipulate AGI outputs — could potentially spoof or blind these systems in ways that are difficult to detect until it is too late. The integration of AGI thus creates new vectors for destabilization that did not exist in earlier nuclear architectures, said Rauf.

The Case for International Collaboration

Despite these alarming challenges, international collaboration could be a potential avenue for managing risk. Confidence-building measures, shared technical standards, and bilateral or multilateral ‘enforceable’ agreements on the limits of AGI autonomy in nuclear systems could help preserve strategic stability.

Arms control history, said Rauf, shows that even adversaries can agree on rules that serve mutual interests in survival. Extending that tradition to AGI-enabled NC3 systems is urgently needed — before the technology outpaces diplomacy entirely.

“The integration of AGI into nuclear systems technically might be inevitable. Whether it is managed wisely is a political and moral choice that remains very much open and seems beyond the intellectual, moral/ethical processing capabilities of today’s civil and military ‘leaders’, declared Rauf.

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Secretary-General António Guterres attends the Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe.

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 2 2026 (IPS)

The United States and Israel launched a joint military strike on Iran on February 28. Iran followed with military strikes on Israeli bases and on Arab Gulf states, including Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. The realized threat of a new war has caused alarm for the security situation in the Middle East and its impact on civilian populations.

While the latest outbreak of fighting unfolded in the Middle East, the UN Security Council in New York convened an emergency meeting to deliberate over the military attacks in Iran. The session was convened at the request of Iran and members of the Security Council.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres briefed the Council on the situation up to that point and condemned the escalating hostilities. “We are witnessing a grave threat to international peace and security. Military action carries the risk of igniting a chain of events that no one can control in the most volatile region of the world,” he warned.

Under Article 2 of the UN Charter, all member states shall “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” Guterres reminded the Council. He reiterated that there would be no “viable alternative to the peaceful settlement of international disputes” and that “lasting peace” could only be accomplished through diplomatic negotiations.

Guterres also noted that the U.S.-Israeli strikes took place following the latest round of indirect negotiations between the U.S. and Iran mediated by Oman, which were expected to lead into further political talks. “I deeply regret that this opportunity of diplomacy has been squandered.”

According to Iran, the U.S.-Israeli strikes constituted a clear violation of the UN Charter and a threat to international peace and security. Sayed Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s Foreign Minister, said in a letter addressed to Guterres that in response to the aggression, Iran was invoking its right to self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter. This outlines that the Charter shall not “impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense,” and that any actions taken by member states to exercise their right to self-defense must be “immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and the responsibility” of the Council to take actions as it “deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

“The United States and the Israeli regime shall bear full and direct responsibility for all ensuing consequences, including any escalation arising from their unlawful actions,” Aragchi said. Noting the “grave and far-reaching consequences” of a regional conflict, Aragchi wrote of the collective responsibility of the UN and the Security Council to take immediate action and to “discharge their duties without delay.”

Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani of Iran reiterated the point before the Security Council, remarking on the threat to the country’s sovereignty and that actions taken by the U.S. and Israel were in violation of the UN Charter. There is also the added context that the first round of U.S.-Israeli strikes killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Some members of the Council spoke against Iran’s military actions on Saturday and against the regime under Khanmenei as it related to its nuclear program and its “appalling violence and repression against its own people.” The U.K., France and Germany jointly condemned the regime and its attacks on countries in the region.

Acting Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom James Kariuki remarked that the present was a “fragile moment for the Middle East.” As the president of the Security Council for the month of February, Kariuki noted that Iran “repeatedly ignored calls” for a solution to its nuclear program and the seeming lack of cooperation with the IAEA. He stated that Iran “must refrain from further strikes, and its appalling behavior, to allow a path back to diplomacy. ”

“My country, which is a champion of peace and coexistence, never expected to be targeted by wanton aggressions without any justification,” said Bahrain Ambassador Jamal Al Rowaiei. Bahrain was one of the Gulf states targeted by Iranian military forces and currently sits on the Security Council as an elected member. Al Rowaiei condemned Iran for its attacks on residential areas and vital facilities—including a U.S. Navy base—and called for all in “containing this crisis” to protect the stability of the region.

Other member states remarked on the threats to international peace and security. In condemning the military attacks on Iran and the Arab Gulf states, Pakistan Ambassador Asim Ahmad regretted that “diplomacy has once again been derailed,” referring to the negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. “These military actions undermine dialogue and further erode trust that was already in short supply,” said Ahmad.

Echoing Guterres’ sentiments, other UN entities and leaders reiterated calls to continue negotiations and to respect international law. Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), said that he was “deeply troubled” by the situation in the Middle East and expressed that world leaders should choose the “challenging path of dialogue” over the “senseless route of destruction.”

“My heart goes out to the civilians trapped in the crossfire. Regardless of borders, everyone deserves to live without the threat of violence around them,” he said.

Across Iran, civilian infrastructures have been destroyed, leading to scores of casualties. Of note, schools have been bombed by Israeli airstrikes, including a girls’ elementary school in Minab in Hormozgan province in southern Iran. As of March 1, the death toll from this strike has risen to 165, according to state sources.

UNICEF issued a statement shortly after the school bombings, warning that the “weekend’s military escalation in the Middle East marks a dangerous moment for millions of children in the region.” They called for an immediate end to the hostilities and for all parties to uphold their obligations to international humanitarian and human rights law, including the protection of children. “Targeting civilians and civilian objects, including schools, is a violation of international law.”

“Bombs and missiles are not the way to resolve differences but only result in death, destruction and human misery,” said Volker Türk, the UN Human Rights Chief. He added that all parties must de-escalate and return to the negotiating table and warned that failing to do so would only lead to further “senseless civilian deaths” and “destruction on a potentially unimaginable scale.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said that they were “closely monitoring” developments, urging restraint to “avoid any nuclear safety risks.”

The U.S. will take over as president of the Security Council in March. It will be a matter of waiting to see the role that this institution will play in protecting the principles of international law and preventing further loss of civilian lives.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Dr Anasaini Cama of the Fred Hollows Foundation conducts tropical disease training in the Solomon Islands. Credit: Shea Flynn/RTI International

By Catherine Wilson
SYDNEY, Australia, Feb 25 2026 (IPS)

Two Pacific Island nations have been applauded for their successes in the global health campaign to eliminate the infectious eye disease, Trachoma.

Better disease data, effective treatment campaigns and improved access to water and hygiene contributed to the major progress now being celebrated as 27 nations worldwide are declared Trachoma-free by the World Health Organization (WHO). But, above all, experts say that the key to the permanent riddance of diseases is a genuine buy-in to the eradication programmes by entire communities.

“Trachoma elimination efforts are most effective when communities understand the disease, trust the interventions and are actively involved in prevention activities,” Dr Anasaini Cama, Pacific Trachoma Technical Lead at The Fred Hollows Foundation, a global non-government organisation working to eradicate preventable blindness, told IPS.

Finally eliminating Trachoma in countries such as Papua New Guinea is a major achievement when more than 80 percent of people live in rural and remote communities, where the risk of infection is especially high.

“This milestone reflects the power of public health at its best…It is a reminder that equity, visibility and prevention must be at the heart of our health system,” Elias Kapavore, Minister for Health in PNG, the most populous Pacific Island nation of more than 10 million people, told the media last year.

The infectious eye disease is one of 21 Neglected Tropical Diseases that, under Sustainable Development Goal 3.3, are being targeted for global eradication by 2030. And reports reveal that strides are being made. Between 2002 and 2025, a period of little more than two decades, the global population at risk of Trachoma fell from 1.5 billion to 97.1 million people, WHO reported in January.

Children in rural communities in southwest Pacific Island countries, including Papua New Guinea, were highly vulnerable to eye infections, such as Trachoma. Now the country has been applauded for its campaign to eliminate the disease. Credit: Catherine Wilson/IPS

“Trachoma, once a leading cause of blindness in Fiji, was widespread in the 1950s, with prevalence exceeding 20 percent among children in some areas. Today, following sustained national action, the prevalence of active Trachoma has fallen to below 1 percent,” Fiji’s Health Minister, Dr Ratu Antonio Lalabalavu, told local media.

Trachoma is the leading cause of blindness around the world and is found primarily in tropical climate zones and rural communities affected by poverty and lack of basic services. It is caused by a micro-organism, Chlamydia trachomatis, known to be carried by flies, with children and those living in overcrowded conditions the most vulnerable. In advanced cases of the disease, there is chronic scarring of the underside of the eyelid, which can then turn inward, resulting in the eyelashes inflicting permanent damage to the eye’s cornea.

Trachoma was first identified in PNG and Fiji when health surveys were conducted in the 1950s. Studies also revealed that it was endemic in the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. More recently, in 2015, extensive studies were carried out in the provinces of Central, Madang, Morobe, East New Britain, Southern Highlands and Western in PNG as part of the Global Trachoma Mapping Project. The prevalence of trachomatous inflammation-follicular (TF) in children aged 1-9 years was found to be between 6 percent and 12.2 percent, exceeding the WHO threshold of 5 percent.

The disease can be debilitating and make it increasingly difficult for a child to attend and participate in school classes and, thus, hinder their development and increase their exposure to poverty and malnutrition.

Changing the conditions and habits through which the disease thrives is, therefore, crucial. And this is a vital part of WHO’s recommended approach, called the SAFE strategy. That is, surgery for patients with an advanced stage of the disease, including blindness, prescribing antibiotics to diminish infection, encouraging facial cleanliness, and environmental improvements.

Today, the development charity Mercy Works is working to boost better health in very remote villages in Kiunga in Western Province, close to the far western border of PNG, by ensuring supplies of clean water. Here, “safe water remains a daily challenge,” Andrew Lowry, Head of Mercy Works’ Programs, told IPS. “Frequent flooding contaminates water sources and damages infrastructure. Many communities have no road access, so materials and tradespeople travel by plane or boat, and often on foot. Schools and health centres often operate without a reliable water supply, making basic hygiene practices difficult to sustain.”

Mercy Works installs rainwater collection and storage systems in schools, health centres, and villages in both the Western Province and the Simbu Province in the Highlands region.

Nearly 4,000 kilometres southeast of PNG in Fiji, Cama has witnessed the impacts of eye diseases and interventions that have been effective. In the north of the country, she visited villages that were kept clean and neat and it was difficult to see if there was overcrowding in the households. “Generally, extended families living together is considered normal. What we did notice, and similarly in nearby villages, was the water issues, where water was not always available and water trucks would cart water to the village,” Cama told IPS.

In the community, “children were active and did not appear unwell in any way,” she recounted. “It was only when health care workers flipped the child’s eyelids that the inner surface of the eyelid would have follicles that were typical for Trachoma.” Once a child was diagnosed, Tetracycline eye ointment was prescribed to be applied twice a day for six weeks, together with recommended regular face washing.

This year, WHO announced that, for the first time since world records began, the number of people requiring healthcare intervention for Trachoma has fallen below 100 million. Yet the future cannot be one of complacency. Rising climate extremes across the Pacific Islands could reverse this achievement.

“Climate change can impact Trachoma programmes and cause re-emergence of Trachoma, meaning long-term vigilance is required,” Cama emphasised. “Flooding and warmer temperatures can damage sanitation systems that lead to a reduction in environmental hygiene, causing an increase in the presence of flies in the community, which can increase the spread of Trachoma. Through drought and low rainfall, accessibility to water is decreased, making regular face washing and hygiene more challenging.”

Boosting the number of trained health professionals is also critical in countries where national health services battle against limited resources, medical supplies and manpower. “One of the biggest challenges in the Pacific is the shortage of trained eye care specialists,” Cama said.

This is the case in both Fiji and PNG, where “only 8 of 22 provinces actually have an eye doctor”. To overcome this deficit, the Fred Hollows Foundation established the Pacific Eye Institute, the region’s first ophthalmic training institute, in Suva, Fiji. “Our goal is to have at least one eye doctor and a team of eye nurses in every province [in PNG],” she said.

The dividends of extinguishing diseases, such as Trachoma, are profound for people and communities. And aspirations of national development can be realised when health services contend with a diminished burden of illness, more children can finish their education and more people of working age can contribute to their communities and the economy.

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report,

Fish Value Addition Workshop in Ivory Coast.

By Sidi Tiémoko Touré and Essam Yassin Mohammed
ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast, Feb 19 2026 (IPS)

It is an indictment on the global food system that, despite having some of the richest and most endowed natural resources in the world and a burgeoning youth population, West Africa spends more than $2 billion a year importing aquatic foods to feed its people, almost half of which is spent by Côte d’Ivoire alone.

Fish has long been a cherished staple food in West African diets, providing around two-thirds of all animal protein and featuring in popular dishes such as the Ivorian classic, poisson braisé and Senegal’s thieboudienne.

Yet in recent years, the region’s fishing industry has struggled to meet demand with growing external pressures and threats. Some of the highest levels of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing in the world costs the region more than $9 billion annually, and increasing vulnerability to climate change is also impacting the sector.

These challenges to domestic production have coincided with a decline in fish consumption from more than 13kg per person a year in 2008 to just over 11.5kg in 2025, despite the ongoing popularity of fish and seafood.

From our perspective, Côte d’Ivoire, along with other West African countries, have enormous potential to embrace the investment rule to “fish where the fish are” and reclaim food sovereignty. Not only would a stronger domestic sector reduce the import bill, but it would also create much-needed jobs, especially for young people, as well as improving diets and food security by providing more highly nutritious fish and seafood.

In short, we believe that boosting homegrown aquaculture would allow West Africa to reap the full benefits of the blue economy.

To that end, Côte d’Ivoire is at the forefront of a transformative journey to get West Africa’s fishing industry back on course, setting an example for other countries.

To begin with, the country has launched an ambitious policy framework dedicated to growing the aquaculture sector, including inland fisheries, which extend the benefits beyond coastal communities.

The $25.6 million Project for the Development of Competitive Value Chains in Aquaculture and Sustainable Fisheries (ProDeCAP) focuses on improving marine, lagoon, and inland fisheries, increasing broodstock capacity, setting up commercial seed supply systems, and developing the fish feed industry. It aims to boost annual aquaculture production by 35,000 tons, adding to the country’s overall fish supply directly and indirectly benefiting around 700,000 people, around half of which are women.

Similarly, the Strategic Program for the Transformation of Aquaculture in Côte d’Ivoire (PSTACI) is focusing on four pillars to stimulate the domestic aquaculture sector. These include creating jobs, particularly for young people and in rural areas, as well as piloting innovations with demonstration projects to increase private investment, strengthening governance and boosting national capacities for supplying fishery products.

At the same time, Côte d’Ivoire will invest $3 million in a new Aquaculture Research Innovation Hub (ARIH), led by global research centre WorldFish. The hub, which will focus on improving feed, genetics and fish health, will help fill the gaps in research and innovation to modernise the sector.

The hub will bring WorldFish’s global expertise to West Africa, leveraging 50 years of innovation in small-scale fisheries and aquaculture. In 2023 alone, WorldFish developed 70 innovations, upskilled almost 120,000 small-scale fishers, farmers, extension officers, suppliers, students, and community workers, and facilitated the production of 436,600 tonnes of farmed fish using improved tools and technologies.

All of these efforts will help fast-track the growth of the sector and leapfrog the conventional trajectory of unsustainable practices by streamlining the adoption of best practices and proven technologies.

But beyond policy, research and innovation, the final piece of the puzzle is the development of the broader value chain to ensure every link that connects the sector is resilient and effective.

For this, Côte d’Ivoire and neighbouring countries need strong private sector partnerships to establish and grow reliable supplies of young fish as well as feed markets, processing infrastructure and sales platforms.

This element is crucial because in each of these stages lies untapped opportunities for new jobs and new sources of food and nutrition. The growth of the aquaculture sector is especially important for women, who can find diverse opportunities in processing and selling fish and other aquatic foods.

To extend the adage: teaching a man to fish might help feed him for a lifetime, but transforming an entire fishing and aquaculture sector will feed, nourish, employ and build resilience across a whole country.

West Africa has both the natural resources and demand for a thriving regional fishing industry. Strategic investments, policies and partnerships are now coming together to make this a reality, offering a swell of opportunities for others to come on board and ride the wave of Africa’s blue economy.

H.E. Sidi Tiémoko Touré, Minister of Animal Resources and Fisheries, Côte d’Ivoire
Dr. Essam Yassin Mohammed, Director General of WorldFish

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A photograph of the 1971 Licorne nuclear test, which was conducted in French Polynesia in the Pacific Ocean. Credit: CTBTO

By John Burroughs
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Feb 12 2026 (IPS)

The most recent agreement limiting U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals, New START, expired on February 5, and prospects for any kind of follow-on agreement are very uncertain.

Progress over several decades in halting the growth of nuclear arsenals and then in reducing them is in acute danger of being undone. That is despite the fact that the objective of “cessation of the nuclear arms race” is embedded in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a keystone multilateral global security agreement.

In a U.S. statement delivered February 6 in the Conference on Disarmament, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Thomas DiNanno said that a “new architecture” is needed, one that takes “into account all Russian nuclear weapons, both novel and existing strategic systems, and address[es] the breakout growth of Chinese nuclear weapons stockpiles.”

That is a challenging project. An informal arrangement between the United States and Russia for transparently abiding by New START limits for at least a short period of time seems within the realm of possibility.

But obstacles to successful negotiation of a new treaty or treaties involving the United States, Russia, and China are major.

The Chinese have shown no interest in discussing limits on their arsenal, which remains much smaller than the U.S. and Russian arsenals. Russia wants negotiations to address U.S. missile defense plans and non-nuclear strategic strike capabilities.

The United States wants Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons and novel systems like a long-range nuclear-armed torpedo, both not limited by New START, to be addressed. More broadly, the ascendance of authoritarian nationalism and acute geopolitical tensions are not conducive to progress.

Nonetheless, especially with the next five-year Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference coming up this spring, it must be emphasized that the United States, Russia, and China are bound by the NPT Article VI obligation to pursue in good faith negotiations on “cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date” and on nuclear disarmament.

When the negotiations on the NPT were completed in 1968, cessation of the nuclear arms race was understood to centrally involve a cap on strategic arsenals held by the U.S. and the Soviet Union, a ban on nuclear explosive testing, and a ban on producing fissile materials for nuclear weapons.

Ending nuclear arms racing was seen as setting the stage for negotiations on nuclear disarmament, meaning the elimination of nuclear arms.

After the NPT entered into force in 1970, the United States and Russia expeditiously moved to cut back on arms racing by negotiating bilateral treaties limiting delivery systems and missile defenses.

The size of the Soviet stockpile of nuclear warheads, however, continued to climb until the mid-1980s. Then a series of treaties, above all the 1991 START I agreement, dramatically reduced the two arsenals while still leaving in place civilization destroying numbers of warheads.

With the demise of New START, there is no treaty regulating the arsenals of the United States, Russia, China, and other nuclear-armed states. China is expanding its arsenal and the United States and Russia are poised to follow suit. The three countries also in differing ways are diversifying their arsenals and increasing the capabilities of delivery systems.

Increasing, diversifying, and modernizing nuclear arsenals as now underway or planned amounts to a repudiation of the NPT objective of cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and fails to meet the legal requirement of good faith in pursuing that objective.

The NPT Review Conference would be an appropriate setting for launching an initiative to reverse this dangerous and unlawful trend. It must also be stressed that arms control among the three powers does not and should not exclude multilateral negotiations for establishment of the “architecture” of a world free of nuclear weapons.

John Burroughs is Senior Analyst, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

US President Barack Obama delivers his first major speech, stating a commitment to seek peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, in front of thousands in Prague, Czech Republic, April 5, 2009. Credit: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 12 2026 (IPS)

When the nuclear Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between the US and Russia expired last week, it ended a historic era— but triggered widespread speculation about the future.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said “February 5 was a grave moment for international peace and security”.

For the first time in more than half a century, he pointed out, “we face a world without any binding limits on the strategic nuclear arsenals of the Russian Federation and the United States of America – the two States that possess the overwhelming majority of the global stockpile of nuclear weapons.”

US President Donald Trump dismissed the termination of the treaty rather sarcastically when he told the New York Times last month: “if it expires, it expires”—and denounced the expiring treaty as “a badly negotiated deal”.

“We will do a better agreement”, he promised, adding that China, which has one of the world’s fastest growing nuclear arsenals, “and other parties” should be part of any future treaty.

The Chinese, according to the Times, “have made clear they are not interested”.

Currently, the world’s nine nuclear powers are the US, UK, Russia, France and China—all permanent members of the Security Council—plus India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.

Collectively, they possess an estimated 12,100 to 12,500 nuclear warheads, with Russia and the US owning nearly 90% of the total eve while all nine are actively modernizing their arsenals.

Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute told IPS the START Treaty should be extended at least a year by formal or informal means. Is that as good as obtaining a new treaty that would include China as the US administration wants? No.

“Is it as good as fulfilling legally required steps such as adherence to the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) unanimous ruling to negotiate the universal elimination of nuclear weapons or the fulfillment of the promise of nuclear disarmament embodied in Article 6 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)? No”.

However, argued Granoff, doing nothing is asserting that a modest threat reducing easily obtained step now should not be taken because there are better ways forward. A modest positive step is no impediment to moving in other desired manners.

Fully terminating START communicates to the entire world that the US and Russia are so diplomatically inept that they cannot be trusted to continue to hold the entire world hostage to annihilation by holding thousands of first-use-ready nuclear weapons over everyone’s heads without adequate reasonable restraint, said Granoff.

The arguments being put forth as to why nothing can be done are inadequate.

First, the US argues that a new arrangement, a new treaty, is needed to bring China into the fold of restraint, he said.

“A modest step of extending START for a year by mutual presidential decrees while new negotiations take place does not negate creating a new treaty that would include China.”

Second, the arguments used to rationalize the new arms race fail to consider the folly of producing more accurate, usable, and powerful nuclear weapons”, declared Granoff.

Guterres pointed out the dissolution of decades of achievement could not come at a worse time – the risk of a nuclear weapon being used is the highest in decades.

“Yet even in this moment of uncertainty, we must search for hope. This is an opportunity to reset and create an arms control regime fit for a rapidly evolving context.”

“I welcome that the Presidents of both States have made clear that they appreciate the destabilizing impact of a nuclear arms race and the need to prevent the return to a world of unchecked nuclear proliferation.

“The world now looks to the Russian Federation and the United States to translate words into action. I urge both States to return to the negotiating table without delay and to agree upon a successor framework that restores verifiable limits, reduces risks, and strengthens our common security’, said Guterres.

In a statement released last week, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (PNND), a global network of legislators working to achieve a nuclear weapons-free world, said the importance of the New START treaty is hard to overstate.

“As other nuclear treaties have been abrogated in recent years, this was the only deal left with notification, inspection, verification and treaty compliance mechanisms between Russia and the US. Between them, they possess 87% of the world’s nuclear weapons.”

The demise of the treaty will bring a definitive and alarming end to nuclear restraint between the two powers. It may very well accelerate the global nuclear arms race, PNND warned.

This was one of the key reasons that on January 27, 2026, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists reset the Doomsday Clock to 85 Seconds to Midnight.

Last year, PNND Co-President Senator Markey introduced draft legislation into the US Senate urging the government to negotiate new post-START agreements with Russia and China. The legislation is supported by a number of other Senators and by a companion bill in the House of Representatives. But this seems to have fallen on deaf ears in the Trump Administration.

Granoff, providing a deeper analysis, told IPS the scientific data makes clear that a full-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia would annihilate humanity and that a limited nuclear exchange of less than 2% of the world’s arsenals would put around 5 million tons of soot into the stratosphere leading billions of deaths and the devastation of modern civilization everywhere.

“Realism reveals that the alleged need to duplicate the arsenals of adversary nations is not needed for deterrence. Realism also reveals that there is actually little to no meaningful difference between a nation having 600 (as China does now) or over 1400 deployed nuclear weapons, mirroring the US and Russia, or 30,000 nuclear weapons as Russia and the US each had at the height of the last arms race”.

“The reality is that devastation globally of a small portion of the world’s nuclear arsenals would be unambiguously unacceptable to any sane person. We could say that realism informs us that we have moved from Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to Self-Assured Destruction (SAD). The fact is that if any of the 9 states with the weapons were to use several hundred nuclear weapons that nation itself would also be devastated. MAD today reveals a new acronym, SAD.”

Meanwhile, a posting in the US State Department website reads:

Treaty Structure: The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, also known as the New START Treaty, enhances U.S. national security by placing verifiable limits on all Russian deployed intercontinental-range nuclear weapons. The United States and the Russian Federation had agreed to extend the treaty through February 4, 2026.

Strategic Offensive Limits: The New START Treaty entered into force on February 5, 2011. Under the treaty, the United States and the Russian Federation had seven years to meet the treaty’s central limits on strategic offensive arms (by February 5, 2018) and are then obligated to maintain those limits for as long as the treaty remains in force.

Aggregate Limits

Both the United States and the Russian Federation met the central limits of the New START Treaty by February 5, 2018, and have stayed at or below them ever since. Those limits are:

• 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments;
• 1,550 nuclear warheads on deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments (each such heavy bomber is counted as one warhead toward this limit);
• 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

UN Secretary-General António Guterres addresses the 426th meeting of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP). Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 11 2026 (IPS)

Since the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas in October of last year, humanitarian conditions in Gaza have notably improved — but aid agencies warn that progress is extremely fragile. Acute shortages of lifesaving medical care and psychosocial support persist, hunger remains widespread, with conditional cash assistance as the primary barrier preventing full-scale food insecurity, while Israeli attacks continue to undermine stability and humanitarian efforts.

Addressing the 2026 Opening Session of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres warned of the urgency of the current situation in Gaza.

“We enter 2026 with the clock ticking louder than ever. Will the year ahead bend towards peace–or slip into the abyss of despair?” Guterres said.

Guterres urged all parties to fully implement the ceasefire agreement, exercise maximum restraint, and comply with international law and UN resolutions, while calling for the rapid and unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid, particularly through the Rafah crossing, where aid personnel face the most severe restrictions. He also condemned the suspension of international NGOs, explaining that it “defies humanitarian principles, undermines fragile progress, and worsens the suffering of civilians,” adding that shelter, food, education materials, and other basic necessities must reach those in need.

In recent months, food security conditions in Gaza have shown notable, though uneven, improvement. Since the ceasefire went into effect, the World Food Programme (WFP) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) have brought over 10,000 trucks of aid into Gaza, representing roughly 80 percent of all humanitarian cargo. With this, the enclave was able to narrowly avoid the onset of famine.

WFP’s deputy executive director Carl Skau noted that most families he met were “eating at least once a day”, with some even managing two meals. Commercial goods such as vegetables, fruit, chicken, and eggs have gradually returned to local markets, while the distribution of recreational kits has helped children cope with the psychological toll of over two years of conflict.

However, progress remains fragile. The latest Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) assessment estimates that approximately 77 percent of Gaza’s population continues to face crisis-level food insecurity (IPC Phase 3), with around 100,000 people facing catastrophic conditions (IPC Phase 5). Moreover, most nutritious foods available in markets remain financially out of reach for civilians, leaving the vast majority of households heavily dependent on humanitarian food assistance.

For Gaza’s most vulnerable families, conditional cash assistance remains essential to accessing food. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), more than 3,200 agricultural households are currently supported through FAO cash programs, which also enable over 1,200 farmers to continue crop production and help more than 2,000 herders protect their livestock.

As markets gradually stabilize, humanitarian actors are seeking to shift their approach in favor of one that prioritizes building self-sufficiency. WFP has indicated its goal to transition to cash assistance as market conditions improve, shifting emergency relief efforts to restoring local food production and economic systems to allow for vulnerable families to be able to afford food. However, these efforts would require a significant upscale in funding, coordinated efforts between the international community, and the free flow of aid.

Meanwhile, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) reports that Palestinians continue to face widespread insecurity, driven by routine attacks on civilians and critical infrastructures. On February 5, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) released a humanitarian situation report documenting a sharp increase in airstrikes, shelling, gunfire, and fatalities between January 30 and February 5 compared to previous weeks. According to Gaza’s Ministry of Health, at least 82 Palestinians were killed and 162 injured during that period, including children and a health worker, alongside extensive damage to civilian infrastructure.

Further underscoring the risks faced by aid workers, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies reported on February 4 that a paramedic was killed while providing assistance in the Mawasi area. That same day, OCHA reiterated that civilians and humanitarian personnel “must never be targeted or used to shield military activities,” stressing that children and aid workers are afforded special protections under international humanitarian law.

The UN has also stressed that living conditions remain especially dire for displaced communities across Gaza. On February 3, heavy insecurity in the Al Mahatta and Sanafour areas of Gaza City forced approximately 40 families to flee their homes, with only 10 families able to return by the following morning. UN figures indicate that “capacity and funding constraints” have limited humanitarian support to only roughly 40 percent of the remaining functional 970 displacement sites across Gaza.

Healthcare needs are similarly overwhelming, as a steady influx of injuries and disease is compounded by the near-total collapse of Gaza’s health system. According to Jonathan Fowler, Senior Communications Manager of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the agency previously operated 22 clinics operating across the Gaza strip before the war, which has now fallen to just six.

“That makes it incredibly difficult to do our work and so many of our locations have been heavily damaged or indeed completely destroyed,” Fowler said. “On top of that, we remain banned by the Israeli authorities from bringing in any of our own supplies.” Despite numerous access and security constraints, UNRWA aims to assist approximately 15,000 patients each day, underscoring the scale of unmet medical needs across the most vulnerable areas.

Furthermore, OHCHR has documented a sharp rise in cases of mistreatment and abuse against displaced Palestinians by Israeli military forces, particularly along the newly reopened Rafah border crossing. As of February 5, Palestinians returning through the crossing for three consecutive days have reported consistent patterns of “ill-treatment, abuse, and humiliation”.

According to testimonies collected by the agency, returnees were escorted from the crossing to military checkpoints, where some were handcuffed, blindfolded, threatened, and intimidated. Others reported being subjected to invasive body searches, having personal belongings and money confiscated, and facing physical violence and degrading interrogations. Several individuals were also denied access to medical care and bathroom facilities, with some forced to urinate in public.

OHCHR also documented allegations that returnees were offered money to return to Egypt permanently or pressured to act as informants for the Israeli military.

“The international community has a responsibility to ensure that all measures affecting Gaza strictly comply with international law and fully respect Palestinians’ human rights,” said Ajith Sunghay, head of the UN Human Rights Office in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. “After two years of utter devastation, being able to return to their families and what remains of their homes in safety and dignity is the bare minimum.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau