Roberto Savio, left, and Giuliano Rizzi, right, co-authors of Manuale per il Cittadino Globale (The Global Citizen Handbook), a 19-chapter guide that invites readers to understand, reflect on and respond to today’s interconnected global challenges—from inequality and climate change to artificial intelligence, migration, democracy and peace. Image: INPS Japan

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
ROME, Jul 1 2026 (IPS)

When Roberto Savio begins talking about The Global Citizen Handbook, he does not begin with the book itself.

He begins with today’s young people.

Dr. Roberto Savio

That observation forms the starting point of a book that is less about globalization than about citizenship itself.

Co-authored with educator Giuliano Rizzi, The Global Citizen Handbook argues that humanity’s greatest challenge today is not simply climate change, war, inequality or artificial intelligence. It is our growing inability to understand how these crises are connected.

For Savio, the contrast between generations illustrates this transformation.

A new generation faces a world shaped by interconnected crises—from climate change and conflict to inequality and artificial intelligence—raising profound questions about the future of global citizenship. Credit: AI-generated illustration. Image: INPS Japan

Those who emerged from the devastation of the Second World War inherited ruined cities but also a profound belief that reconstruction would create a better future. The creation of the United Nations symbolized that optimism.

By the 1990s, another generation entered adulthood expecting that industrialization, technological progress and expanding economies would provide stable employment, home ownership and a secure future.

Young people today inherit something very different.

Climate disruption, widening inequality, geopolitical rivalry, financial instability, demographic decline, armed conflict and artificial intelligence converge to create unprecedented uncertainty.

Yet, Savio argues, objective uncertainty tells only part of the story.

There is also a crisis of understanding.

Every day, people are exposed to an endless stream of information about climate change, migration, democracy, finance, war and artificial intelligence.

Never before has humanity had access to so much information.

Never before has it been so difficult to understand how that information fits together.

“Ordinary citizens are not encyclopedias,” Savio says.

An endless stream of disconnected information can make today’s global crises appear overwhelming. The Global Citizen Handbook argues that understanding the connections between them is the first step toward informed citizenship. Image:INPS Japan

Daily news encourages people to see isolated events rather than interconnected processes.

Climate change appears separate from migration.

Migration appears separate from inequality.

Artificial intelligence is discussed independently from democracy.

Reality becomes fragmented.

As those connections disappear from public understanding, many people begin to feel that the world has become too complex to comprehend—or to influence.

For Savio, this is one of the defining democratic challenges of the digital age.

Citizens cannot participate meaningfully in public life if they cannot understand the forces shaping it.

Roberto Savio（Right)

Rather than producing another reference book filled with statistics and expert analysis, Savio and Rizzi chose a different approach.

“Our purpose was never simply to explain global problems,” Savio said.

“We wanted to create a handbook that encourages readers to stop, reflect and ask themselves questions.”

Each chapter combines documented evidence with examples of communities that have successfully addressed similar challenges.

Instead of ending with conclusions, every chapter ends with questions.

Facts become understanding.

Judgment becomes participation.

A visual reflection of The Global Citizen Handbook: the promise and perils of artificial intelligence and digital technology, set alongside the authors’ call for active, informed global citizenship grounded in human dignity, shared responsibility and hope. Image: INPS Japan

It is not simply a book about the world.

It is a guide to becoming an informed citizen within it.

For Savio, The Global Citizen Handbook is not a departure from his life’s work.

It is its natural continuation.

Credit: INPS Japan

He wanted to broaden international journalism by bringing global attention to voices and experiences that rarely reached the world’s headlines.

That philosophy became widely known as “Giving Voice to the Voiceless.”

Yet for Savio, journalism should do more than report distant events.

It should help people understand why those events matter to their own lives.

During our conversation, Savio reflected on another chapter of that journey.

Katsuhiro Asagiri(Left) and Roberto Savio(Right)

In 2009, IPS and Soka Gakkai International (SGI) launched an international media partnership dedicated to fostering global citizens committed to a world free of nuclear weapons.

Since then, INPS Japan has served as the Japanese hub of that collaboration, publishing multilingual reporting and developing a growing knowledge platform connecting nuclear disarmament, sustainable development, human rights, climate change and other global challenges.

From the Annual report 2010 with Messages from Dr. Roberto Savio and Dr, Daisaku Ikeda commenting on the launch of media collabolation between IPS and SGI which started in April 2009.

Looking back on the origins of the partnership, Savio immediately recalled the message contributed by Dr. Daisaku Ikeda, third president of Soka Gakkai, to the first annual compilation published in 2010.

“It remains as relevant today as it was then,” Savio said.

In his message, Dr. Ikeda wrote:

“Herein lies the importance of education, in the broadest sense of the word. When people are empowered with accurate knowledge, they naturally understand the actions they need to take. Exchanging views among those close to us, they can learn together and search for the best and most effective forms of action.”

Dr. Ikeda continued:

“The media have an especially important role to play in this educational process. By making objective information widely available and offering analysis from a range of standpoints, the media can bring into sharper focus the nature of issues and the actions to be taken to resolve them.”

Reflecting on the IPS–SGI partnership, Dr. Ikeda added:

“IPS has taken as its special mission the work of ‘giving a voice to the voiceless.’ Soka Gakkai International is dedicated, from a civil society perspective, to building a culture of peace. It is a great joy to be able to collaborate with IPS in this project to provide a forum for dialogue to explore the meaning of solutions to this most critical of issues.”

Savio said he remains deeply encouraged that the vision shared by Dr. Ikeda more than fifteen years ago continues to flourish.

He also recalled his own message written for the same publication, expressing the hope that the INPS Japan – SGI multilingual media platform would become a “base camp” on the climb toward what he described as “sanguine optimism.”

Roberto Savio (far left), then Deputy Director at the World Political Forum (WPF), founded by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev(2nd from left), welcomes an SGI delegation led by Hiromasa Ikeda (center) to a 2009 international conference on nuclear abolition. The meeting marked the beginning of the long-standing media partnership between Inter Press Service (IPS) and Soka Gakkai International (SGI). Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri / INPS Japan.

Looking back today, Savio said he is delighted to see that the collaboration between IPS, INPS Japan and SGI has continued to grow.

For him, it represents far more than a successful media partnership.

It demonstrates how independent journalism, education and dialogue can work together to cultivate informed and responsible global citizens.

More than fifteen years after those messages were written, The Global Citizen Handbook can be read as a continuation of the same conversation—one that seeks to cultivate citizens capable of understanding an increasingly interconnected world and acting responsibly within it.

Global citizenship, Savio argues, does not mean abandoning one’s country or culture.

It means recognizing that our responsibilities no longer end at national borders.

Our choices, our consumption, our politics and our values increasingly affect people we may never meet.

Understanding those connections is where citizenship begins.

Artificial intelligence offers unprecedented opportunities to advance education, health care and access to knowledge, but its benefits depend on democratic governance, ethical stewardship and informed global citizenship. Image: INPS Japan

For more than sixty years, Roberto Savio has argued that journalism should do more than report events.

It should help people understand the forces shaping their lives.

Through The Global Citizen Handbook, he extends that mission beyond journalism into education.

Understanding, however, is not the final destination.

It is the beginning of citizenship.

In an interconnected world, the future will depend not only on better governments or better technologies, but on better informed citizens who recognize that responsibility no longer ends at national borders.

That is the invitation Roberto Savio extends through The Global Citizen Handbook.

And perhaps, in an age of fragmentation and uncertainty, it is the invitation our time needs most.

SDGs for All media project cover page. Credit: INPS Japan

Roberto Savio – the compass of OtherNews – is a journalist, communication expert, political commentator, activist for social and climate justice and advocate of global governance. In 1964, he founded Inter Press Service (IPS), of which he was Director-General for many years. He is Deputy Director of the Scientific Council of the New Policy Forum (formerly the World Policy Forum), founded by Mikhail Gorbachev and also a member of the International Committee of the World Social Forum (WSF).

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

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

The report - Military Escalation in the Middle East: Cushioning the Global Shock – reveals that low- and middle-income countries have partially protected their populations from soaring oil prices through fossil fuel subsidies, price caps, tax rebates and demand-management measures. Credit: UNDP

By UN Development Programme
NEW YORK, Jul 1 2026 (IPS)

Developing countries’ efforts to tackle the ongoing effects of conflict in the Middle East carry a high price that leaves little room for critical investments in education, health and other development priorities, according to a new report by the UN Development Programme (UNDP) released today.

The report – Military Escalation in the Middle East: Cushioning the Global Shock – reveals that low- and middle-income countries have partially protected their populations from soaring oil prices through fossil fuel subsidies, price caps, tax rebates and demand-management measures.

Fossil fuel subsidies, which had been on a downward trend globally, are on track to reach US$1.1 trillion in 2026 – US$ 410 billion more than in 2025, assuming the current average oil price settles at US$88.6 per barrel.

This projection climbs to as much as US$1.43 trillion in a ‘severe’ scenario where oil prices climb to an average of US$110 per barrel.

The UNDP report warns that while fossil fuel subsidies provide temporary relief, they ultimately undermine climate and development goals, locking countries into high-carbon pathways and limiting future investment.

“The global spillover of the Middle East conflict is profound and potentially long-lasting. Developing countries, many already struggling with debt, have temporarily managed to protect people from the worst of the energy shock,” said UNDP Administrator Alexander De Croo. “These countries are doing everything they can, but there is a hidden cost. To deal with today’s crisis, governments are postponing tomorrow’s investments. Money that should be building schools, hospitals, and clean energy systems is being used simply to keep economies afloat. Without international support, these countries won’t escape the shock. They are absorbing it at the expense of future growth.”

Close to half of the world’s poorest countries are already either ‘in’ or at ‘high risk’ of debt distress, and debt continues to crowd out development spending at an increasing rate, according to the report.

This year, it is estimated that the median developing economy will spend 9.53 percent of total government revenue on interest payments alone – double the share of a decade ago and the highest level seen in 25 years.

Averaged over the three-year period 2024 to 2026, 55 developing economies are estimated to pay more than 10 percent of revenue in interest payments, compared to 32 countries a decade ago.

“No country should have to sacrifice its future development to manage a crisis it did not create,” said De Croo. “First, we must unlock multilateral liquidity in ways that are easy to access for low and middle-income countries. Second, we must accelerate investment in renewable energy. Every clean energy investment reduces exposure to future shocks. The crisis has made one thing clear: energy security and the energy transition are no longer separate agendas. They are one and the same.”

The report is being launched in the context of the Hamburg Sustainability Conference (HSC) taking place this week. The HSC is an annual high-level meeting that aims to foster new partnerships and collective action by global policymakers, private sector leaders, academia experts, and civil society representatives. The annual event is a joint initiative of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg and the Michael Otto Foundation.

Full report
The full report is available online at https://www.undp.org/publications/military-escalation-middle-east-cushioning-global-shock

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

The UN Peacebuilding Commission Celebrates 20 Years of UN Peacebuilding Architecture. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

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

From June 22 to 26, the United Nations (UN) commemorated its first annual Peacebuilding Week, marking the 20th anniversary of the UN Peacebuilding Commission’s inaugural session. Featuring discussions among world leaders, policymakers, civil society, and advocates, the event explored how collaboration among governments, international organizations, and the private sector can enhance the visibility and effectiveness of peacebuilding efforts worldwide.

The goals of the Peacebuilding Week are particularly critical today, as increasing geopolitical tensions fracture international cooperation and severe financing shortfalls deplete resources, hindering relief efforts for civilians trapped in conflict. Despite a historic surge in active armed conflicts worldwide recorded over the past two years, peacebuilding and relief funding suffered a severe 40 percent decline between 2024 and 2025, leaving millions of people around the globe in a state of extreme insecurity.

“Peace does not occur automatically. It is built through persistent diplomacy, collective action and political will,” said Annalena Baerbock, President of the UN General Assembly. “Wars that never happen because of peacebuilding, conflict-prevention or sustainable-development efforts rarely make headlines. Yet, like everything else, peacebuilding is only possible when properly resourced.”

On June 26, the Peacebuilding Impact Hub—part of the Peacebuilding and Peace Support Office (PBPSO) within the UN Departments of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and Peace Operations (DPPA-DPO)—launched its inaugural Peacebuilding Overview, titled Investing in Peace When the World Pays for War. This report analyzes data gathered from governments, civil society, scholars, and UN field operations across numerous, diverse contexts.

By addressing the root causes of conflict and encouraging the implementation of digital technologies—alongside active participation from youth and the private sector—the report aims to forge new paths for peacebuilding that are resilient, inclusive, and globally supported. Aiming to identify structural gaps in data sharing that prevent vital information from being shared internationally and from being fully utilized by policymakers and the public, the report was launched alongside a side event titled Building Peace in a Changing World.

At the event, Paul Fargues, one of the report’s authors and a Political Affairs Officer for the UN Department for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA), told reporters that the world is currently at a “crossroads, where conflict is on the rise, good governance is declining, and civic space is shrinking.” He noted that this is compounded by severe budget cuts and disproportionate investment in military expenditure rather than civilian protection and prevention efforts, making humanitarian relief operations increasingly difficult.

According to the report, over the last two decades, the world has invested only one dollar in peacebuilding efforts for every 100 dollars spent on military expenditure. Fargues added that the world’s most vulnerable populations are projected to suffer the most, particularly in dire contexts where aid constitutes more than 60 percent of all external funding and acts as a vital lifeline. Additionally, the DDPA found that roughly two-thirds of the countries whose economies are most dependent on UN aid are also the ones most adversely affected by the funding cuts.

Fargues argued that some of the central obstacles in advancing peacebuilding efforts today are the persistent structural gaps in the dissemination of evidence and data, which is critically underdeveloped when compared to the development and humanitarian sectors.

“Peacebuilding has no underlying framework to create shared data practices, to generate insights at the global level to enhance evidence-based decision-making, or simply to communicate its value to broader non-technical audiences,” Fargues said. “Peacebuilders and those who support them must do a better job at measuring, proving, and communicating this. Given the incredibly challenging contexts, producing more robust data and evidence of impact is a bare minimum.”

Katherina Ahrendts, the Director-General for Global Order, United Nations and Humanitarian Assistance of the Federal Foreign Office of Germany, stated that although the case for investing in protection and prevention efforts is clear, political and financial contributions lag significantly behind. According to figures from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), for every dollar invested in preventive macroeconomic policies, up to 103 dollars could be generated in returns. DPPA also estimated that with adequate investment in prevention and protection measures, humanitarian needs could be reduced by approximately USD 3.6 billion annually.

Despite these potential gains, the economic case for peacebuilding efforts has not sufficiently influenced global investment priorities.“We are indeed at a critical moment when violent conflict is increasing while budgets are under strain and multilateralism as a whole is increasingly challenged,” said Ahrendts. “From a domestic policy standpoint, we need a much stronger business case, more compelling narratives, and better evidence. We need to showcase that peacebuilding is a smart, strategic, and cost-effective instrument that prevents much higher costs later on.”

“This means framing peacebuilding not only as a moral imperative, but as a matter of security, stability, mutual interests and sound investments. In particular, we need to make clear that peacebuilding and investment are an integral component of an effective security strategy,” she added.

Ana Escobar, the UN Representative for Peace Direct, an organization that empowers local peacebuilding efforts and supports community-driven approaches, remarked that peacebuilding must be grounded in a community-based approach and tailored to match the specific needs of vulnerable communities. Peace Direct defines meaningful impact as seeing communities become safer and more resilient long after external support has ceased.

Rather than implementing a pre-established peacebuilding agenda, Peace Direct works with local peacebuilders and community leaders to define what success looks like to them and identify the changes that they want to see. “That means asking different questions,” Escobar said. “Are communities resolving disputes without violence, and how do we measure that? Do women, youth, and marginalized groups have greater influence in decision-making? Is trust increasing between communities and institutions?”

“Peacebuilding is most effective when power, resources, and evidence flow in the same direction, towards the communities that live with conflict every day…. For local peacebuilders, prevention means that children go to school instead of joining armed groups, farmers return to their lands, markets reopen, women move safely, families remain together. Those are the returns communities measure every day,” added Escobar.

Dr. Cedric De Coning, a Senior Researcher in the Peace, Conflict and Development Research Group at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), underscored the importance of adaptive peacebuilding. This approach calls for the continuous monitoring of data and updating of peacebuilding measures, acknowledging that a community’s dynamics are constantly shifting. Rather than framing peacebuilding as a rigid structure being “built”, Dr. De Coning argues that it is more of a continuous process that is “nurtured”.

“What adaptive peacebuilding says is that we cannot know that beforehand; it has to emerge from people affected by conflict or people in societies struggling to achieve peace themselves,” said Dr. De Coning.

“As peacebuilders, we have to accompany these societies, and we have to learn together with them constantly and adapt our understanding of what it is that we can support. But we should be careful not to measure peace as something that only makes sense for donor-funded projects…. Peace is something much broader, and we need to measure that broader social transformation: how societies are experiencing peace, how they are living the things they look at, is what we need to look at rather than measuring projects to please donors.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Tehran, Iran before the conflict began. Credit: Unsplash/Mohammad Takhsh

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 1 2026 (IPS)

The on-again, off-again US-Iran peace negotiations, which have been disparaged by Israeli leaders, have resulted in a rare rift between the US and Israel, a Middle East ally which has had America’s unwavering “iron clad” support since its creation in 1948.

The cracks were visible – all the way from Tel Aviv to Washington DC. But is this for real or just a passing family squabble?

US Vice President J.D. Vance, who has been leading the negotiations in Geneva, lambasted the Israelis last week for their very personal attack on President Donald Trump.

“Donald Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time, and he happens to be the head of state of the world’s superpower,” he said, speaking to reporters at the White House.

Vance said ” two thirds of the weapons that protected Israel were American-made and paid for by US tax dollars.”

“If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that i have anywhere left in the entire world,” he warned.

Dr Ramzy Baroud, Palestinian author and editor of the Palestine Chronicle, told Inter Press Service “while Vice President J.D. Vance’s comments may suggest that there is some divergence between the United States and Israel, we should be cautious not to read too much into them or assume that they signal a fundamental shift in US policy”.

First, this is not the first time that criticism of Israel has emerged from a US administration, even from officials widely regarded as strong supporters of Israel, he pointed out. Similar disagreements have surfaced before without leading to any meaningful change in American policy.

Second, there have been credible reports indicating that, during the Biden administration, the appearance of tension between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu was often overstated and did not reflect the reality of continued US support for the genocide in Gaza.

Despite public disagreements, American military, financial, and diplomatic backing remained largely unchanged, he said.

Similarly, recent attempts to portray a rift between President Trump and Netanyahu—whether genuine or exaggerated—have so far had little impact on US support for Israel.

In fact, only days after Vice President Vance’s remarks, the United States carried out another strike against Iran, in line with objectives long advocated by the Netanyahu government, said Dr Baroud.

At the same time, Washington is actively advancing a broader scheme in Lebanon aimed at achieving politically what Israel failed to achieve militarily: weakening the Resistance, restructuring Lebanon’s political and security landscape in Israel’s favor, all while continuing to ignore the ongoing genocide in Gaza, declared Dr Baroud..

Meanwhile, according to a Fact Sheet from the US State Department “steadfast support for Israel’s security has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy for every U.S. Administration since the presidency of Harry S. Truman”.

“Since Israel’s founding in 1948, the United States has provided Israel with over $130 billion in bilateral assistance focused on addressing new and complex security threats, bridging Israel’s capability gaps through security assistance and cooperation, increasing interoperability through joint exercises, and helping Israel maintain its Qualitative Military Edge (QME).”

This assistance has helped transform the Israel Defense Forces into one of the world’s most capable, effective militaries and turned the Israeli military industry and technology sector into one of the largest exporters of military capabilities worldwide.

Since 1983, the United States and Israel have met regularly via the Joint Political-Military Group (JPMG) to promote shared policies, address common threats and concerns, and identify new areas for security cooperation.

The 48th JPMG, held in October 2022 reaffirmed the ironclad strategic partnership between the United States and Israel, underscoring a mutual commitment to advance collaboration in support of regional security and reinforce the historic achievements of recent normalization under the Abraham Accords.

Israel is the leading global recipient of Title 22 U.S. security assistance under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program. This has been formalized by a 10-year (2019-2028) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Consistent with the MOU, the United States annually provides $3.3 billion in FMF and $500 million for cooperative programs for missile defense.

Since Elaborating further, FY 2009, the United States has provided Israel with $3.4 billion in funding for missile defense, including $1.3 billion for Iron Dome support starting in FY 2011. Through FMF, the United States provides Israel with access to some of the most advanced military equipment in the world, including the F-35 Lightning.

Israel is also eligible for Cash Flow Financing and is authorized to use its annual FMF allocation to procure defense articles, services, and training through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system, Direct Commercial Contract agreements – which are FMF-funded Direct Commercial Sales procurements – and through Off Shore Procurement (OSP). Via OSP the current MOU allows Israel to spend a portion of its FMF on Israeli-origin rather than U.S.-origin defense articles. This was 25 percent in FY 2019 but is set to phase-out and decrease to zero in FY 2028.

Elaborating further, Dr Baroud said It is important to note any signs of disagreement between Washington and Tel Aviv. However, political rhetoric is ultimately meaningless unless it is accompanied by tangible changes on the ground.

Israel remains the largest recipient of US military and financial assistance anywhere in the world, even as it carries out the genocide in Gaza.

As long as this fundamental equation remains unchanged, any supposed disagreements or personal feuds between the two governments amount to little more than empty words, he declared.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Delegates gather for the opening plenary of the June UN Climate Meetings in Bonn. Credit: Kiara Worth / IISD/ENB

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
APEX, North Carolina / SAN FRANCISCO, California, Jun 30 2026 (IPS)

With progress stalled on many issues, this year’s June talks in Bonn—which are supposed to smooth the way towards COP 31 in Antalya at year’s end—were widely judged a failure. What happened? And what does it mean for Antalya?

“Deliberately delaying us.”

“Spreading misinformation.”

“Denying the science.”

“Lacking integrity.”

“Blocking progress.”

“Costing countless lives.”

These were just some of the charges delegates leveled at each other during the UN Climate Meetings held in Bonn this June. As delegates took up multiple issues in small “contact groups” and “informal consultations”, negotiations quickly became tetchy and irritable before descending into levels of rancor and even rudeness rarely seen before. And it was not just one issue where tempers frayed.

What went wrong? One problem is the sheer number of topics on the Bonn agenda. Over the thirty-plus years since the UN climate talks began, countries have been keen to add issues they particularly care about to the agenda

From talks on climate change research and science to topics like mitigation and funding for adaptation, the mood was often combative and confrontational. By the meeting’s end, differences were so great that in many cases delegates could not even agree to continue working on the draft outcome documents from Bonn when they arrive at COP 31 in Antalya later this year.

This means they will need to start discussions from scratch. In other cases, they failed to finish their work, but at least managed to forward the current working texts. This is hardly a great outcome, however.

In fact, Bonn may have witnessed more arguments over “mandates” (whether a particular group should be discussing certain topics) and “points of order” (whether delegates were playing within the rules) than ever before in the climate change process.

Searching for positives, some participants pointed to one success. Delegates did choose the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) to host the Climate Technology Centre (CTC).

The CTC provides technological support to developing countries. It means the Centre’s work will continue beyond 2027 and possibly all the way through to 2041. But even the glow of this minor “win” dims when one recalls that UNEP was already the host.

This agreement simply means it can carry on its work. It doesn’t create something new. When continuing to do something that’s already happening counts as a victory, you know things haven’t gone well.

Too Many Topics

What went wrong? One problem is the sheer number of topics on the Bonn agenda. Over the thirty-plus years since the UN climate talks began, countries have been keen to add issues they particularly care about to the agenda.

For instance, vulnerable small island nations are eager to talk about keeping global warming under 1.5oC, the threshold at which scientists fear serious “tipping points” will be reached. They also want to talk about phasing out fossil fuels—the major cause of climate change—and about wealthy countries helping them to adapt.

Meanwhile, fossil fuel exporters like Saudi Arabia are keen to talk about what wealthy western nations’ actions, including carbon taxes or a shift to renewables, are doing to their oil-based economies. They believe these “response measures” could harm them—or already are. That said, these same oil and gas-rich nations certainly do not want to talk about getting rid of fossil fuels.

A third example are the western nations, particularly those in Europe, who are making efforts to shake off their dependence on oil and gas.

They are happy to talk about renewable energy and science, but are keen to shut down talk about funding or compensating countries affected by what the Europeans consider to be their virtuous efforts to change. Bailing out oil producers for any “harm” done to their export trade is the last thing on their minds.

As the various groups have added their topics to the negotiations over the years, these divergent views have collided with ever greater force. Although there are frequent calls to simplify the process, no country is going to give up their “pet” topic, especially since that would mean more time to talk about someone else’s favorite issue. Could everyone agree to simplify and give up their preferred agenda item? Maybe. But so far, no one has blinked.

The Rule Is, There Are No Rules!

Making things more difficult still are the UN climate treaty’s “rules of procedure.” These were developed in the 1990s when countries first penned the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change—the bedrock agreement on which the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement were also built.

The rules of procedure offer a way out of difficult issues by allowing for countries to vote. In some cases, a two-thirds majority is required to “win” on an issue. Sometimes, the bar is even higher and a three-quarters majority is needed.

The trouble is, these rules were never formally adopted. Saudi Arabia and a number of other countries refused to agree to them. What this means is that consensus is required for everything. So, what happens when a treaty has 198 parties, all with differing views and priorities on what is possibly the most complex issue of our times? One could argue it’s a miracle anything has been agreed at all.

The COP 31 Pileup

What does this mess mean for COP 31, which is taking place in Antalya, Türkiye, in November? First, it means an agenda pileup. The annual June climate meeting in Bonn is supposed to help pave the way to the end-of-year COP. Bonn’s job is to resolve much of the low-hanging fruit—agenda items that require some sort of agreement or outcome document, but which can be taken care of relatively quickly. This then leaves the COP to finish up work on the big, meaty, difficult issues.

The problem is, Bonn resolved almost nothing. Even the low-hanging fruit seems to have soured. With so many documents unresolved and “rolled over” (or, in the jargon of the process, ‘Rule 16ed’), COP 31 will have a massive workload. It’s a logjam that seems unlikely to be cleared in Antalya.

Does this mean COP 31 will fail? Not necessarily. One silver lining that could be observed in Bonn was how well the two countries presiding over COP 31 seemed to be working together. In an unusual arrangement, the government of Türkiye is physically hosting and organizing the COP, while the government of Australia is joining as co-president tasked with handling the diplomatic negotiations.

Their collaborative spirit and air of quiet competence provided a ray of hope in Bonn. Also, there are two pre-COP events in October—one taking place in Fiji, the other in Tuvalu—that might help.

Still, the signs are not good overall.

Fixing the Process

Bonn did not occur in a vacuum. By common consent, the UN climate process has been getting steadily more complicated by the year, especially since the Paris Agreement was inked back in 2015. Bonn was just the latest example—and one of the more extreme—in how confusing and difficult it has become from an agenda perspective.

There is also a growing interest in these negotiations to reckon with. Some of the early COPs attracted only a few thousand participants, while today the numbers regularly top 50,000 and more.

The most extreme, COP 28, topped 83,000! Some argue this is making it more difficult, while others see this as a positive development, since it demonstrates to politicians that climate change remains a critical issue. Either way, this evolution adds to the organizational complexity of the process.

These recent travails and complications have led to a steady stream of think pieces, reports, and meetings aimed at streamlining, simplifying and improving the system. They contain many good ideas for shedding agenda items and other alterations.

Perhaps one day frustration will mount to a point where some of these good ideas actually happen. But with countries so divided on the substance of the talks, it is hard to imagine them agreeing on their organization, at least in the short term.

Does It Really Matter?

In spite of the mess the process is in right now, we can see four reasons to remain positive and not to give up hope.

First, COP 31 is not a “make or break” COP. Sure, it needs to keep the momentum going. But there are no major outcomes needed in Antalya.

Instead, delegates and observers are looking more to COP 32 in 2027—which will review countries’ success in implementing their pledges under the Paris Agreement—and COP 33, which is tasked with completing a second “global stocktake” of progress. COP 33, in particular, will need to end with something noteworthy. Interestingly, COP 33 is also likely to take place hard-on-the-heels of the U.S. Presidential elections.

Looking further out, COP 35 in 2030 should mark another important moment in the process, with countries scheduled to submit their next set of pledges or “Nationally Determined Contributions”.

A second reason to stay positive—and no disrespect to the climate negotiations—is that we already have in place the major agreements we need to make progress.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement are the launch pads we need. A lot of the negotiations occurring these days in Bonn and at the COPs are relatively minor and procedural. Now, our work can and should be more about implementing what we’ve agreed.

To be clear: the COPs have an important role to play in reviewing progress and encouraging countries to do more. But the foundations are already in place, the promises made. Now, it is about doing what we have said we would.

Thirdly, the creation of “Coalitions of the Willing” in recent years show there is an appetite for promoting implementation even on issues where there is not yet consensus among all 198 member states.

Alliances designed to advance progress on critical matters such as energy, agriculture, water, oceans, and health can only help us move forward. While some, such as the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), have failed in their original goals, the potential is certainly there.

The recent alliance to transition away from fossil fuels, and another initiative on financing known as the “Vulnerability to Viability Compact”, are positive developments that could and should help us on the path to implementation.

Are we doing what is needed? Not yet. At least, not fast enough. But—and this is our fourth and final note of positivity—there is hope here. It’s worth noting that, since the Paris Agreement in 2015, the trajectory of global warming has changed. Back in 2015, the world was staring down the barrel of 4-6oC in warming by the end of this century. These numbers should cause any sensible person to quail. They are extinction-level predictions; apocalyptic in their scope, horrifying in their impact.

Today, the numbers have fallen to between about 2.1oC and 2.8oC, depending on your assumptions. These numbers are still very, very bad. They threaten breaching all sorts limits, passing many points of no return.

Even at 1.5oC warming, we are seeing unprecedented weather such as the heatwaves felt recently in Europe. Still, we have started to bend the curve. As a result of government policies, scientific breakthroughs, private sector initiatives and action from many, many stakeholders, things are slowly beginning to change.

Our friend Christiana Figueres, who played a major role in the Paris Agreement, talks often about “stubborn optimism”. We agree. This is the time to double down on climate action. With renewed energy and dogged persistence, we can keep bending the curve and change humanity’s future.

This, surely, is something participants at future COPs should be striving towards.

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in United Nations talks on climate change and other environmental negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022) and wrote Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet (Routledge, 2025). Their next book, Political Heroes of the Environment: Profiles in Courage, is due for release in 2027.

Smart farming enables farmers to produce more with fewer resources, make better decisions under uncertainty, and reduce agriculture's environmental footprint. Credit: FAO

By Beth Bechdol
ROME, Jun 30 2026 (IPS)

Farmers today are producing food under pressures that would have been unimaginable to previous generations. Input costs are rising and supply chains are unreliable. Water is scarcer. Weather is less predictable. And for a growing number of farmers — in Sudan, in Ukraine, in Myanmar, in Gaza — the challenge is producing food at all, in the middle of active conflict. These are not marginal conditions. They describe the reality facing hundreds of millions of people who grow the food the world depends on.

Smart farming — using data, digital tools, and precision technologies to make better decisions, use fewer inputs, and get more from every hectare — is not a luxury response to these pressures. It is increasingly a practical and necessary one. It helps farmers know when to plant, where fertilizer will generate the greatest return, how much water a crop actually needs, where pests are likely to emerge, and which risks are developing before they become crises.

Three agricultural revolutions got us here. The first gave humanity settled agriculture. The second transformed land use and productivity through new methods and early machinery. The third — the Green Revolution — combined improved seeds, fertilizers, and modern practice to feed a rapidly growing world. Each solved the defining challenge of its era … producing enough.

Smart farming — using data, digital tools, and precision technologies to make better decisions, use fewer inputs, and get more from every hectare — is not a luxury response to these pressures. It is increasingly a practical and necessary one

The fourth revolution faces a fundamentally different challenge. It is no longer simply about producing more food. It is about producing more with fewer and less reliable inputs, under greater uncertainty, on land under increasing stress, and while reducing agriculture’s environmental footprint.

The tools that drove the Green Revolution were extraordinary, but they are not infinitely scalable. Synthetic fertilizers depend on energy-intensive production and supply chains that have proven fragile. Aquifers in key agricultural regions are being drawn down faster than they recharge. The yield gains from conventional intensification are flattening. There is no endless supply of cheap water, cheap fertilizer, or cheap fuel to sustain food production the way we have for the past half-century.

Smart farming is how we meet this new challenge. It enables farmers to produce more with fewer resources, make better decisions under uncertainty, and reduce agriculture’s environmental footprint. It is not a vision for the future. It is already happening.

FAO’s own operational programmes demonstrate what is already possible. Our Desert Locust early warning system uses satellite imagery, weather data, and field intelligence to forecast outbreaks before they reach crops, giving governments time to act rather than simply respond. The SoilFER programme is turning faster, more affordable soil mapping into actionable fertilizer recommendations for farmers in Central America and sub-Saharan Africa. The Hand-in-Hand Initiative combines geospatial, market, and socioeconomic data so governments and investors can direct agricultural investment where it will have the greatest return. These are not pilots. They are operational programmes with measurable outcomes — and they include AI-driven tools that forecast pest and disease pressure, analyze crop stress, and help governments make better decisions faster than was previously possible.

My own family’s seven-generation grain farm in rural Indiana today uses GPS-guided equipment, variable-rate fertilizer applications based on soil sampling, yield mapping, and real-time weather tools to make planting and harvesting decisions. The technology works. The question is who has access to it.

That is the central challenge. The benefits of smart farming currently concentrate among producers who already have the resources, connectivity, and institutional support to adopt new tools. Smallholder farmers — who produce a third of the world’s food — are too often last in line. Women farmers and young producers face additional barriers to technology and financing, which means the whole system underperforms when they are excluded.

At FAO’s Global Conference on Smart Farming in Rome from 1 to 3 July, the commitments required are specific and clear. Governments need to modernize regulatory environments and invest in the digital infrastructure agriculture depends on. Development banks should finance data systems and precision agriculture as essential infrastructure rather than optional innovation. Private companies need business models that reach smallholders, not only large commercial farms. And organizations like FAO must ensure that technical knowledge becomes practical solutions farmers can actually us e.

The fourth agricultural revolution is already underway. What remains to be decided is whether its benefits reach the farmers who need them most — or whether the gap between what is possible and what is accessible becomes permanent.

Beth Bechdol is Deputy Director-General, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

With elections likely to be held in August, the young people in Haiti are moving ahead, creating opportunities in music and digitalization and agricultural cooperatives, which are reinventing food self-sufficiency. Credit: Shutterstock

By Xavier Michon
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti, Jun 29 2026 (IPS)

There is a question that is never asked plainly enough in reports on Haiti: why, despite decades of analysis, billions in international aid, and an abundance of national strategies, does the potential of Haitian youth remain so consistently underutilized? This report, The Silent Transformation, is an attempt at an honest answer.

And that answer begins with an admission: for too long, we have viewed this generation as a problem to manage rather than a solution to mobilize.

Haiti is one of the youngest countries in the Western Hemisphere. More than one in two Haitians is under the age of 25. This reality should be at the heart of every policy decision, every investment strategy, every dialogue with international partners. It is not yet. And it is precisely to change this that this report exists.

We are at a turning point unlike any in the country’s recent history. For the first time since 2016, general elections are on the horizon. What may appear as an institutional milestone is, in fact, a deeply human one: an entire generation is preparing to vote for the first time. Citizens who were between 8 and 17 years old during the last general election. Since then, they have built businesses, lived through an earthquake, a pandemic, a presidential assassination and an unprecedented security crisis—and at no point during all of this were they consulted about the future of their own country.

Ten years without elections. Ten years of shaping their own lives without their institutions recognizing them as full actors. This paradox lies at the heart of this report.

Because this generation has not waited for permission to begin its transformation. It has done so on its own, in adversity, with whatever tools were within reach. And this is where the central thesis of this document lies: Haitian youth are not waiting for development. They are already producing it.

Mannitòks are inventing fintech without waiting for banks to modernize. Agricultural cooperatives are reinventing food self-sufficiency in secure areas. Coding clubs in Cap-Haïtien and Carrefour are training the next generation of developers without formal computer science schools. Designers in Pétion-Ville, musicians exporting kompa and Kreyòl rap to global platforms, DJs connecting Port-au-Prince to the diaspora, and artisans in Noailles are sustaining a cultural economy still absent from official economic radars.

These are not isolated success stories. They are signs of a structural transformation unfolding before our eyes—quietly, because we have not yet learned how to see it with the right tools.

This report is an attempt to develop those tools. It documents, analyzes, and recommends. But it also does something rarer in development literature: it shifts the perspective. It starts from the creative genius of Haitian youth and works upward toward public policy, rather than moving from policy down to beneficiaries.

This inversion is not rhetorical—it is methodological. And it changes what we see.

What it reveals is demanding for all of us. It shows that the main barrier to youth development in Haiti is not a lack of potential, but a lack of recognition of that potential. It shows that the most effective policies will not be those designed for young people, but those designed with them. And it shows, finally, that the international community—including UNDP—must embrace a new kind of humility: sometimes, to support means to step back, to remove obstacles rather than impose solutions.

UNDP supports these dynamics: we promote digital skills, access to finance and innovation ecosystems. Our initiatives—from supporting Fab Labs to advancing regulatory reforms—aim to create an environment in which youth-led enterprises can thrive. But we also know that our most valuable role is the one we build on the ground, alongside those who are already taking action. This report calls on us to listen as much as we act.

I warmly thank Group Croissance and CEDEL Haiti, whose field expertise and unwavering commitment have shaped every page of this document. Above all, I thank the young Haitians who shared their experiences, their vision and their clarity—because this is their report before it is ours.

To them, I want to say this: your determination is not only your strength—it is, objectively, the most valuable resource Haiti possesses. The upcoming election will be your first meeting with the ballot box. It will not be your last. And if this report helps ensure that this moment lives up to what you have already built without itin adversity, without permission, with unwavering ambition, then it will have achieved its essential purpose.

None of this happens in isolation. Canada has been a trusted partner in Haiti’s development journey, and its continued support for initiatives that invest in people, ideas and long-term possibilities reflects exactly the kind of partnership Haiti needs. To the Government of Canada and Global Affairs Canada: thank you. Your commitment to a Haiti defined by its potential—not only its challenges—helps make initiatives like this one possible.

The path ahead requires courage, collaboration and clear-eyed reflection on what has not worked—but above all, renewed faith in what is possible. Because while the past teaches us caution, it is the future this generation is already shaping that must guide our choices.

Let us take this path together—by letting you show the way.

XAVIER MICHON IS Resident Representative, UNDP Haiti

Source: UNDP

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Exactly 15 years ago today rinderpest, or “cattle plague", was declared eradicated. Credit: Wolfgang Hasselmann/Unsplash

By Armin Wiesler
BRUSSELS, Belgium, Jun 27 2026 (IPS)

Animal disease is no longer a distant concern for farmers and veterinarians alone. It is increasingly visible in household budgets: global egg prices surged more than 60% during recent bird flu outbreaks. In South Africa, foot-and-mouth disease pushed beef prices up by 34%. These are not isolated fluctuations in price. They are reminders that when prevention falls short, families, farmers and food systems all pay the price.

Exactly 15 years ago today, the world proved there is another way. On June 28, 2011, the United Nations (UN) declared rinderpest, or “cattle plague,” eradicated. It remains the only animal disease ever wiped from the planet. For centuries, the virus had killed millions of livestock animals, devastated herds and triggered famines across continents.

The eradication campaign succeeded because science, logistics and political commitment all came together. A global prevention effort was supported by surveillance, international coordination, and an effective, heat-stable vaccine that could reach remote, tropical areas without the need for refrigeration. This turned an ancient threat into a preventable one – and then into a disease of the past.

The lesson was not only scientific. It was economic. According to estimates by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, rinderpest control cost around $610 million while the annual benefits for Africa alone amounted to $1 billion. In other words, prevention did not just save animals. It protected livelihoods, strengthened food security and paid for itself many times over.

Yet, in the past 15 years, the world has not applied that lesson more broadly or consistently enough. When outbreaks occur, the response still too often defaults to emergency measures such as culling, movement restrictions and trade disruption. Rather than rapid deployment of preventive tools like surveillance, biosecurity measures, vaccination and close international cooperation.

Lumpy skin disease is a current case in point: diagnostics, biosecurity practices and effective vaccines exist, yet many countries struggle to use them quickly enough to stop spread and limit damage. The barriers are structural. International trade rules with potential economic risk impact decision-making, even when it is a necessity. Countries may face an impossible choice: protect their animals and farmers or protect access to export markets. The result is a system that remains perpetually reactive.

Meanwhile, these diseases continue to spread. Lumpy skin disease and peste des petits ruminants (PPR) reached new regions for the first time last year, disrupting trade, harming rural communities and undermining food security. For the more than one billion people who rely on livestock for food, income and livelihoods, these are not abstract events. They have a real economic and social impact.

That is why the rinderpest eradication anniversary should be more than a moment of reflection. It should be a reminder that prevention only works when it is planned before the next emergency, not improvised during it. National preparedness remains essential, but diseases respect no borders. No country can fully control animal health threats alone.

Global collaboration is needed to improve surveillance, align incentives for vaccination, and remove the trade and policy barriers that discourage prevention. This is the role initiatives such as the World Organisation for Animal Health’s PREVENT Forum can play: bringing governments, international organizations and the private sector together to help remove the barriers that individual countries cannot on their own.

But collaboration must move beyond discussion. It should lead to practical changes: stronger investment in surveillance and diagnostics, clearer pathways for the use and recognition of vaccination, and faster access to these tools during outbreaks. The goal should not be to respond better to every crisis. It should be to prevent more crises from happening.

The past three years alone have brought outbreaks of avian influenza, bluetongue virus, foot-and-mouth disease and Newcastle disease across continents. We do not yet know which animal disease will cause the next major shock, or where it will emerge.

But rinderpest proved that the world knows how to act when science, political will and global coordination are aligned. The question is not whether prevention is possible. The question is whether we will choose to make it a priority before the next crisis strikes.

Dr Armin Wiesler is President of HealthforAnimals

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

AI job exposure and risk of human jobs lost to AI. Image generated by IA

By Isabel Ortiz and Bill Shoulder
NEW YORK, Jun 26 2026 (IPS)

Artificial intelligence (AI) promises remarkable gains in productivity, science, medicine and education. But it is also poised to wipe out millions of jobs, hollow out the middle class, and drain the tax revenues that pay for hospitals, schools and pensions. The process has already begun, and the time to act is running out.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that AI will affect almost 40% of jobs worldwide. In advanced economies, around 60% of jobs are exposed and as many as one in three (33%) human jobs are at high risk of being replaced by AI. In emerging markets, about 40% are exposed, with roughly one in four (24%) at high displacement risk; and in low-income countries, an estimated 26%, with close to one in five (18%) human jobs lost to AI.

Isabel Ortiz

New jobs will appear but, according to the IMF, far more are likely to vanish. The effects spread beyond the workers who lose their jobs. Wages fall, insecure work multiplies, and bargaining power collapses once employers can credibly threaten to swap workers for AI. More income flows to those who own the technology and to a handful of dominant firms, while the share reaching ordinary employees and workers shrinks.

Middle-class households are the economy’s main consumers. If their incomes fall, shops and small businesses sell less, investment slows, and closures rise. The economy can then slip into a low-growth trap of weak demand, low wages and chronic underemployment.

Falling tax revenues weaken the welfare state
The pressure then moves to public finances. Much of governments’ funding depends on the middle class: income taxes, consumption taxes and social security contributions. If wage income falls and stable employment shrinks, public revenues shrink with it. At the same time, more people need unemployment support, retraining, healthcare and income assistance. Governments then face the fiscal vise of lower revenue and higher need, a risk highlighted in the IMF’s 2026 analysis of AI, labor markets and public policy.

Bill Shoulder

Public services and democracy come under strain
History suggests what often comes next: austerity policies. Governments under pressure raise consumption taxes, increase user fees, tighten eligibility rules and cut public spending. When revenues weaken, education, health, care services and social protection are often treated as budget lines to be “rationalized,” even though they are human rights and indispensable public services that hold societies together. The result is a two-tier world: quality private services for the wealthy few and failing public provision for everyone else.

Economic insecurity erodes democratic trust. If people feel that work no longer provides stability, that public institutions no longer protect them, and that the gains from technology flow upward to a small elite, resentment grows. Polarization intensifies. Scapegoating becomes easier, as does the appeal of surveillance, manipulation and more authoritarian forms of control, especially when AI itself can be used to shape information and public debate.

The future is ours to shape
None of this is inevitable. As Nobel laureates Acemoglu and Johnson argue, the impact of AI depends far less on the technology than on the political and economic choices we make about how to use it. Governments can tax the windfall profits and concentrated power AI creates. With these funds, they can protect demand and guarantee income security through the transition. Governments can and should expand public services and social security as fundamental human rights. States should also give workers and citizens a real say in how AI is deployed, and regulate AI to strengthen democracy, prevent disinformation and surveillance from eroding civic trust before it is damaged beyond repair.

AI is already transforming society. The decisive question is whether democracies can ensure that its enormous gains are shared widely enough to foster prosperity for all, preserving the social contract on which stable, dignified societies depend. That choice is still ours, but not for much longer.

Isabel Ortiz, Director, Global Social Justice, was Director at the International Labor Organization (ILO) and UNICEF, and a senior official at the UN and the Asian Development Bank.

Bill Shoulder is an AI software engineer and a researcher, with a background in artificial intelligence and international project management.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/IMF Photo

By Chie Aoyagi, Maurizio Leonardi, Athene Laws and Hamza Mighri
WASHINGTON DC, Jun 26 2026 (IPS)

For decades, official development assistance has been a central pillar of financing in sub-Saharan Africa. That pillar is now weakening—quickly and broadly.

In 2025, bilateral aid to the region fell sharply, with early estimates pointing to cuts of about 26 percent in a single year. Multilateral support is also under pressure, with major institutions projecting sizeable budget reductions. More cuts may follow as donors reset priorities in a shifting geopolitical environment.

As we explain in chapter 2 of the IMF’s recent Regional Economic Outlook for Sub-Saharan Africa, this is not a routine fluctuation. It is hitting countries that have limited room to adjust and few alternative sources of financing.

Why aid matters

Sub-Saharan Africa had the highest aid dependency globally in 2024. On average, aid accounted for 3 percent of GDP at the regional level. But that average hid sharp differences. In low-income countries and fragile states, aid often reached the equivalent of 6 percent of GDP or more, and in some cases far higher.

Over half of that aid was used to finance essential services such as health, education, and humanitarian assistance. And because development partners and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) often deliver services directly to people in need, aid cuts can also curtail the very systems that people rely on. Effective responses to crises such as the Ebola emergency in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda, the high and rising needs of people forcibly displaced by conflict, and the ongoing drought in the Horn of Africa rely heavily on the health and humanitarian infrastructure that aid has consistently helped to build.

A different reality

Aid flows have always fluctuated. But this episode stands apart.

The recent cuts are large and broadly simultaneous across countries. They are driven by donor decisions rather than changes in recipient economies. And they come at a time when traditional buffers are weaker: multilateral institutions and NGOs, which have often cushioned past declines, are themselves facing funding constraints. While non-traditional donors, such as China and the Gulf States, have grown their aid presence in the region, the magnitudes are not able to cover the reduction in traditional donors.

The cuts are also difficult to manage because they follow six years of successive shocks—including the pandemic, tighter global financial conditions, and food and energy crises—that have already eroded fiscal space.

Tough trade-offs

Governments now face difficult choices. Many have limited fiscal space, rising debt, and low reserves.

IMF-administered surveys covering 28 African countries suggest four broad policy responses:

o Some governments are not replacing lost aid, allowing programs to lapse. This limits immediate fiscal strain but carries high social costs.
o Many are reprioritizing spending, often cutting public investment—easier politically, but damaging to future growth.
o Others are borrowing more, including domestically, increasing debt risks.
o Some are stepping up revenue mobilization, though results take time.

Each option comes with trade-offs. Replacing lost aid can protect services and growth, but at the cost of wider deficits and external imbalances. Not replacing it stabilizes budgets and protects debt sustainability, but risks lasting damage to human capital and development.

There are no easy choices.

How to respond

The policy challenge is to manage the adjustment while preserving core development gains. Three priorities stand out.

First, protect and target high-impact aid.
With resources scarce, allocation matters more. Aid should be directed toward the countries and sectors where it has the greatest effect—especially low-income countries and fragile states, and essential humanitarian needs. Stronger coordination can reduce fragmentation and avoid duplication.

Second, broaden the financing toolkit.
Grant financing will remain essential, particularly in humanitarian contexts. But other instruments can play a larger role. Blended finance—using public funds to mobilize private investment—can help expand financing for infrastructure, energy, and agriculture. It is not a substitute for aid: it is harder to scale, more complex, and can add to debt if poorly designed. Managing these trade-offs will be critical.

Third, strengthen domestic capacity.
With aid less predictable, resilience increasingly depends on domestic institutions. This means mobilizing more revenue, improving spending efficiency, and strengthening policy design and service delivery. Aid has often provided both funding and implementation; replacing that capacity will take time and sustained investment.

A turning point

The shift that began in 2025 is unlikely to be temporary. It reflects a broader reconfiguration of development finance, shaped by tighter donor budgets and changing priorities.

The implications will vary by country, depending on exposure, initial buffers, and policy choices. But the direction is clear: reliance on external aid will become more uncertain, and domestic policy will matter more.

The immediate task is to manage the decline in aid without backsliding on the significant human development achievements of the past decades. The longer-term challenge is to adapt to a world where aid is less abundant and less predictable. How countries navigate both will shape growth and development outcomes for years to come.

Chie Aoyagi, Maurizio Leonardi, and Athene Laws are economists in the IMF’s African Department, where Hamza Mighri is a research analyst.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Smallholder farmers in Africa and Asia are likely to still be reeling from the fuel and fertilizer crisis caused by conflict in the Middle East when what forecasters expect to be a “super” El Niño arrives later this year.

Appolinaire Djikeng

Consensus is increasingly clear that tackling climate change to avert such crises is a legal duty under international law. Bringing down emissions requires both short-term and long-term action. And yet one of the most effective levers available — sustainable livestock farming — receives just 1 to 2 per cent of climate finance dedicated to agriculture. That is a vanishingly small share for a sector that, in many low- and middle-income countries, accounts for as much as 80 per cent of agricultural GDP.

This funding gap matters because livestock offer something relatively rare in climate policy: the chance to cut emissions fast while also building resilience. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over the short term, which means reducing it delivers quicker climate benefits.

Cattle and other livestock are among the primary sources of methane emissions. But crucially, both direct and indirect methane emissions from livestock production are often higher than necessary because of the same factors that hold back productivity. Poor animal health, low quality feed and nutrition, and climate stress all undermine production and increase both direct emissions and emission intensity. Tackling these fundamental factors solves both challenges.

In Ethiopia, for example, poor animal health has been found to increase livestock emissions by 50 per cent while also resulting in lower meat, milk and egg yields. Parasites and other vector-borne diseases increase the methane produced in animals’ guts while stunting growth and development.

Simply by applying existing tools to improve animal health, such as vaccines, drugs that kill parasites and good nutrition, research suggests that emissions could be conservatively reduced by at least 15 per cent per unit of output. The same interventions also increase productivity and improve livelihoods.

New research is also uncovering new opportunities to reduce methane from livestock while also boosting productivity and resilience.

Scientists from CGIAR research centres and partners have analysed nearly 300 forage samples and found that varieties of African clover, cowpea and lablab could reduce methane emissions by up to 90 per cent. These plants contain compounds that alter the microbes in cows’ stomachs and block the process that generates methane.

Testing is now under way to identify varieties that could be grown as low-methane feed, which not only helps reduce emissions but also supports local seed systems.

Restoring rangelands adds another layer: it helps improve forage availability to support better animal nutrition, lower methane emissions and build stronger ecosystems. Last year, for example, participatory rangeland management (PRM) was strengthened across 340,000 hectares in Ethiopia and 50,000 hectares in Tanzania, improving rangeland health and supporting livestock production.

Many more solutions exist to improve livestock sustainability for short-term and long-term gains, including those developed by the Livestock and Climate Solutions Hub. But despite growing evidence of impact from livestock interventions, climate finance continues to flow elsewhere, away from the agricultural systems that hundreds of millions of people depend on most directly.

In a post-aid world, directing more climate finance towards sustainable livestock farming in low- and middle-income countries is an investment in global stability.

Investing in more sustainable livestock production has a ripple effect that improves food security, livelihoods, and economic growth and contributes to greater stability and resilience in the face of shocks like the “super” El Niño.

Climate vulnerability is costly. Building resilience through the primary sectors of low- and middle-income countries is an insurance against future crises.

Prof. Appolinaire Djikeng is Director General of the International Livestock Research Institute

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Leadership of the Global South has gradually declined since the 1980s. Many hope BRICS+ will fill the vacuum, but its purpose and membership suggest such hopes may be misplaced. A repurposed Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) offers the best way forward.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

In 1964, developing countries formed the G77 caucus and created the UN Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD) within the UN system.

In 1974, the UN General Assembly called for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) after President Nixon ended the 1944 Bretton Woods international monetary system in 1971.

In 1979, the US Fed responded to Western stagflation by sharply raising interest rates. This triggered fiscal and sovereign debt crises in Latin America and Africa, forcing many to seek IMF emergency funds to cope.

Meanwhile, the Thatcher-Reagan-inspired counter-revolution against Keynesian and development economics led to ‘neoliberal’ Washington Consensus policy reforms, deepening economic contraction.

At New York’s Plaza Hotel, the US got its G7 caucus of the world’s 7 largest allied economies to address its overvalued dollar by requiring the currencies of Japan and Germany to appreciate sharply.

Nurina Malek

With its legitimacy at stake following the East Asian, Russian, and other financial crises of 1997-99, G7 finance ministers agreed in 1999 to create a more inclusive G20 grouping of finance ministers of the world’s 20 largest economies.

Soon after the 2008 global (actually Western) financial crisis began, the first G20 leaders’ summit convened in the White House in November 2008.

Making BRICS
‘BRICs’ was coined in late 2001 by then-Goldman Sachs Global Economic Research head Jim O’Neill, referring to Brazil, Russia, India, and China.

Ostensibly to include Africa, the BRICs invited South Africa to join, creating BRICS as a coalition of the five more independent large ‘emerging market’ economies.

Also serving as a caucus within the G20, BRICS has tried to improve international monetary and financial relations. It has since admitted more nations into an expanded BRICS+ with two tiers of affiliation.

To be sure, neither BRICS nor BRICS+ was ever intended to represent the even more diverse interests of the entire Global South. Understandably, it serves its ‘financially significant’ developing economy members.

BRICS and the South
The BRICS promise a world less dominated by the rich and powerful nations of the Global North, mainly in the West.

The world has been dominated by the US since the end of WW2, and especially after the first Cold War. Despite occasional dissent, the US’s European NATO allies seem happy playing second fiddle.

Many developing countries have long felt that existing arrangements do not serve their best interests. The BRICS seem to offer some ‘voice’ and alternative bases for international economic cooperation.

BRICS has undoubtedly strengthened the Global South’s voice and developed new arrangements to support developing country interests, especially to finance development.

The BRICS have also advocated on specific international issues for the Global South. All five BRICS countries have also led developing-country groupings on specific issues with varying degrees of success.

Unsurprisingly, many developing countries appreciate the BRICS role in such matters, with some choosing to publicly align with and even affiliate with it.

However, the BRICS expansion into BRICS+ is unlikely to resolve many problems faced by developing nations due to international power asymmetries and imbalances.

Potential and problems
The diversity of the Global South complicates any grouping’s claim to represent it.

BRICS+ brings together countries with very different political and economic systems, priorities and aspirations, including development goals and interests.

This diversity enhances BRICS’ broad appeal but also makes it difficult to ensure it becomes an effective platform consistently advocating all developing nations’ interests.

This challenge becomes more apparent when the interests and ambitions of weaker developing countries are compared with those of the major BRICS+ powers.

Many vulnerable nations are preoccupied with food security, structural change, deindustrialisation, environmental sustainability, planetary heating, and financialization.

Meanwhile, BRICS members seek to pursue their own strategic interests, garner finance and investments, boost their exports and increase their influence internationally.

Such objectives are not inherently contradictory, but rarely fully aligned. This makes it more difficult to pursue shared interests, advocate collectively, and sustain cooperation.

BRICS+ membership by invitation also limits its effective accountability to the Global South. It is unrealistic to expect BRICS+ to consistently advocate for the full range of concerns of all developing countries, especially the poorest and least influential.

The Global South should undoubtedly try to benefit from the economic weight and voice of BRICS+. But it can best advance its shared interests with its own voice and organised strength via a revived NAM, repurposed for peace, development and justice.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

As of now, geopolitics overtook trade policy uncertainty as the primary concern for countries. Credit: Unsplash / Sajimon Sahadevan

By Maximilian Malawista
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 25 2026 (IPS)

Amidst increased geopolitical tensions, the risk of volatile energy markets, trade corridors, and regional stability in the Middle East has garnered more attention than trade policy in terms of its power to alter the global economy, according to new findings from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

In their report on trade and development, “Global Economy Faces a Geopolitical Challenge”, UNCTAD says that a protracted escalation “raises the likelihood of deeper disruptions in global trade and finance, potentially, foreshadowing a cascading crisis”.

Credit: UN Conference on Trade and Development (Trade and Development Foresights 2026)

Daily crude oil prices in the Middle East since the beginning of the conflict have risen from around USD 60-70, to a fluctuating rate between a high of over USD 110-. With oil prices surging more than 60 percent, and gas doubling in price, many markets have been left in an inflating scenario as higher energy prices increase macroeconomic pressure and overall slow and contract the economy.

The increase per barrel is largely due to a constriction of supply, where most Gulf economies can barely output oil due to a lack of transport ability through the strait of Hormuz. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) records a spike in the price of Brent crude rising over USD 100 per barrel and remaining at elevated levels, with European gas also jumping roughly “60 percent amid disruptions to LNG exports”.

The numbers are impacted by an estimated loss of capacity of 10 million barrels per day of oil and “about 500 million cubic meters per day of natural gas”. This is roughly 10 percent of global oil production, and roughly 5 percent of global natural gas production for every single day.

The IMF records the following:

Daily Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz (in number of vessels) between 26 February and 6 April 2026. Credit: IMF

Oil being an inelastic good means that consumers won’t be able to curb their spending. Rather, they have to pay more for as long as the conflict lasts as fuels are needed for many essential routine tasks, from driving your car, to taking your vitamins, to growing your food, and having your Amazon packages shipped.

In their April 2026 Regional Economic Outlook Update for the Middle East and Central Asia, the IMF details that a continued conflict will likely for every 10 percent rise in the average oil price lead to a loss of about 0.5 percent of GDP and an inflation increase of around 1 percent in Gulf economies, ultimately affecting global markets heavily.

As the report notes, “Longer trade disruptions or greater damage to oil production capacity raises the possibility of higher and more sustained oil prices and a larger risk premium than is currently embedded in oil futures prices”.

However, for developing countries higher energy prices hit a lot harder to consumers in developing countries, which in this case don’t have the same money to spare. The IMF warns that “Low-income countries and other fragile and conflict-affected states in the MENAP region are especially vulnerable to higher energy, fertilizer, and food prices”.

Due to the conflict, estimates stand that vulnerable economies, mostly least developed countries (16.1 billion) and small island developing states (4.3 billion), could incur a USD 20 billion a year increase in spending, representing a huge composition of their GDP expenditure.

Among least-developed nations, Mauritania is recorded to have their bill increase by 7.3 percent, The Gambia 6.3 percent, Burkina Faso 5.0 percent, Liberia and Zambia 4.3 percent, with 17 other least developed countries also estimating to increase their spending by at least 0.5 percent in terms of GDP points.

Similarly for small-island developing states, Vanuatu is recorded to have an increase of 5.8 percent, Maldives 5.2 percent, Tonga 4.4 percent, Mauritius 4.2 percent, and Fiji 3.2 percent, with 18 other small developing states recording an increase of at least 0.6%.

UNCTAD also expects this conflict to take away capital investment into developing nations, as these assets are perceived as riskier. The UNCTAD report states that “the start of the Middle East conflict triggered a sell-off of developing countries’ assets, with equity markets of emerging markets sliding by more than 12 per cent between 28 February and 29 March.” Likely such effects will trigger a compacting of issues, contributing to an economic downturn that could take years to recover from depending on the length of the conflict.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

June 27-28 is the 16th Social Business Day, observed in Savar (Dhaka) Bangladesh. In June 2024 at the Western Sydney University’s graduation ceremony where I was conferred Emeritus Professor status, I urged the new business graduates to:

• purge the world of the… obnoxious Friedmanite idea that is destroying our planet and tearing our communities apart;
• look instead to the “Social Business Model” of Bangladesh’s Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus; and
• work on the right side of history; stand up for justice and liberation; spread the “moral violence” for peace; and put people and the planet before profit.

Anis Chowdhury

In his 1970 article for The New York Times, Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman wrote, “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”. He further argued, “There are no ‘social’ values, no ‘social’ responsibilities in any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals and of the various groups they voluntarily form”.

This Friedmanite world view has been at the core of the neo-liberal counter revolution led by Ronald Reagan and Margarette Thatcher in the 1980s. In his inaugural speech, Reagan famously declared, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem”, and ushered in an era driven by unrestrained individual pursuits of profit.

Promoting unrestrained individualism, Thatcher questioned, “who is society?” Then she dismissed, “There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families…”.

“Greed” became the all-consuming passion at the height of unrestrained individual pursuit of profit as captured famously in the 1987 movie, Wall Street. The lead character, Gordon Gekko (played by Michael Douglas) addressing the shareholders said:

“The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed – for lack of a better word – is good.
Greed is right.
Greed works.
Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
Greed, in all of its forms – greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge – has marked the upward surge of mankind”.

Has it?

Has greed, in all forms, marked the upward surge of mankind?

Yes, global income and wealth increased manifold since the 1980s; but so did global inequality. The wealth and income gaps between the wealthiest and the poorest have widened. The richest 1.5% own almost 48% of the world’s wealth, according to the UBS Global Wealth Report 2025, while the poorest 40% own only 0.5%.

The World Inequality Report 2026 reveals an even starker wealth gap. The wealthiest 0.001%, comprising around 56,000 multi-millionaires, now hold three times more wealth than the bottom half of the world population. Their share has grown steadily from 3.7% in 1995 to 6.1% in 2025. According to the UBS Global Wealth Report 2025, as of 2023, the world’s 26 richest billionaires owned a shocking US$2.872 trillion in wealth, which is greater than many nations’ total goods and services (GDP).

Cheerleaders of unrestrained greed may dismiss these facts and say “so what? Global abject poverty has also declined”. In fact, economist and historian Deirdre McCloskey, the author of Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economists Can’t Explain the Modern World, floated the idea of “Great Enrichment” asserting that real per capita incomes in the developed world have surged by a factor of 10 to 30 (or roughly 2,900%) since 1800. She argues this historic explosion of wealth fundamentally benefited the poor and working classes. For her, the concerns about inequality are a result of insatiable envy.

Some others have described the phenomenon of rising inequality amidst the wealth boom as “inclusive” because the process has lifted millions from abject poverty. According to them, rapid globalization has given rise to a new global wealth middle class. They see this as progress!

They also decry “the perception that billionaires make money for themselves at the expense of the wider population”, and attribute billionaires’ fortunes to successful investments, while highlight philanthropy and patronage of the arts, culture and sports by billionaires.

But the cheerleaders ignore billionaires’ tax evasion and tax avoidance, and the fact that societies should not rely on the generosity of the rich.

The cheerleaders are also climate deniers. They ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence linking rising inequality and the climate crisis. The world’s wealthiest 10% has caused two thirds of global warming since 1990, according to a new study published in Nature. It also reports that the top 1% of the wealthiest individuals globally contributed 26 times the global average to increases in monthly 1-in-100-year heat extremes globally and 17 times more to Amazon droughts.

It’s time for change

It is time for a paradigm shift from profit to people and the planet. Social business, a concept first introduced by Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Muhammad Yunus, offers a path forward. In his 2009 book, Creating a World Without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism, Professor Yunus defines a social business as “A business:

• Created and designed to address social problems
• A non-loss, non-dividend company, i.e.
1. It is financially self-sustainable and
2. Profits realised by the business are reinvested in the business itself (or used to start other social businesses), with the aim of increasing social impact, for example expanding the company’s reach, improving the products or services or subsidising the social mission.”

In short, a social business is oriented to social value creation. It is designed to address specific social or environmental problems such as hunger, poverty, unemployment, pollution, and climate adaptation and mitigation. In many ways, it is a hybrid between a traditional business and a non-profit organisation. Like a traditional business, a social business generates revenue and is financially self-sufficient rather than relying on philanthropy. However, like a non-profit organisation, the primary goal of a social business is NOT profit, but social or environmental impacts.

But, not a magic bullet

Social business is not a panacea for all evils or social-environmental problems. More fundamentally, systemic or structural social and environmental issues should not be treated as market opportunities. The framing of social problems as technical or managerial issues that can be solved with “business” solutions can obscure underlying structural causes like systemic discrimination and power imbalances which must be addressed through deep reforms, backed by political will.

There also is a risk of “impact-washing”, much like “greenwashing”. That is, weak regulatory standards can allow companies to cherry-pick metrics, exaggerate their societal benefits, or use their social status as “moral licensing” to justify otherwise dubious business practices.

Therefore, the “euphoria” of celebration must not distract us from the urgent need to develop proper monitoring and accountability frameworks for social business so that “greed” does not infest it.

Anis Chowdhury, Emeritus Professor, Western Sydney University (Australia). He held senior UN positions in Bangkok and New York and served as Special Assistant to the Chief Advisor for Finance (with the status and rank of State Minister) in the Professor Yunus-led Interim Government. Anis has written extensively on macroeconomic issues, sustainable development, international financial architecture and political economy. E-mail: anis.z.chowdhury@gmail.com; a.chowdhury@westernsydney.edu.au

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

 
CIVICUS speaks about the climate impacts of the 2026 World Cup with Frank Huisingh, founder of Fossil Free Football, a fan-led group that campaigns to end fossil fuel sponsorship in football and make the game more sustainable.

Frank Huisingh

What makes this the most polluting World Cup ever?

The 2026 World Cup is probably the most polluting event humanity has ever staged. It is bigger than any edition before it, with 48 teams and 104 matches played across 16 host cities in Canada, Mexico and the USA.

In past tournaments, much of the pollution came from building stadiums. Qatar built its venues almost from scratch in 2022, and Saudi Arabia will pour enormous amounts of concrete into constructing new stadiums for 2034. This World Cup can at least rely on existing infrastructure. Instead, the main driver of pollution is travel. The host cities are so far apart that the only way to get between most matches is by plane, and fans are effectively forced to fly to follow their team.

Another factor is that the tournament is a giant billboard for polluters. Its sponsors include airlines such as American Airlines and Qatar Airways, carmakers like Hyundai-Kia, and Bank of America, a major financier of fossil fuels. This advertising adds significant emissions, because advertising drives up consumption.

The most concerning announcement of all was that Aramco, the Saudi state oil company and the world’s biggest oil producer, would become the World Cup’s biggest sponsor. Fossil fuel advertising works differently from the rest. It is not really about selling us our next product, since we don’t make those choices consciously, but about building influence and soft power. Aramco is using the largest platform on earth to spread its message.

This soft power matters. At the COP climate talks, Saudi Arabia is widely regarded as the worst blocker of climate action, rivalled only by Russia and now the USA. That unpopularity is exactly why it builds soft power elsewhere, by sponsoring huge events like this or fronting ads with figures such as former player Rio Ferdinand and former Arsenal manager Arsène Wenger, which will be highly visible throughout the tournament.

What’s the impact of extreme heat?

Because of climate change, summer football is now threatened by extreme temperatures it was never designed for, and FIFA has not adapted.

Fans may spend the whole day outside and then sit in the sun inside the stadium, which is dangerous for anyone, young or old. FIFA is doing little to help them stay hydrated. If anything, it is making things worse, having recently announced that people will no longer be allowed to bring their own reusable bottles into stadiums. A basic precaution would be to guarantee that fans can refill their bottles whenever they need to.

For players it can be just as serious. Teams will try to prepare for the heat, but the first reports are already coming in of players left exhausted by it in the USA. And the three-minute cooling breaks FIFA has introduced, which will be applied in every match regardless of conditions, are too short to bring players’ body temperature down or let them rehydrate properly. Experts say they should last at least six minutes.

We worked with a group of over 20 medical, climate and sports-science experts on an open letter warning that FIFA’s heat standards are genuinely dangerous, even impossible to justify. The way to measure how the body actually experiences heat is the ‘wet bulb globe temperature’, which combines air temperature, humidity, sun radiation and wind speed.

The experts, in line with the players’ union, say measures should begin at 26°C wet bulb and matches should be postponed at 28°C. Yet FIFA only takes any precaution at 32°C, and even then, postponing a match is not mandatory. That threshold is extreme. A 32°C wet bulb reading can correspond to 45°C in dry air or 35°C in high humidity, conditions in which no one should be playing sports outside at all.

So FIFA is promoting the causes of the crisis, exposing players to extreme heat and then failing to protect them. It could do so much better.

How does all of this sit with FIFA’s climate commitments?

In 2021, FIFA signed up to United Nations commitments to cut its emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and reach net zero by 2040. It was a moment when the climate movement had real momentum and every organisation felt it had to put something down. But since then, the strategy has done little more than sit on paper, while FIFA has moved in the opposite direction.

Net zero by 2040 is a fantasy. The world won’t be net zero by then, so a travel-dependent tournament certainly won’t be either. The 50 per cent target, by contrast, is difficult but achievable. It could be reached by hosting the tournament in a smaller territory, using existing stadiums, encouraging fans to use public transport and prioritising local supporters rather than relying so heavily on international travel. International fans should absolutely be there – they are part of the experience – but it is also wonderful when the World Cup comes to town and local fans get the chance to attend.

Yet FIFA has taken no steps towards this target. Since signing up, its tournaments have only become more polluting. Politically and economically, FIFA has placed itself on the side of the fossil fuel industry and petrostates, not on the side of everyone else on the planet.

What can fans and civil society do?

Fossil Free Football is a tiny organisation, but we make as much noise as we can to hold FIFA accountable and force it to answer questions, which you can already see happening in the media. But we need many more players and fans alongside us.

Football can only survive if people can still go outside and play. So, if you love the game and care about its future, the first thing to do is speak up. Men’s football is often seen as conservative, but if you ask fans anywhere, they are as worried about the climate crisis as everyone else. That is why even talking about it with friends can make a difference, and it is where civil society activism begins.

From there, fans can call on their football associations and local clubs to act on climate. That might mean challenging a polluting sponsor, putting solar panels and a battery at the clubhouse or serving more plant-based food.

The same pressure is already working at the city level. A growing number of cities are banning fossil fuel advertising, much as we once did with tobacco when its impact on health became impossible to ignore. Amsterdam and Edinburgh have done it, and it can be replicated almost anywhere. Now football must do the same.

What lies ahead for the next World Cups?

I hope this tournament will be a wake-up call, and I fear the extreme heat and its toll on players may be what forces FIFA to change course. This summer might open the debate about moving the World Cup to winter, something that until now has only happened for Qatar.

The next event is the 2027 Women’s World Cup in Brazil, which Aramco is also set to sponsor. Tellingly, far more female players than male players have spoken out against the deal. We are campaigning to get it dropped before the tournament. It would be a shame for a country like Brazil, which has lately played a fairly positive role on climate, to host a tournament sponsored by the biggest polluter.

The 2030 World Cup will be hot too, with the tournament taking place mainly in Morocco, Portugal and Spain and with three opening matches in South America. Southern Europe and Northern Africa in summer are no place to play football. Meanwhile, stadium construction in Morocco is already drawing protests from locals and its emissions will be huge.

As for the 2034 World Cup in Saudi Arabia, eight years is a long time, especially as we are in the middle of a fossil fuel energy crisis driven by the war Israel and the USA are waging on Iran. Many Saudi infrastructure projects are already being scaled back, and the country and the world economy could look very different by then.

The risk, though, is that nothing changes politically at FIFA and the tournament goes ahead in Saudi Arabia, almost certainly in winter. That would mean yet another World Cup driving enormous emissions from construction, in a country that already imports a staggering share of the world’s concrete.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Bluesky
Instagram
LinkedIn
TikTok
Frank Huisingh/Bluesky
Frank Huisingh/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Solidarity World Cup CIVICUS
Climate: between breakdown and breakthrough CIVICUS | 2026 State of Civil Society Report
Qatar 2022: glory at what price? CIVICUS Lens 18.Nov.2022

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The Sustainable Development Report 2026, released by the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), finds that fewer than one in five SDG targets are currently on track worldwide. Credit UN Photo/Laura Jarriel

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINIGAR, India & PARIS, Jun 23 2026 (IPS)

As the world enters the final years before the 2030 deadline for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a latest United Nations report has revealed that economic uncertainty, climate change, conflict and growing geopolitical tensions are causing hurdles for the countries to meet the targets.

The Sustainable Development Report 2026, released by the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), finds that fewer than one in five SDG targets are currently on track worldwide.

The authors note that the vast majority of UN Member States remain committed to the framework, but a small number of countries, most notably the United States, have moved into active opposition to the paradigm of sustainable development and the multilateral
institutions that underpin it.

Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs, President of the SDSN and a lead author of the report, noted the successes but said conflict was severely impacting the achievement of the goals.

“Support for sustainable development as the global paradigm remains strong throughout the world. Notable success stories have emerged across East and South Asia and in many other countries and regions. Sustainable development cannot be achieved amid ongoing conflict, making peace the top priority of our time,” said Sachs. “As the 2030 landmark approaches, the next era of sustainable development must put the global emphasis on implementation and ensuring strong financing and effective governance at all levels.”

The report highlights encouraging developments, particularly in Asia, where countries such as India and China have made some of the fastest gains since the goals were adopted in 2015.

The report arrives at a critical moment when governments are beginning discussions about what should follow the SDGs after 2030, while many countries continue to grapple with economic uncertainty, climate change, conflict and growing geopolitical tensions.

“Commitment to the SDGs remains strong globally,” the report states, noting that a large majority of countries continue to support sustainable development resolutions at the United Nations.

The SDGs were adopted by all 193 UN member states in 2015 as a universal blueprint to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure prosperity for all. The goals cover a broad range of issues, including hunger, health, education, gender equality, climate action, peace and justice.

Eleven years later, the new report concludes that progress has been uneven.

Globally, only 16.5 percent of SDG targets are on track to be achieved by 2030. The strongest progress has been recorded in areas such as internet access, mobile broadband subscriptions, electricity access, reductions in adolescent fertility rates and new HIV infections.

At the same time, some of the world’s biggest challenges remain stubbornly unresolved.

Targets related to hunger, sustainable agriculture, corruption, press freedom and effective justice systems are among those furthest from achievement. The report has identified SDG 2, Zero Hunger, and SDG 16, Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, as areas facing some of the most serious setbacks.

Countries affected by war, political instability and weak public finances continue to lag behind.

Finland retained its position as the world’s top performer on the SDG Index, followed by Sweden and Denmark. However, even these leading countries face significant challenges in areas such as responsible consumption, climate action and biodiversity protection.

At the other end of the rankings are countries struggling with conflict and insecurity, including Chad, the Central African Republic and South Sudan.

One of the report’s strongest findings is the growing role of East and South Asia in advancing sustainable development.

According to the study, East and South Asia have outperformed every other region in SDG progress since 2015. Emerging economies that started with lower development baselines have generally moved faster than many wealthier countries.

The report notes that India and Ethiopia recorded the largest gains among major countries, improving their SDG scores by 9.6 and 9.7 percentage points, respectively, since 2015. The Philippines and Vietnam also posted strong gains.

The report says India has climbed 18 places in the SDG rankings since 2015, representing one of the largest improvements among major economies. China improved by 14 places during the same period.

“Countries in East and South Asia have achieved greater SDG progress than those in any other region since 2015,” the report says.

Researchers attribute much of this progress to improvements in socio-economic indicators, including access to services, infrastructure and financial inclusion, though environmental goals remain a challenge across many countries.

India’s country profile in the report shows progress in internet use, digital services, rural road connectivity and access to online government services. However, challenges remain in areas such as air pollution, urban living conditions and research investment.

While support for sustainable development remains widespread, the report has raised concerns about growing strains on international cooperation.

A new Index of Countries’ Support for UN Based Multilateralism ranks Barbados first among 193 UN member states, while the United States ranks last.

Barbados, Antigua and Barbuda, Uruguay, Trinidad and Tobago, the Maldives and several other developing countries occupy the top positions in the ranking.

Furthermore, the report has described the United States as a “statistical outlier” with weak performance across all six indicators used to measure support for multilateral cooperation. It notes that Washington opposed SDG-related resolutions and withdrew from more than 60 international organizations in early 2026.

“There has been a sharp drop across all world regions in the share of member states’ UNGA votes that align with the United States,” the report says. It adds that the United States voted with the international majority in only five percent of recorded UN General Assembly votes in 2025.

India is classified among countries showing moderate support for UN based multilateralism, alongside Canada, Italy, South Korea and Egypt.

The report warns further that growing military spending and increasing participation in conflicts are weakening support for multilateral cooperation in many parts of the world.

Commenting on multilateralism, Dr Guillaume Lafortune, Vice President of the SDSN and a lead author and coordinator of the report said that geopolitical headwinds were testing the resilience of the multilateral system

“The moment calls for all countries to reaffirm the principles of the UN Charter, starting with Article 1, and to cooperate in building acredible global and regional security architecture. The next era of sustainable development must prioritise implementation through a reformed Global Financial Architecture, greater involvement of continental, regional, and local institutions, but also a central role for civil society and universities in driving accountability, innovation, and solutions on the ground.”

Beyond the rankings and statistics, the report includes surveys of experts and more than 1,000 respondents from 127 countries about barriers to achieving the SDGs.

Among the most frequently cited obstacles were lack of political will, poor execution of approved policies, governance failures, corruption, weak public participation and inadequate financing.

Survey participants also highlighted climate change, weak monitoring systems and fragmented institutional coordination as major barriers.

According to the report, 89 percent of respondents identified failure to implement approved strategies as a major obstacle, while 87 percent pointed to geopolitical tensions as a significant barrier to progress.

Respondents from East Asia and South Asia generally expressed more positive views about progress in their countries compared with respondents from North America and Latin America.

The report has argued that the next phase of global development efforts must focus less on creating new goals and more on ensuring implementation.

Researchers have outlined eight priorities for the years ahead, including ending wars, redirecting military spending toward human development, adopting long-term investment plans, strengthening regional cooperation, creating new global financing mechanisms and establishing governance frameworks for emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and biotechnology.

The report also proposes new UN campuses in Asia, Africa and Latin America and calls for stronger systems of accountability, open data and participatory decision-making.

“Strengthening implementation is the key priority for the post-2030 agenda,” the report reads.

With less than four years remaining before the SDG deadline, the report has stated that the future of sustainable development will depend not on new promises but on the ability of governments and institutions to deliver on the promises already made.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

A local farmer harvests sorghum produced from seeds donated by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) through the “Improving Seeds” project. Credit: FAO/Fred Noy

By Maximilian Malawista
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 23 2026 (IPS)

Armed conflict, economic shocks, and climate pressures are driving worsening food insecurity across many of the world’s most vulnerable regions, according to the latest Hunger Hotspots report outlook for June-November 2026, jointly released by the World Food Programme (WFP) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The report analyzes 13 hunger hotspots where acute food insecurity is expected to worsen through 2026, with Yemen, Palestine, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria and Haiti among the areas of highest concern. Conflict remains the primary driver of food insecurity in 12 of the 13 hotspots identified in the report.

The report found that in the past five years conflict levels have doubled, with one in six people worldwide being exposed to armed violence in 2025. It identified 117.3 million people as being forcibly displaced as of 2025, severely overwhelming host communities and deepening food insecurity.

The report also warns that famine risks are persisting in multiple locations. Sudan was identified as facing one of the world’s most severe food crises, while famine risks were also identified in Yemen, Gaza, South Sudan, and Somalia. The report also elevated Nigeria and Somalia to the highest point of concern due to deterioration of projections that large parts of their populations could face catastrophic levels of food insecurity through the outlook period. Nigeria is projected to have the largest number of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity among all the identified hotspots, at approximately 34.8 million people affected.

Beyond conflict the main driver of food insecurity, economic and supply chain pressures are compounding, developing new vulnerabilities. At the report’s launch on June 18, representatives from WFP and FAO warned that disruptions to global trade routes can further worsen food insecurity. According to FAO officials, nearly one-quarter of global oil supplies and one-third of the global fertilizer trade pass through the Strait of Hormuz, meaning disruptions can hike fuel prices, transportation and insurance costs, and fertilizer. The FAO says these cascading effects can increase cost of humanitarian operations, raise food prices, and delay delivery of assistance to those who are already undergoing acute food insecurity. For households with already extremely low purchasing power, and humanitarian organizations with a continuously stressed budget, an increase in these factors can have severe consequences.

WFP and FAO warn the climate risks are also mounting, mentioning El Nino’s capabilities of producing uneven rainfall patterns, which could disrupt local agricultural production across multiple vulnerable regions.

While this happens, humanitarian organizations are being further constricted with fewer resources to respond with. According to WFP and FAO, funding to humanitarian groups declined by an estimated 59 percent between 2022 and 2025, which are levels seen last in 2016-2017. During the same period, the share of the population facing high levels of acute food insecurity has doubled, meaning with less than half the funding, humanitarian groups have to deal with double the amount of people in need, as compared to funding and food insecurity levels in 2016-2017. This combination of shrinking aid and rising food insecurity forces humanitarian groups to scale back assistance, despite growing needs.

Responding to a question from Inter Press Service regarding supply chain disruptions, and risk prevention, Rein Paulsen, FAO Director of the Office of Emergencies and Resilience argued that strengthening local food production is part of the solution, also adding that an investment of USD 17.7 million resulted in “the production of some 515 million US dollars’ worth of food in Sudan.” He added that in some contexts, millet production has helped hundreds of thousands of households, despite conflict and disruptions to supply chains. “Greater emphasis on local production is part of the answer,” Paulsen said.

According to FAO figures cited by Paulsen, the millet production program generated roughly USD 29 worth of food production for every dollar invested. The WFP and FAO have stressed that many modern famines are preventable and foreseeable, warning that sustained funding, humanitarian access and early intervention remain critical to preventing food insecurity from escalating into catastrophe.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By UN Women
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 23 2026 (IPS)

A study of 133 AI systems found that 44 per cent demonstrated gender bias and 26 per cent demonstrated both gender and racial bias. Yet only 51 per cent of marketers currently use human oversight to test AI-generated creative before release. Ahead of the United Nations Global Dialogue on Artificial Intelligence Governance from 6 – 7 July and AI for Good Global Summit in Geneva, Switzerland from 7-10 July, UN Women sets out what is at stake – and what must change – to build a gender-equal digital future.

1. The AI content era is here. And the window to shape it is closing fast.

Generative AI is now among the most widely used technologies in day-to-day marketing and communications work, in the United Kingdom (UK) alone, 88 per cent of advertising and media agencies are already using it in some form. Discriminatory algorithms could therefore further perpetuate gender inequality and discrimination. As AI tools become embedded in content generation and media buying at scale, decisions about who gets seen, how they are portrayed, and whose stories get told are being made at speed, and largely without human scrutiny or gender perspective.

2. Bias and discriminatory algorithms are not a glitch in AI – it is a pattern documented across systems at scale.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been found to consistently associate women with “home,” “family,” and “children,” and men with “business,” “executive,” “salary,” and “career.” When tasked with completing sentences that start with a person’s gender, about 20 per cent of responses from LLMs exhibited sexist and misogynistic attitudes, including portrayals of women as sex objects and property of their husbands. These are the predictable output of AI systems trained on decades of unequal representation of women and men. AI bias is not only a system design problem, but also a policy problem. Of 138 countries assessed, only 24 referenced gender in a national AI strategy, and just 18 included substantive gender-responsive provisions, risking inequality being “baked in” to future systems.

3. AI is intensifying violence against women and girls in digital spaces.

According to UN Women data, women and girls globally already have less access to digital spaces – and when they do, they are far more likely to experience online violence. Almost one in four surveyed women human rights defenders, activists and journalists had experienced AI-assisted online violence and 12 per cent report having experienced the non-consensual sharing of personal images, including intimate or sexual content. Six per cent say they have been targeted through “deepfakes” or manipulated images/video, while more than one in four have received unsolicited sexual advances through digital messaging. AI is compounding this. Deepfakes are among the most visible examples of AI-enabled abuse that disproportionately targets women and girls. As AI-generated content becomes the norm, the tools for harassment, manipulation, and image-based abuse are scaling alongside it.

4. Women are being locked out of the rooms where AI is built.

Gen AI is expected to drive job growth in tech-intensive sectors, yet women remain underrepresented in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and AI, making up only 30 per cent of the AI workforce globally. The people designing these systems are not representative of the billions of people the systems are expected to serve – and that glaring gap is compounding the problem.

5. The economic disruption of AI will fall hardest on women.

Women outside the AI sector are nearly twice as likely as men to hold jobs at high risk of automation. AI disparity does not manifest in gender inequality alone – harms are multiplied across race, disability, socioeconomic status, and geography. The communities already most underrepresented in media and labour markets face the greatest risk of being left further behind.

6. Inclusive AI is a commercial imperative.

In a first-ever global study, the Unstereotype Alliance, an industry-led initiative convened by UN Women, proved that inclusive advertising has a positive impact on business profit, sales and brand value. Brands that create inclusive advertising, free of gender stereotypes, enjoy +3.46 per cent short-term sales and +16.26 per cent long-term sales uplift. They are 62 per cent more likely to be a consumer’s first choice, have 54 per cent higher pricing power, and experience 15 per cent higher customer loyalty. As AI becomes central to how campaigns are planned and produced, the brands that embed inclusion into those processes stand to gain – and those that do not, face significant reputational and commercial risk. The Unstereotype Alliance playbook launched in June 2026 gives marketers a way to catch bias before it ships, every time they use generative AI.

UN Women calls for gender equality and the rights and experiences of women and girls to be embedded at every stage of AI life cycle from development, deployment, and governance. When designed with safety and used with intention, AI can help detect stereotypes, broaden representation, and improve accessibility at scale. The choice of whether it does lies with the people making decisions – in governments, in companies, in experts researching and developing AI – and it depends on whether we incorporate the voice, expertise, and lived experience of women and girls from diverse contexts, civil society organizations who work with them and know their issues deeply.

For interviews or more information, contact the UN Women media team at media.team@unwomen.org.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Coalition of Governments on Global Public Investment

By Ben Phillips
BANGKOK, Thailand, Jun 22 2026 (IPS)

The fallout from the sudden collapse of the old system of financing international cooperation has been disastrous, unleashing a wave of harm and leaving the world more vulnerable to shocks and less able to respond to them. The wreckage is plain to see. The issue is what to do next.

Calling attention to the damage done, several commentators in the Global North have made the case for putting back up what had been pulled down. That will not happen, however. The crisis of financing for international cooperation was a reflection of a crisis of support for the model, and for the narrative of paternalism it embodied. The structure collapsed so fast because it was unsound.

Another set of commentators in the Global North, calling themselves “realists”, have advanced two low-hope ideas for the future international cooperation.

One idea put forward is to accept and find ways to cope with ever shrinking resources for shared global challenges, trying to “do more with less”. This approach would fail. The real-world consequence of attempting it would be failing to adequately resource collective responses to global threats – including pandemics, energy insecurity, natural disasters, and more. This would be existentially dangerous, and orders-of-magnitude more costly for every country than tackling shared threats upstream.

Another idea put forward is to ask the private sector to take over responsibilities which have previously been intergovernmental. This approach would fail too. The real-world consequence of pursuing it would not only be desperately inadequate resourcing of shared threats, and the supercharging of extreme inequality, but also the surrender of accountability and power to oligarchy.

This triptych of unworkable ideas – keep trying to restore the old order, accept managed decline or hand over to the private sector – dominates much of the attention in the Global North.

Thankfully, however, a growing group of Global South governments have been hard at work shaping a solution for the financing of shared global challenges.

Co-convened by the Foreign Ministers of Senegal and Colombia, more than 30 countries have come together in the Coalition of Governments on Global Public Investment, to transform the current global inflection point into a moment of renewal.

“Our challenges are shared; our risks are shared; and increasingly, our solutions must also be shared,” observes Martín Clavijo, Director of Uruguay’s Agency for International Cooperation. “We need an evolution in how we understand cooperation towards a framework in which all countries contribute according to their capacities, all benefit according to their needs, and all participate as equals in decisions about the use of resources.”

“Global public investment is the smart, 21st-century answer to how governments can work together to overcome the challenges and crises that affect us all,” remarks Rosa Yolanda Villavicencio Mapy, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia and co-chair of the coalition. “A significant increase in public financing is essential — and crucially, these resources must be governed under more representative and effective frameworks.”

“We are moving beyond traditional donor-recipient paradigms, towards a more horizontal, inclusive, and partnership-based approach,” shares Cheikh Niang, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Senegal and co-chair of the coalition. “All countries, regardless of their level of development, have both contributions to make and legitimate expectations to express. To solve our national, regional, and global problems, we can’t rely on philanthropy alone, and we can’t just look to the private sector to save us. We need more and better public money to solve our collective challenges.”

Launched in July 2025 at the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development, the coalition held its inaugural planning meeting in September 2025 on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. This year the governments have gathered in Bogota in March, and in Nairobi in May, and will gather again in New York in September.

Anchored in the Global South, the coalition is also reaching out to countries in the Global North. “We are not looking for sympathy. What we want is an equal partnership,” emphasises Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ghana.

“The future of international cooperation must evolve toward approaches that better reflect shared responsibility and collective interest,” points out Limpho Tau, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lesotho.

The governments are working closely with civil society. “The leaders coming together are pioneers renewing and remaking multilateralism,” says María Elena Agüero, Secretary General of Club de Madrid. “The approach they’re developing together will be fairer than approaches inherited from the last century, by ensuring all countries have a voice and a stake. It will also be much more effective, helping to improve lives across the world.”

The leaders insist on the need to go beyond simply cushioning the present disruption. They are clear that past approaches will not and should not return. Instead, they are working to turn breakdown into breakthrough by bringing countries together as equals to redesign international finance for an interdependent world.

“There is an urgent need for a renewed international financial architecture that is more inclusive, more representative and better aligned with contemporary global realities,” observes Korir Singoei, Principal Secretary, Department for Foreign Affairs of Kenya.

“Do we want to be the generation that managed a crisis — or the generation that transformed the course of global cooperation?” asks Javier Eduardo Martínez-Acha Vásquez, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Panama. “Global public investment can enable us not only to transform international cooperation but to transform the future of humanity.”

The leaders have put together a roadmap for transforming international cooperation by 2030: “A great deal of intellectual effort has been made over years to ensure that an appropriate model was brought forward,” remarks Alva Baptiste, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Saint Lucia. “Now”, he concludes, “we are mandated to get airborne.”

Ben Phillips is the author of How to Fight Inequality, and Public Good: Building a Winning Narrative to Bring the World Together.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Sephora*, an 18-year-old mother of two, holds her baby girl at the Karibuni wa Mama Clinic supported by SOFEPADI in Bunia, Ituri province, DR Congo, on 25 November 2025. Originally from a remote village, she fled when armed clashes erupted in 2023. Credit: UNICEF / Mirindi Johnson

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 22 2026 (IPS)

A record number of children were subject to grave violations by parties to armed conflicts, the highest since the UN mandate for children and armed conflict (CAAC) was established in 1996.

In the Secretary-General’s annual report, UN-verified sources confirmed 35,558 violations committed against children during armed conflicts. This is the fourth year in a row that incidents have increased from years.

The data in the report is based on instances occurring in and verified in 2025. At least 24,174 children were directly affected or had their rights violated, through killing and maiming, forced recruitment, abduction, sexual violence, and denial of humanitarian assistance. At least 1 in 3 victims were girls. The killing of children increased by 34 percent compared to incidents from 2024, totaling to 14,224 children killed or maimed. 5129 children were abducted, and there were at least 8322 instances of denial of humanitarian assistance. 6607 children were recruited or used by armed groups, and a total of 1667 children were detained for their actual or alleged connection to armed groups.

For the first time since the CAAC mandate was created, government forces were responsible for the highest number of grave violations. In addition to the killing and maiming of children, government forces were largely responsible for the destruction or military use of schools and hospitals, and the denial of humanitarian access. This sense of impunity is further amplified by hostilities, and in the increasing use of wide-area explosive weapons and in densely populated areas, resulting in more civilian casualties. The use of artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons systems has also transformed.

The states responsible for the highest number of violations included Israel, the occupied Palestinian territories, Myanmar, Somalia, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Israeli forces were responsible for nearly one-third of the grave violations in the report — 12,455. In the DRC, 4,114 grave violations against children were committed, including 519 deaths and 1067 abductions.

Vanessa Frazier, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, at the release of the Secretary-General’s annual report on children and armed conflict in 2025. Credit: IPS / Naureen Hossain

Under-Secretary-General Vanessa Frazier, the Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, warned that the frequency — and intensity — of violations against children reflect a growing disdain for international law and the protected rights of children.

“2025 was without a doubt one of the darkest chapters for child protection since monitoring began,” said Frazier. “When States, on whom the obligation to protect children falls, instead contribute to their suffering, it signals the deeper erosion of respect for international law. The principles of humanity, distinction, proportionality, and necessity must be restored — without exception.”

Frazier told reporters on June 18 that the report is meant to be a “tool of accountability”. It should be used by member states to inform their own actions to take the appropriate steps needed to protect children in armed conflict. In the case of countries named in the report with ongoing situations, this is also an opportunity for them to enter into agreements to reduce and prevent further violations during conflict between now and the following year.

Frazier confirmed that early drafts of the report were shared with these countries back in March, and the countries had at least one month to present their own evidence to be corroborated with the UN-verified data. She added that open dialogue between her office and the countries is encouraged, if those countries choose to engage in the first place.

The report calls on member states to uphold international law to protect civilians, especially children, during times of conflict, through upholding their commitments to existing peace and security agreements. Parties to conflicts are also called on to develop and implement action plans with the UN, and to grant the UN access to conduct thorough monitoring and reporting of grave violations against children.

The report also calls on technology and social media companies to take concrete measures to prevent their platforms from being used by armed groups to recruit and exploit children, and to cooperate with accountability and child protection mechanisms. The misuse of digital technology can have adverse effects on children’s wellbeing even in peaceful contexts. Without sufficient legal guardrails and proper monitoring, children are more likely to be exposed to misinformation and recruitment content.

A senior UN official told Inter Press Service that online recruitment is a pervasive issue across multiple conflict areas, and that more resources need to be mobilized to create responsibility. The official confirmed that Frazier and her office were in contact with lawmakers from the European Union to determine how existing frameworks like the Digital Services Act could protect children. The office is also working with TikTok in Colombia to implement strategies to prevent the recruitment and use of children during conflict.

Frazier called on the state actors to adopt action plans to protect and reintegrate children formerly associated with armed groups. In 2025, 13,112 children received protection and reintegration support with the help of other UN agencies like UNICEF and its partners. This requires funding support from donors and state parties as much as it requires political will. Further investments into accountability and prevention measures among parties in conflicts are also needed, through partnerships with the UN, governments and parties to conflicts.

Before she was the Secretary-General’s Special Representative (SRSG) for Children and Armed Conflict, Frazier was the Permanent Representative of Malta to the UN during its term in the Security Council from 2023-2024. Both in her capacity as SRSG and as a member of the Security Council, Frazier has visited conflict sites and spoken with children directly impacted. She reflected that it was particularly aggravating to see state actors in the list of perpetrators in the report, given that state actors, who are also UN member states, are supposed to be the ones abiding by the rule of law and protecting children. “It’s not acceptable that there are nine state actors listed, irrespective of who they are and how bad they are,” said Frazier.

What was most striking to her is that many of these incidents that resulted in so many child casualties could have been avoided. State actors seem to make the conscious, operational decision to target factories manufacturing weapons or enemy strongholds, regardless of whether civilian infrastructures like schools are nearby and would get caught in the radius. Even if those infrastructures are not the intended target, state actors will follow through with the attacks, which show a disregard for international humanitarian law and a lack of concern for the consequences of civilian casualties. It is children who are suffering the consequences of state actors’ decisions, Frazier said.

“I think for state actors it is worse than non-state actors, because this mandate was originally created to target armed groups and non-state actors; ones who work outside of the law. We cannot have state actors who are supposed to work within the reams of the law, now working outside the reams of the law. That should not be something that is acceptable.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Secretary-General Kofi Annan speaks at a ceremony to unveil the official portrait of his predecessor, Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 22 2026 (IPS)

When Egypt’s onetime Foreign Minister Boutros Boutros-Ghali was running for the post of U.N. Secretary-General in late 1991, he had to contend with the rival candidacy of Bernard Chidzero, then foreign minister of Zimbabwe.

As the campaign began to intensify, Boutros-Ghali recounted a brief encounter with Chidzero, a longstanding friend, at a conference in Africa, a continent that at that time claimed the job of U.N. chief on the basis of geographical rotation.

Chidzero, who hailed from an English-speaking country and was backed by the UK and the 54-member Commonwealth of mostly ex-British colonies, was in conversation with Boutros-Ghali when he suddenly switched from English to French.

Having picked up the subtle message, Boutros-Ghali said he put his arms around Chidzero and jokingly remarked, “Bernard, if you want the approval of France, you must not only speak French, but also speak English with a French accent.”

France, a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, has been so passionately protective of its language that it may well have exercised its veto on any candidate who did not speak French.

And no one who aspires to be the Secretary-General of the United Nations can expect to be elected to office if he or she does not have a working knowledge of French—or at least promise to eventually master the language—because France considers it the “language of international diplomacy.”

Which triggers the question: How many of the candidates, both male and female, now running for the next UN Secretary-General are fluent in both English and French?

Over the last 81 years, the two working languages of the United Nations have been primarily English and French, although there are four other official languages recognized by the world body: Chinese, Arabic, Spanish and Russian.

Boutros-Ghali, who was fluent in English, Arabic and French, held “the world’s most impossible job” from January 1992 through December 1996. Asked at a briefing with reporters about his fluency in three languages, Boutros-Ghali jokingly said his primary language was Arabic “because when I fight with my wife, I fight in Arabic.”

The independence of the Secretary-General, he pointed out, is a longstanding myth perpetuated mostly outside the United Nations. As an international civil servant, he is expected to shed his political loyalties when he takes office, and more importantly, never seek or receive instructions from any governments.

But virtually every single Secretary-General—nine at last count—has played ball with the world’s major powers in violation of Article 100 of the UN Charter. Boutros-Ghali, the only Secretary-General to be denied a second term because of a negative US veto, unveiled the insidious political maneuvering that goes inside the glass house.

The US, which preaches the concept of majority rule to the outside world, exercised its veto even though Boutros-Ghali had 14 of the 15 votes in the Security Council, including the votes of the other four permanent members of the Council, namely the UK, France, Russia and China.

In such circumstances, tradition would demand the dissenting US abstain on the vote and respect the wishes of the overwhelming majority in the Security Council. But the US refused to acknowledge the vibrant political support that Boutros-Ghali had garnered in the world body.

Unlike most of his predecessors and successors, Boutros-Ghali refused to blindly play ball with the US despite the fact that he occasionally caved into US pressure at a time when Washington had gained notoriety for trying to manipulate the world body to protect its own national interests.

Going down memory lane, Samir Sanbar, a former UN Assistant Secretary-General, told Inter Press Service last week when Boutros-Ghali met Bernard Chidzero after leaving his post, his former competitor for the SG office asked how come the U.S. insisted on blocking his re-election although he was perceived to be “America’s Yes Man”. With his sense of humor intact, Boutros-Ghali responded that the U.S. Administration did not want just a “Yes, Man but a “Yes Sir, Man”

In his 368-page book titled “Unvanquished: A US-UN Saga” (Random House, 1999), he provided an insider’s view of how the United Nations and its chief administrative officer (CAO) were manipulated by the Organization’s most powerful member: the United States.

Although he was accused by Washington of being “too independent” of the US, he eventually did everything in his power to please the Americans. But still the US was the only country to say “no” to a second five-year term for Boutros-Ghali.

In his book, Boutros-Ghali recalls a meeting in which he tells the then Secretary of State Warren Christopher that many Americans had been appointed to UN jobs “at Washington’s request over the objections of other UN member states.”

“I had done so, I said, because I wanted American support to succeed in my job (as Secretary-General),” Boutros-Ghali says. But Christopher refused to respond.

When he was elected Secretary-General in January 1992, Boutros-Ghali noted that 50 percent of the staff assigned to the UN’s administration and management were Americans, although Washington paid only 25 percent of the UN’s regular budget.

When the Clinton administration took office in Washington in January 1993, Boutros-Ghali was signaled that two of the highest-ranking UN staffers appointed on the recommendation of the outgoing Bush administration– Under-Secretary-General Richard Thornburgh and Under-Secretary-General Joseph Verner Reed — were to be dismissed despite the fact that they were theoretically “international civil servants” answerable only to the world body.

They were both replaced by two other Americans who had the blessings of the Clinton Administration. Just before his election in November 1991, Boutros-Ghali remembers someone telling him that John Bolton, the US Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, was “at odds” with the earlier Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar because he had “been insufficiently attentive to American interests.”

“I assured Bolton of my own serious regard for US policy.” “Without American support” Boutros-Ghali told Bolton, “the United Nations would be paralyzed.”

The former UN chief recalls a meeting in which he tells the then Secretary of State Warren Christopher that many Americans had been appointed to UN jobs “at Washington’s request over the objections of other UN member states.” “I had done so, I said, because I wanted American support to succeed in my job (as Secretary-General),” Boutros-Ghali says. But Christopher refused to respond.

Boutros-Ghali also recounted how Secretary of State Warren Christopher had tried to convince him to publicly declare that he would not run for a second term as Secretary-General. But he refused. “Surely, you cannot dismiss the Secretary-General of the United Nations by a unilateral diktat of the United States. What about the rights of the other (14) Security Council members”?, he asked Christopher. But Christopher “mumbled something inaudible and hung up, deeply displeased.”

Boutros-Ghali also said that in late 1996, US Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright, on instructions from the US State Department, was fixated on a single issue that had dominated her life for months: the “elimination” of Boutros-Ghali.

Under-Secretary-General Joseph Verner Reed, an American, is quoted as saying that he had heard Albright say: “I will make Boutros think I am his friend; then I will break his legs.” After meticulously observing her, Boutros-Ghali concludes that Albright had accomplished her diplomatic mission with skill.

“She had carried out her campaign with determination, letting pass no opportunity to demolish my authority and tarnish my image, all the while showing a serene face, wearing a friendly smile, and repeating expressions of friendship and admiration,” he writes. “I recalled what a Hindu scholar once said to me: there is no difference between diplomacy and deception.”

In his book, Boutros-Ghali says he was also urged by then-US President Bill Clinton to appoint William Foege, a former head of the US Centres for Disease Control, as UNICEF chief to succeed James Grant, also an American.

Since Belgium and Finland had already put forward “outstanding” women candidates — and since the US had refused to pay its UN dues and was also making “disparaging” remarks about the world body — “there was no longer automatic acceptance by other nations that the director of UNICEF must inevitably be an American man or woman,” said Boutros-Ghali.

“The US should select a woman candidate,” Boutros-Ghali told Albright, “and then I will see what I can do,” since the appointment involved consultation with the then 36-member UNICEF Executive Board.

Albright rolled her eyes and made a face, repeating what had become her standard expression of frustration with me,” he writes.

When the US kept pressing Foege’s candidacy, Boutros-Ghali says that “many countries on the UNICEF Board were angry and (told) me to tell the United States to go to hell.”

The US eventually submitted an alternate woman candidate: Carol Bellamy, a former director of the Peace Corps.

Although Elizabeth Rehn of Finland received 15 votes to Bellamy’s 12 in a straw poll, Boutros-Ghali said he asked the Board president to convince the members to achieve consensus on Bellamy so that the US could continue a monopoly it had held since UNICEF was created in 1947.

This article contains excerpts from a book on the United Nations titled “No Comment—and Don’t Quote Me on That,” authored by Thalif Deen, Senior Editor at Inter Press Service news agency. A former member of the Sri Lanka delegation to the General Assembly sessions, he is a Fulbright scholar with a Master’s Degree in Journalism from Columbia University, New York, and twice (2012-2013) shared the gold medal for excellence in UN reporting awarded annually by the UN Correspondents Association (UNCA). The book is available on Amazon. The link to Amazon via the author’s website follows: https://www.amazon.com/No-Comment-dont-quote-that/dp/064811838X

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Delegates huddle during the informal consultations on cooperation with other international organisations. The climate talks in Bonn were long and tense. Credit: IISD/ENB/Kiara Worth

By Umar Manzoor Shah
BONN, Jun 19 2026 (IPS)

The United Nations June Climate Meetings (SB64) ended in Bonn with sharp disagreements between developed and developing countries over climate finance, adaptation support and emissions reductions, leaving negotiators with significant unresolved issues ahead of the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, Türkiye.

After nearly two weeks of negotiations at the World Conference Center Bonn, delegates acknowledged some progress on technical matters such as technology transfer, capacity building and just transition discussions. However, many of the most politically sensitive issues, particularly adaptation finance and implementation support for developing countries, remained unresolved.

UNFCCC Executive Secretary Simon Stiell described the atmosphere as increasingly difficult, warning against what he called a tendency among countries to wait for others to act first.

“In some negotiating rooms, we’ve heard a familiar tendency towards ‘you-first-ism’ — groups refusing to deliver commitments or allow the process to move forward unless others go first. This is a recipe for gridlock when we need all negotiating tracks to be moving in the fast lane,” Stiell said in his closing assessment.

The Bonn meetings serve as a key preparatory stage for annual UN climate summits. The discussions are intended to advance technical negotiations and lay the groundwork for political decisions at the next Conference of the Parties. This year, however, the meetings exposed deep divisions over who should pay for climate action and how quickly countries should reduce emissions.

Climate negotiators in Bonn. Credit: UN Climate Change/Lara Murillo

Developing countries argued that adaptation remains an urgent priority because millions of people are already suffering from climate-related disasters. They stressed that without substantial financial support, adaptation plans cannot be implemented effectively.

Speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, Uruguay said developing countries remained deeply concerned about the lack of progress on adaptation and adaptation finance.

“Adaptation remains a key priority for developing countries,” the group said, stating that there is a  need to move forward in ways that address the growing adaptation needs of vulnerable nations.

The G77 and China also called for greater attention to climate finance commitments under Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement and stressed the importance of turning discussions into practical action.

“We should move beyond dialogues and reports and translate into effective implementation of climate action,” the group said, noting that agriculture, livelihoods and food security in developing countries are already being affected by climate change.

The European Union acknowledged that some progress had been achieved but said the pace of negotiations remained too slow.

“The pace remains insufficient to meet the scale of the challenge before us,” the EU said in its closing statement. The bloc urged countries to focus on implementing previous climate agreements and reaffirmed support for limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

The EU also expressed frustration over the handling of adaptation negotiations.

“We are extremely disappointed in how GGA negotiations have been handled here in Bonn,” the bloc said, while calling for discussions to continue at a higher political level ahead of COP31.

Several negotiating groups voiced concern over attempts to challenge or weaken scientific findings that underpin international climate action.

The Environmental Integrity Group, represented by Switzerland, warned against efforts to undermine the role of science.

“Science is not negotiable,” the group declared, urging countries to support the timely publication of future reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The group said scientific evidence had consistently guided global climate action and should remain central to future decisions, including the second Global Stocktake process under the Paris Agreement.

The Umbrella Group, represented by the United Kingdom, echoed similar concerns.

“Our climate action must always be guided by the best available science,” the group said. It expressed disappointment that negotiators were unable to reach more substantial conclusions on research and systematic observation.

The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), representing some of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries, delivered one of the strongest critiques of the Bonn outcome.

The group said it was disappointed by the pace, tone and approach of the negotiations and warned that insufficient progress had been made to ensure a successful COP31.

“AOSIS is deeply concerned by the attempts that were made across agenda items to place the 1.5 limit in doubt, to overlook and diminish its significance as a lifeline for SIDS,” the group said.

Small island nations face existential threats from sea-level rise, coastal erosion and increasingly severe storms.

AOSIS also criticised the slow progress on adaptation finance and transparency issues, saying procedural obstacles had prevented meaningful advances.

The African Group of Negotiators similarly expressed frustration over the lack of movement on climate finance.

Speaking on behalf of 54 African countries and more than 1.6 billion people, Ghana warned that Africa could not afford delays as climate impacts intensify across the continent.

“Antalya and Addis Ababa must deliver meaningful progress as a solid foundation for GST2,” the group said, referring to the second Global Stocktake process.

African negotiators argued that disputes over governance and terminology should not delay efforts to provide desperately needed adaptation finance for vulnerable communities.

The BASIC group, which includes Brazil, South Africa, India and China, also highlighted concerns over declining support for developing countries.

The group called for climate finance to occupy a central place at COP31 and urged countries to complete the transition of the Adaptation Fund so that it can better support vulnerable nations.

BASIC further stressed that developed countries must take the lead in reducing emissions while also mobilising financial support for developing nations.

The Least Developed Countries (LDC) Group delivered an emotional message, saying vulnerable populations were running out of time.

“LDCs do not look to this process for promises, but for action,” Timor-Leste said on behalf of the 44 least developed countries. “Our people didn’t send us here to negotiate the terms of their suffering.”

The group warned that climate impacts are accelerating faster than international responses.

“We reject the blatant undermining of science at this session,” the LDCs said. “Science is neither contentious nor negotiable for our group.”

The Mountain Group, representing 11 mountainous countries, focused attention on the growing vulnerability of mountain regions. Kyrgyzstan said mountain communities are facing severe challenges from glacier loss, water shortages, floods and ecosystem degradation.

The group welcomed the first formal Dialogue on Mountains and Climate Change and called for mountain issues to become a permanent part of the UN climate process.

Meanwhile, the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs), represented by China, emphasised equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities as essential foundations for climate cooperation. The group argued that implementation gaps often arise because promised support from developed countries fails to materialise.

Outside the negotiating rooms, civil society organisations sharply criticised the outcome.

Oxfam accused wealthy countries of avoiding their responsibilities on climate finance.

“The UN negotiations have once again been derailed by rich countries’ refusal to take responsibility for increasing critical public climate finance,” said Mariana Paoli, Oxfam’s Climate Policy Lead.

According to Oxfam, even if the pledge to triple adaptation finance were fully implemented, it would provide about $120 billion, far below the estimated adaptation needs of developing countries, which are projected to reach between $310 billion and $365 billion annually by 2035.

Paoli described the situation as a “dark irony,” noting that the world’s first trillionaire emerged at a time when vulnerable countries were struggling to secure adequate climate finance.

“The unwillingness of rich countries to engage meaningfully is astonishing,” she said.

Despite the tensions, negotiators did achieve some notable progress.

Countries agreed on the selection of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) as the new host of the Climate Technology Centre and Network, a key institution supporting technology transfer and climate solutions in developing countries. Several groups welcomed the decision as an important step toward strengthening climate action.

Delegates also reported progress on capacity-building initiatives and discussions surrounding a just transition, which aims to ensure that workers and communities are protected during the shift toward low-carbon economies.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Opening ceremony of RightsCon 2025 in Taipei, Taiwan. Credit: Equality Now

By S. Mona Sinha and Mrinalini Dayal
NEW YORK, Jun 19 2026 (IPS)

RightsCon, the world’s leading summit on human rights in the digital age, has served for over a decade as a vital global gathering, bringing together civil society, academics, technologists, policymakers, and the private sector in cross-border collaboration. The abrupt cancellation of RightsCon 2026, following intervention by Zambia’s government just days before the convening was due to commence in Lusaka, should concern us all.

Worryingly, this is not an isolated disruption. It reflects a deeply troubling global pattern of shrinking civic space alongside a rapidly growing, well-resourced, and increasingly networked transnational anti-rights movement. We are calling on civil society, donors, the media, and democratic governments to take a strong stand against these coordinated efforts to undermine human rights and the forums that uphold them.

S. Mona Sinha

On May 1, RightsCon organiser and host Access Now released a statement announcing the summit, scheduled to run between May 5 and 8, could not proceed after Zambia announced it was postponing the event to ensure it “aligns with Zambia’s national values, policy priorities, and broader public interest.”

Access Now reported that on April 27, one day after the Zambian Ministry of Technology and Science had endorsed RightsCon, government officials told organisers that diplomats from China were pressuring Zambia because Taiwanese civil society participants were planning to attend. Zambia’s new conditions for allowing the conference to proceed included select topics being moderated and the exclusion of some participants, including Taiwanese civil society representatives.

Access Now has called this interference “transnational repression” and a deliberate effort to project authoritarian preferences across borders and shrink civic spheres.

Mrinalini Dayal

Digital rights advocacy is essential to advancing gender equality. That is why Equality Now co-founded the Alliance for Universal Digital Rights (AUDRi), a global campaign working toward a digital future where everyone can enjoy equal rights to safety, freedom, and dignity.

Equality Now and AUDRi were looking forward to returning to RightsCon to reconnect with allies and forge new relationships. Over 500 sessions were scheduled, including two by Equality Now on co-creating solutions to online safety and privacy challenges, and addressing the exclusion of women from artificial intelligence development and other emerging technologies.

Activists have spent months preparing, from developing proposals and collaborating with partners to organising funding, travel, and logistics. Significant time, energy, and resources have been invested that cannot be recouped.

RightsCon is one of the few annual, in-person opportunities where smaller frontline organisations meet potential funders. Locally led groups, particularly those in the Global Majority already grappling with funding cuts and rising competition for limited resources, will be hardest hit by the lost networking, visibility, and donor engagement that sustains their work.

Beyond this substantial loss is the deeply troubling shutting down of a vital locus for dialogue and collective action, alongside a growing anxiety that this will not be the last such disruption of an essential global forum.

RightsCon: a unique mix of diverse voices

RightsCon is the only global, civil society-led convening focused on the intersection of technology and human rights. Other international gatherings on the internet, emerging technologies, and digital governance are generally complex, exclusionary multilateral processes dominated by governments and the tech companies whose products and power are meant to be scrutinised.

Discussions about digital harms, inequality, and the future of our online world are often relegated to the margins or excluded completely, despite their far-reaching consequences. In contrast, RightsCon is where activists set the agenda, and lived experience is central.

Participants working towards safer, inclusive digital futures can share insights and learn from others’ successes and challenges across diverse contexts. The summit’s activist spirit prioritises voices often excluded elsewhere: women and girls, LGBTQI+ communities, Indigenous peoples, and those resisting surveillance and authoritarian rule.

Holding RightsCon in Zambia was a deliberate choice by Access Now intended to lower barriers to participation. For people from Global Majority countries, visa requirements and travel costs to Europe or North America are routinely insurmountable, and increasingly restrictive visa policies are making access evermore difficult. Equality Now staff have been unable to attend UN gatherings in New York for exactly this reason.

The impacts of widespread exclusion from attending consultative and decision-making settings cannot be overstated. That Zambia’s government sought to justify postponing RightsCon on visa grounds, saying some speakers and participants were “subject to pending administrative and security clearances”, is a stark illustration of how bureaucratic levers can be wielded to stifle dissent.

Tech-facilitated gender-based violence

In an increasingly digital world, women and girls face distinct and escalating threats to their rights, safety, privacy, and freedom. The rapid advance of technologies is opening new frontiers for human traffickers, coercers and abusers, but existing legal systems everywhere are ill-equipped to handle these multi-jurisdictional harms.

At RightsCon 2026, we were going to jointly explore legal solutions to the explosion of tech-facilitated gender-based violence. Online violence is rarely, if ever, confined to a ‘virtual’ space; it follows women and girls into their homes and workplaces, and often involves real-world harm including physical violence.

Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence risk deepening existing inequalities and amplifying misinformation and bias, while expanding surveillance and online exploitation and abuse place fundamental rights and freedoms at risk.

Without civil society-led convenings that centre human rights in digital technologies, it becomes harder to build the intersectional, integrated, responsive movements needed to defend online rights, especially for marginalised communities.

That is precisely why losing this moment hurts so much, and why the issues that RightsCon sought to elevate, including those that governments seek to suppress, must be debated in the global spotlight. At Equality Now and AUDRi, we are planning alternative ways to hold conversations with even wider audiences than a conference format allows. We will not be deterred.

Standing against the pushback on human rights

Equality Now has been tracking the pushback against human rights advocates globally, particularly those working on gender equality and against misogyny and gender-based violence. Even knowing how organised that pushback has become, it is devastating to watch RightsCon become a casualty of it.

The cancellation and the speed of it set a worrying precedent for future international human rights convening. No forum is truly safe from political scrutiny, interference, or silencing.

This is the moment for a coordinated response. Funders must step up to prioritise digital rights and engage with organisations at the convergence of human and digital rights and development. Regional gatherings and alternative spaces need resourcing to replace this year’s RightsCon.

Democratic governments need to defend the right to assemble across borders and scrutinise international pressure that may have shaped RightsCon’s cancellation.

To our peers across the digital rights community: we stand with you. Silencing one convening will not silence the movements behind it. We will continue to organise, collaborate, and defend the freedoms and human rights at stake, because the price of allowing authoritarian pressure to determine who gets to participate, speak, and assemble is simply too high.

S. Mona Sinha, Chief Executive Officer, Equality Now, and Mrinalini Dayal, Global Coordinator of the Alliance for Universal Digital Rights (AUDRi)

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

US President Trump’s policies are supposed to make America great again (MAGA), which means different things to various parties. Some of its consequences are inadvertent, including undermining dollar dominance and inducing stagflation worldwide.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

The US held 70% of the world’s gold reserves at the time, with gold priced at $35 per ounce. Other central banks bought and held US Treasury bonds and similar dollar assets as liquidity reserves.

This effectively made the US dollar the primary means of payment in the post-war international monetary system. The exchange rates of other national currencies were all set against the dollar.

As other economies recovered post-war, the US current account and trade surplus declined. Until 1971, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) occasionally adjusted fixed exchange rates for ‘structural’ balance-of-payments deficits or surpluses.

Exorbitant privilege
This dollar-based international monetary system gave the US what France’s Gaullist leadership called an ‘exorbitant [economic] privilege’.

Under the Bretton Woods arrangements, the US would never face balance-of-payments problems, as it paid for imports with its own currency, which it could print at will.

Nurina Malek

Foreign central banks soon became accustomed to holding US Treasury bonds as official reserves, effectively funding the large and growing federal debt.

Such foreign central bank demand kept the dollar strong in foreign exchange markets. Persistent capital inflows into the US have kept the dollar overvalued.

The strong dollar has boosted domestic consumption of imports, depressed exports, widened trade deficits, and kept consumer price inflation in check.

In 1960, Robert Triffin warned the US Congress about the inevitable problems that arise when a national currency is also used as an international reserve currency.

He urged the US Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) to consider the dollar’s international role when making domestic monetary policy.

In August 1971, President Richard Nixon unilaterally ended the US Bretton Woods commitment to redeem dollars with gold. Thus, the dollar clearly became a fiat currency, with exchange rates shaped by market confidence.

Protection through diversification
After the 2009 Great Recession, Western central banks kept nominal interest rates low for over a decade through coordinated ‘quantitative easing’ (QE).

Low interest rates were maintained for over a decade through the 2020-21 Covid-19 recession before the Fed raised interest rates from 2022, ostensibly to address inflationary pressures.

Borrowers worldwide were thus induced to take on more debt. Governments, corporations, and households borrowed more, increasing accumulated debt.

International payment obligations are increasingly being settled by other means. Gradually, dollar-based arrangements are co-existing with euro- and renminbi-based arrangements and BRICS-initiated alternatives.

Thus, US indebtedness and stagnation have been growing with inflationary pressures. Unsurprisingly, other monetary authorities’ previous preference for holding US Treasury bills as official reserves has declined.

Instead, official reserves have been increasingly diversified to include more gold holdings ostensibly to help hedge against inflation and currency debasement.

About 36,200 tonnes, a fifth of all gold holdings, are now held by central banks, up from 15% at the end of 2023. By 2025, non-US central bank gold holdings exceeded their US Treasury bonds for the first time this century!

Trump 2.0
Criticism of the dollar system has resurfaced from time to time, especially as Washington weaponises more financial instruments and arrangements.

The second Trump administration has threatened major US federal government creditors, including China and longtime allies such as Japan and the Gulf monarchies.

As loyal allies are bullied, many are quietly moving away from prevailing dollar-based international monetary and financial arrangements, which have long been preferred for convenience.

After bombing ten nations in the first year of Trump 2.0, US military spending has been rising rapidly, especially with the Iran war and many of its consequences likely to be protracted despite the promise of a ceasefire.

With international confidence in the US consistently undermined by unexpected unilateral White House initiatives, governments are trying to reduce their vulnerabilities, especially by diversifying their reserve assets.

But unlike early in his first term, Trump now welcomes a weaker dollar as “great”. His ongoing efforts to lower Fed interest rates also reflect successive US presidents’ refusal to address ever-larger federal fiscal deficits over the decades.

With inflation rising, market premiums over Fed interest rates are pushing up commercial rates. These hurt the real economy, employment, and banks, many struggling with rising defaults.

All this exacerbates financial ‘market corrections’ in the US and beyond. Trump-induced international disruptions are worsening instability and slowing economies worldwide.

Trump’s policies have slowed the world economy, including the US. With efforts to address the Hormuz crisis undermined by Israel, his legacy will now surely include having induced the first major stagflation in almost half a century.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Security Council. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 18 2026 (IPS)

As the campaign for a new UN secretary-general gathers momentum, will the US exercise the decisive vote — or the veto– in the final selection?

The US has publicly declared its opposition to some of the basic goals in the UN’s socio-economic agenda, including gender empowerment and policies relating to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), while dismissing climate change as “a hoax” and a “giant scam.”

The Trump administration has also downplayed human rights and adherence to international laws—two concepts ingrained in the UN system.

When NASA announced last week that the astronauts who would fly on Artemis III, the next return-to-the-moon mission, the New York Times pointed out the crew consisted of four men and no women, triggering a question from the Times: “Was this part of the push by the Trump administration against DEI policies?”

If the US administration continues to take a hard line against DEI, what are the chances of the US administration supporting a female candidature for the next Secretary-General?

In an interview with the Times last January, President Trump said he does not “need international law” to guide his actions, arguing that only his own “morality” and “mind” will constrain his global powers.

So, what would be the fate of any candidate— male or female—who vociferously advocates these UN goals?

James E. Jennings, President, Conscience International, told Inter Press Service, the reason the United States has been disproportionately influential at the UN since the founding of the organization is because of its global leadership position and its long-term financial support for many of its programs.

However, he said, things have greatly changed in the last two years, with the US Administration abolishing the United States’ massive aid programs and trying to sideline or replace the UN with Republican-branded regressive policies.

“President Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms dovetailed with the ideals of the UN Charter, but Washington’s atavistic regime is determined to dominate the globe, not through equality but intimidation”.

“Such actions will be a disaster for both the UN and the US, whose soft power has been a major contributor to its strength through attraction of immigrants, investment, and generous aid programs. No more”.

It is difficult to reconcile Trump’s policies, Jennings argued, based on fear with those of the UN’s charter and goals of mutual respect among nations. Strong and unified pushback from the majority of UN member states with explicit support for independent, visionary global leadership will advance peace and protect vulnerable people everywhere.

“It is unimaginable that the US under the current MAGA Republican leadership would NOT try to select the next US Secretary-General outright, or if unable to do that would not try to block anyone considered unfit from Mr. Trump’s point of view. Personal leadership qualities and policy beliefs will matter less than whether the next head of the UN body kowtows to the US President”.

That fact alone makes it difficult to select a courageous and principled person. At a time of critical challenges for the world body, installation of UN leadership that would be intimidated by or under the thumb of Washington might well be the death knell for what is indubitably one of history’s grandest and most visionary efforts at peace and prosperity for all, he pointed out.

Meanwhile, come election time, will there be a battle of the vetoes – as it happened in a bygone era?

In 1981, Salim Ahmed Salim of Tanzania was backed by the Organisation of African Unity, the Non-Aligned Movement and China. But his bid was blocked by a US veto.

In 1996, a second five-year term for Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt was vetoed by the US—even though he received the support of 14 of 15 members in the Security Council.

In 1981, China cast a record 16 vetoes against Kurt Waldheim to prevent a third term, leading to his withdrawal and the selection of Javier Pérez de Cuéllar.

Asked for his perspective, Mandeep Tiwana, Secretary-General, CIVICUS told IPS “The veto power wielded by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council is the most anti-people feature of the UN system. Civil Society groups have for years been calling for its voluntary relinquishment but to little or no avail”.

It is time, he said, for a fundamental reconsideration of the veto power. No process can be considered fair or transparent if any one state, however populous, has the power to block it.”

Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and Program Director for Middle Eastern Studies, University of San Francisco, who has written extensively on the politics of the UN, told IPS under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the United States has blocked the election of candidates for Secretary General, even when they had the support of the fourteen other members of the Security Council.

“Given how Trump has been even more prone to attack the United Nations and bully member states, including ostensible U.S. allies, it is likely that the United States will make it even more difficult this round for the UN to choose its next administrator,” he said.

So far, the list of candidates for the post of Secretary-General include: Michelle Bachelet Jeria (Chile): former President of Chile and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés (Ecuador): former President of the UN General Assembly. Rafael Mariano Grossi (Argentina): Current Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Rebeca Grynspan Mayufis (Costa Rica): Secretary-General of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Macky Sall (Senegal): former President of Senegal and Maria Fernandez Espinosa Garces, former President of the UN General Assembly and former Foreign Minister of Ecuador.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: HuyNguyenSG/iStock by Getty Images. Source: IMF

By Kristalina Georgieva
WASHINGTON DC, Jun 17 2026 (IPS)

More than three months into the war in the Middle East, the global economy appears to be holding up. Commodity prices, inflation and expectations for it, and financial conditions have all been impacted—but not yet in ways that signal a global slowdown. And we have seen strong economic momentum in the world’s biggest economies, the United States and China.

But an overall resilient global picture masks significant disparities. Even among advanced economies, some countries and communities have been harder hit. And in Africa, the negative impacts are more conspicuous. Meanwhile, with the prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz and infrastructure in the Middle East damaged by the fighting, uncertainty and risks remain high.

We will provide an updated analysis of this global picture on July 8, in our next World Economic Outlook Update.

Drivers of global resilience so far

At the conflict’s outset, our immediate concern was the impact on energy prices and knock-on effects on inflation. And they have been considerable. Oil prices are 30 percent higher than pre-war levels. Yet that is lower than was seen earlier in the conflict, despite the straits’ prolonged closure.

Some countries, such as China, have been able—for now—to cushion the disruption by tapping deep oil reserves. This has also helped with demand pressures in otherwise hard-hit Asia. Increased production and refinery utilization outside the Gulf, although not sufficient to offset the shock, have also contained the increase in oil prices. In addition, actions to dampen demand or limit the price passthrough have mitigated the impact so far. But, here too, there are limits to how long countries can manage the higher budgetary costs and higher external financing requirements.

In many economies, higher oil prices are nonetheless contributing to a pickup in headline inflation. That is concerning—but not the full story. It is also important to consider whether people and businesses expect a more persistent erosion of their purchasing power. And these medium-term expectations generally remain well anchored. That’s an encouraging sign of confidence in central banks’ commitment to price stability.

Financial markets have also proven resilient. Government bond yields have climbed significantly since the war began, but risk assets have rallied on strong earnings, and we see little evidence of a broader flight to safety. By historical standards, financial conditions remain accommodative.

Technology is another bright spot. Strong technology-related investment—particularly in artificial intelligence and data centers—has been a driving force in the countries where economic momentum is holding up. The United States is benefiting from this global technology cycle, as are economies in Asia that have seen stronger technology exports. Most countries, however, are yet to feel the productivity and growth impact of technology, leading to concerns about further economic divergence.

To sum up, the combination of economic resilience and technological advancements have helped to cushion the impact of the energy supply shock on growth at the global level and there have been bright spots within regions. But there are countries that are harder hit, largely depending on geography, degree of energy dependence, and available policy space.

Hardest hit

For war impacts, proximity matters. Oil exporters around the Gulf that are directly affected by the war face steep downward revisions to growth this year, with five out of eight countries seeing outright contractions.

For Europe, which is heavily dependent on imported oil and gas, higher energy prices are weighing on growth and putting upward pressure on inflation, with the ECB recently raising interest rates.

Emerging market economies in Asia are also bearing the brunt—with the relatively higher oil and gas intensity of the economies in the region. They face retail gasoline prices that have increased 40 percent since the war began, while rising government bond yields and currency depreciation and capital outflow pressures have amplified the costs of the shock.

Yet, it is the countries that combine heavy reliance on energy imports with limited policy space that are especially hard-hit.

The strain is especially visible in Africa, where many of these factors are at play. For countries in the region that rely heavily on imports, rising costs are worsening external balances and increasing budgetary pressures—and financing needs.

Several African countries have been managing fuel shortages—including Ethiopia, Malawi, and Zambia—and most are feeling the pain of sharp fuel price increases. In countries such as Lesotho, Rwanda, and Tanzania, gasoline prices have increased by about half since the onset of the war.

Higher energy prices have also driven up fertilizer and food costs, increasing the risk of food insecurity. If disruptions persist, farmers in many low-income countries may struggle. That in turn may further fuel inflation for months to come.

Needed: policy discipline and agility

As we have said before, much depends on the duration and intensity of the energy supply shock. The sooner it is resolved, the better—especially as supply will take time to recover given the significant infrastructure damage—and Sunday’s ceasefire announcement is welcome. But should the conflict or disruptions intensify, this is a clear risk to global growth.

This continued high uncertainty underscores the need for all policymakers to be agile and disciplined. Maintaining price stability is essential. Already, some central banks have begun to tighten to keep inflation expectations anchored.

With borrowing costs rising, fiscal discipline is equally important. Price caps, subsidies and similar interventions may be popular, but they are costly. Fiscal responses should be targeted, temporary, preserve price signals, and well-sequenced to protect the vulnerable without undermining public finances.

This is even more important given the need to make room for the fiscal costs of ensuring that AI-driven growth translates into shared prosperity. That includes both the fiscal costs to address new vulnerabilities, as well as investing in technology and people to ensure that emerging and developing economies are not left behind.

Supporting affected members

While there is much our members can do to cushion the impact of the war, they shouldn’t have to go it alone. The Fund remains as committed as ever to helping our member countries navigate this period of heightened uncertainty. Just as the effects vary across countries and regions, our support is tailored to meet the differentiated needs of our members.

For now, most member countries are asking for clear, candid policy guidance rather than financial support. And we have duly responded—providing tailored policy advice and capacity development. While the risks have not yet receded, embracing the right policies will help provide some relief.

For those countries that need financial support, we are stepping up. We are working with several countries and will soon present to our Executive Board proposals to adjust existing programs in response to the shock. The Gambia has requested an augmentation and program extension. Burkina Faso has reached staff-level agreement on a funding increase to address higher external financing needs. In Ethiopia, we aim to bring forward financing to this year, while we have initiated discussions on a new program with Malawi. Bangladesh also has requested a new program.

That the global economy is so far weathering the shock is cause for reassurance—but not complacency. The IMF remains on high alert. We are also deeply mindful of the economic damage some of our members are already suffering. We will work with them to manage the shock and limit its negative impacts, especially on the vulnerable. Our commitment to our membership is unwavering.

Kristalina Georgieva has been serving as Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund since October 1, 2019. She began her second term on October 1, 2024.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

 
CIVICUS discusses a proposed United Nations (UN) tax treaty with Jenny Ricks, General Secretary of Fight Inequality Alliance, a global movement that organises to counter the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a small elite.

Jenny Ricks

Why do we need a global tax treaty, and what would an ambitious one look like?

Every year, trillions of dollars are drained from public services through tax avoidance, tax havens and sweetheart deals negotiated by and for the wealthiest corporations and people on the planet. This is a system designed by a powerful few, and it’s working exactly as intended. Countries across the global majority are losing money they urgently need for climate adaptation, hospitals and schools while billionaires park fortunes in jurisdictions that ask no questions.

An ambitious treaty must set minimum effective tax rates on corporate profits and extreme wealth, make automatic information sharing a baseline rather than an aspiration, and put in place binding commitments rather than voluntary frameworks that elites can walk away from when the political heat rises. The goal has to be redistribution at scale. Anything less is rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.

How does the UN Convention compare to the OECD’s approach, and where might it fall short?

The OECD process was built by rich countries, for rich countries. The global majority had only observer status in negotiations that fundamentally shaped their economic futures. That’s the original sin of the existing framework and no amount of technical refinement changes the underlying power imbalance baked into it.

The UN Convention changes the venue and potentially changes the power balance. When every country has a voice and a vote, the interests of the majority of the world’s people have at least a fighting chance of being reflected in the outcome.

The shortcomings are real, though. Ambition gets negotiated down. Large economies drag their feet, threaten opt-outs or simply refuse to ratify. The convention’s potential is significant, but potential and outcome are very different things, and we have seen promising processes hollowed out before. Without a fundamental rethinking of the international system, including the UN itself, to put power firmly in the hands of the global majority, enforcement will remain elusive.

Who’s pushing the treaty forward, and who’s standing in the way?

States with the most to gain have shown the most political courage, while those that have profited most from the existing architecture are throwing sand in the gears. This pattern is not coincidental. Governments protecting the interests of their wealthiest people and most powerful corporations are the obstacle. The barriers are political, rooted in elite self-interest, and naming that clearly matters.

The negotiations are ongoing and fast-moving. For the latest developments, the Tax Justice Network database is the best place to look.

How is civil society influencing the treaty process?

The movement to tax the super-rich has to be built from the national to the global level. Movements shape what’s considered possible before politicians decide what’s acceptable. When we mobilise people in Kenya, Malaysia and Peru, in the streets and in people’s assemblies, we change the political cost calculation for decision-makers domestically and internationally. We demonstrate that there’s a constituency demanding this change, that it’s a matter of survival for millions of families, not an abstraction debated in Geneva conference rooms.

Fight Inequality Alliance and our allies have worked to surface frontline voices and lived experience in spaces that tend to run on position papers and spreadsheets. We have supported national alliances to bring their governments to the table with clear demands. We have made visible who benefits from the status quo, and that visibility increases accountability. Civil society doesn’t win these fights alone, but without sustained pressure from organised movements, the political space to win them simply doesn’t open.

What do civil society and states need to do to ensure equitable global taxation?

States that have pushed hardest for an ambitious convention must hold firm. Dilution always comes in the final stages, when powerful interests feel threatened. They should ratify promptly, implement genuinely and resist pressure from wealthier governments to hollow out enforcement mechanisms.

For civil society, the task is sustained pressure and political education. People need to understand the connection between tax justice and the hospital that closed, the school that’s crumbling, the debt that their governments cannot escape. That connection is real and it’s political, and once people see it, they don’t unsee it. That’s how movements grow and how the terms of debate shift. We need more of that, faster and bigger, and we need organisations with resources and reach to invest in building those connections alongside us, rather than commenting on the process from a distance.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Twitter
Jenny Ricks/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Global governance: power politics tests global rules CIVICUS | State of Civil Society Report 2026
UN at 80: a struggle for renewal in a time of crises CIVICUS Lens 19.Sep.2025
Trillions at stake in quest for tax justice CIVICUS Lens 31.Mar.2025

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

In the human body, connective tissue rarely gets the attention given to the heart, lungs or brain. But without it, even the strongest organs cannot function as a system. It binds, supports and connects a healthy body.

Fiscal systems work in a similar way.

Warren Krafchik

But they are not enough.

The fiscal crisis is already here, and so is the crisis of trust around it. As governments face harder choices over debt, climate costs, slower growth, inequality and public investment, the challenge is no longer simply to balance the books. It is to make fiscal choices more accountable, equitable and trusted by the public.

That cannot be achieved by strengthening finance ministries or other individual institutions one by one. It requires investing in the connective tissue between these institutions: the relationships among legislatures, auditors, courts, civil society, journalists, reformers inside government and citizens that support legitimacy and effective scrutiny.

Case in point: Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa have all strengthened public finance institutions in important ways, yet still face deep challenges around oversight, legitimacy and equity, according to the synthesis paper, Strengthening Fiscal Ecosystems for Accountability and Equity. In each country, formal systems may look strong on paper, but fiscal decisions can still be shaped by political capture, weak scrutiny and unequal access to power.

The reason is that public finance is not simply a technical exercise. It is a political one. Budgets determine who gets health care, education, infrastructure, climate protection and social support. Tax systems determine who contributes and who is spared. Debt decisions can bind future generations. Fiscal choices are among the clearest expressions of a government’s priorities.

Paolo de Renzio

Accountability happens when those institutions are connected to one another and are able to collaborate. It happens when civic actors can engage them, when media can investigate, when courts can intervene where necessary, when legislatures can scrutinize executive decisions, and when public pressure can turn information into consequences.

Such a “fiscal ecosystem” includes ministries of finance, legislatures, supreme audit institutions, courts, civil society organizations, journalists, reformers inside government, social movements, citizens and the relationships among them. It also includes the informal realities that shape how power actually operates, such as party bargains, patronage networks, institutional rivalries, elite coalitions and unequal access to decision-makers.

This gap between formal rules and real power is where many fiscal reforms fall short. A country may have a budget law that clearly defines the role of parliament, but legislators may lack the independence or capacity to challenge executive choices. A supreme audit institution may produce strong reports, but those findings may go nowhere if the executive does not act on them. Civil society organizations may uncover misuse of public funds, but struggle to get a response from those with the power to impose sanctions.

Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa each followed different reform paths. But across all three cases, especially during crises, accountability often depended not on a single institution performing perfectly, but on formal and informal collaborations forming across the fiscal ecosystem. Auditors worked with communities. Media investigations collected evidence and amplified public pressure. Courts intervened when other institutions fell short. Reformers inside and outside the state found ways to connect scrutiny with action.

These efforts are often fragile. They are also essential.

The global public finance community should draw a clear conclusion. The next phase of fiscal reform must move beyond an institution-by-institution approach, and invest in the relationships, coalitions and channels that connect oversight actors and allow accountability to take root.

For international financial institutions, development agencies and technical assistance providers, this means recognizing that fiscal legitimacy cannot be built through executive capacity alone. Supporting ministries of finance remains important, but it should be matched by greater attention to the institutions, inside and outside government, and the connections between them that balance fiscal power.

For ministries of finance, it means supporting connected oversight systems by responding in a timely way to legislature and audit processes and recommendations and creating additional formal spaces for civil society organizations and communities to contribute to policy choices and implementation. Oversight bodies need pathways for their actions to matter.

For civil society and media, it means ensuring that transparency is not treated as the end goal but as a starting point. Public access to fiscal information is only powerful when citizens, journalists and civic actors have the resources, protections and channels needed to use it.

For philanthropy, the implication is especially urgent. Too much support for accountability work remains fragmented by institution, sector or issue area. Funders have a critical opportunity to invest in the connective tissue executive, oversight, and civic actors that makes fiscal accountability possible. That means supporting civic actors who can follow public money, connect budget decisions to lived experience, work with the ministries of finance and oversight institutions and help communities demand answers when public resources are at risk.

Fiscal reform must therefore be understood as a democratic project, not simply a managerial one. Strong finance ministries are necessary. But they cannot carry the burden of legitimacy alone. If governments want citizens to accept difficult trade-offs, they must build systems where people can see how decisions are made, contribute to those decisions, challenge abuses of power and trust that public resources are being used in the public interest.

The future of fiscal reform will not be won by strengthening one institution at a time. It will depend on building fiscal accountability ecosystems strong enough to keep public finance connected to the public good.

Warren Krafchik is a Public Finance Consultant at the Trust, Accountability and Inclusion Collaborative and Co-lead of the Strengthening Fiscal Ecosystems project.

Paolo de Renzio is a Senior Lecturer at the Brazilian School of Public and Business Administration of Fundação Getúlio Vargas in Rio de Janeiro, and Co-lead of the Strengthening Fiscal Ecosystems project.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A group of children sit near a garden in Tamasgo Primary, in Burkina Faso, which is one of the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world. Credit: UNICEF Office in Burkina Faso

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 16 2026 (IPS)

A new report from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) highlights the vast, overlapping climate threats affecting children worldwide, which is leaving them increasingly vulnerable to escalating risks across health, security, and education.

The report, Children’s Climate Risk Report, emphasizes that while these risks are most pronounced in heavily vulnerable regions in the Global South—such as South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa—nearly half of the world’s children are exposed to at least three climate hazards, with some exposed to as many as six at once.

“Across the globe, millions of children are now facing multiple climate threats without the necessary services to cope,” said UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell. “They are experiencing extreme heat that causes heatstroke and dehydration. Their homes and schools are being destroyed by storms and floods. Devastating droughts are limiting their access to food and water. And in many cases, the intensity of these hazards is increasing with each passing year.”

“We must invest more in adapting essential services to the impact of climate change,” Russell added. “Through political will, partnerships, and collaboration with young people, the case studies in this report prove that progress is possible. But the scale and ambition of action must be rapidly accelerated to ensure that every child is protected from climate impacts.”

According to UNICEF’s findings, nearly every child globally is now affected by air pollution. Additionally, over 296 million children live in areas that are exposed to a dangerous combination of prolonged drought, extreme heat, and heatwaves, while another 115 million simultaneously face droughts, extreme heat, and tropical storms.

The agency stresses that these risks often overlap across multiple regions, noting that riverine and coastal floods, fires, and sand and dust storms have caused widespread displacement, disruptions to livelihoods and schooling, the spread of infectious diseases, or various forms of health and food insecurity.

Nowhere are the consequences of these overlapping threats more evident than in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, which have been described by climate experts as the two most climate-vulnerable regions in the world. These regions are at a heightened risk primarily due to high environmental exposure and a limited capacity to respond. The resulting shocks overwhelm local health systems, cripple fragile infrastructure, and leave entire communities deprived of basic, lifesaving services.

The report notes that over 4 million children in the Sahel region are exposed to heatwaves, extreme heat, and sand and dust storms. Meanwhile, South Asian countries like Bangladesh, Myanmar and Pakistan, face more hazards at once and at higher intensities than anywhere else in the world.

“While some countries may face a single devastating event, such as a tropical storm that can wipe out an entire island, many countries in Asia are dealing with a combination of threats, from floods and storms to extreme heat,” Rohini Sampoornam Swaminathan, UNICEF Statistics and Monitoring Manager, tells Inter Press Service. “Children may cope with one or two shocks, but after three, four or five, families’ ability to respond becomes severely strained. Moreover, risk is not only about exposure to hazards, but it is also about the availability and accessibility of essential services. For children without reliable access to health care, nutrition, or water and sanitation, even a moderate flood or heatwave can become life‑threatening.”

On 20 January 2026, an aerial view of the flooded Xai Xai village after extreme rainfall in Gaza Province, Mozambique. Credit: UNICEF/Guy Taylor

According to the report, in 2024, approximately 634 million children lacked access to safe drinking water, over 1 billion lacked access to sanitation services, and 489 million lacked access to basic hygiene services. Currently, nearly 160 million children live in areas where water systems are severely strained, and droughts are extremely pronounced, while another 270 million children live in flood-prone zones where less than half of the population has access to adequate sanitation.

As a result, the World Health Organization (WHO) projects that there could be over 250,000 additional yearly deaths by the 2030s from malaria, diarrhoea, heat stress, and undernutrition. These consequences are dire for children, particularly those living in fragile contexts where health systems and local infrastructures are strained.

In Pakistan, children face extreme vulnerability due to glacial melt and erratic rainfall patterns, which frequently trigger large-scale flooding. The historic 2022 floods affected over 33 million people—roughly half of whom were children—and stripped more than 5.4 million people of access to clean water, leaving them at a heightened risk of contracting infectious diseases and waterborne illnesses. This has been compounded by frequent heatwaves and prolonged droughts, with temperatures routinely exceeding 48 degrees Celsius, or 118.4 degrees Fahrenheit, which have caused high rates of severe dehydration and acute malnutrition, as a result of decimated crop yields.

Without urgent intervention, UNICEF projects that an additional 28 million children globally could experience acute malnutrition and stunted growth by 2050. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, approximately 10 million more children are expected to suffer from stunted growth by 2050. Over the last few years, increasingly frequent and destructive climate shocks have devastated food systems around the world, leaving roughly 66 percent of children under five—approximately 440 million—to live in severe food poverty.

Additionally, climate shocks are increasingly stripping children of their education, with UNICEF recording nearly 242 million students across 85 countries and territories who have their education disrupted by climate-induced hazards in 2024 alone. The agency has also recorded rising rates of school closures, absenteeism, and worsened school performance. Swaminathan noted that when classrooms become too hot, children struggle to concentrate, learn and stay engaged.

“Heat increases dehydration, fatigue and absenteeism, especially in schools without cooling, shade or reliable water,” she added. “As temperatures rise, schools are also closing more often. While closures protect children’s health, they expose how unprepared many education systems are for a hotter world. When children lose learning, societies lose potential. Repeated disruptions affect education outcomes, future earnings and economic growth, while deepening inequalities.”

It is estimated that disrupted education across low- and middle-income countries could yield future economic losses of up to USD 11 trillion in lifetime earnings. The report further notes that establishing climate-resilient education systems is crucial in preventing these losses and protecting children from facing adverse mental health impacts and deepened social and economic inequalities.

Furthermore, volatile climate shocks around the world continue to displace entire communities and push millions of children into insecurity. Between 2016 and 2023, UNICEF recorded over 62 million internal displacements of children as a result of climate-induced hazards—or roughly 21,000 child displacements per day.

“When families are forced to move because of climate shocks, children face heightened risks of violence, exploitation and family separation, both during the journey and in temporary settlements. These risks increase when displacement is sudden, support networks collapse, and protection systems are overwhelmed,” said Swaminathan. “Climate-related displacement acts as a threat multiplier. It weakens livelihoods, strains fragile services and deepens existing tensions.”

Child protection services around the world have been pushed to the brink of collapse as a result of the vast scale of needs triggered by climate-induced displacement. This strain has been linked to a significant rise in violence, exploitation, abuse, and childhood trauma, with many families resorting to negative coping mechanisms such as child labour and child marriage.

According to UNICEF estimates, rates of child labour have surged in recent years, particularly in areas with agriculture-dependent economies, where roughly 70 percent of this exploitation can be found. Additionally, communities frequently turn to child marriage to secure short-term financial stability following severe climate shocks. The consequences are particularly dire for girls who are married before the age of 18, who face a significantly higher risk of domestic violence, alongside severely compromised health and economic outcomes compared to those who marry later in life.

To accelerate climate action and protect millions of children from these escalating risks, UNICEF is urging global leaders and the private sector to prioritize investments in renewable energy, underscoring that this is a critical first step in reducing the intensity of climate shocks. Additionally, the agency stresses the importance of integrating climate-resilient schools, water systems, and healthcare facilities into national emergency plans and expanding climate education to ensure that the next generation has a voice in decisions that affect their lives.

“UNICEF’s message is clear: invest in children’s resilience, especially the most vulnerable. Invest in the communities they live in and the social services they depend on, and ensure these services continue to function during and after climate shocks,” said Swaminathan. “The climate crisis is a child rights crisis. We know where children are at risk and what they face. Now we must act.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The global financial architecture needs a deeper reset; it should build a country's capacity to withstand shocks and grow over time. Credit: Shutterstock

By External Source
Jun 15 2026 (IPS)

When G7 leaders arrive in Evian-les-Bains this month, France will host more than another summit. It will host a test of whether rich-country coordination can still solve problems that no country can manage alone. Aid budgets are shrinking, debt-service bills are crowding out investment, climate shocks are damaging infrastructure, and private capital remains scarce and expensive where it is needed most.

France has rightly made reducing global imbalances a priority of its G7 presidency. The G7 must show how finance should move differently and with global impact.

The urgent focus is development finance. G7 ministers have acknowledged that many partner countries face repeated crises, structural vulnerabilities, rising debt, food insecurity, and humanitarian needs. France has also placed African investment and the role of public development banks on the G7 agenda.

These issues are not separate. A drought that cuts harvests can weaken revenue, raise debt distress, damage health, interrupt schooling, and make the next investment more expensive. The current Ebola outbreak reminds us how vulnerable we all are to these crises.

The current global financial architecture was built for a world that believed growth could be separated from ecology, projects from systems, and risk from resilience. That world is gone

The dominant development finance paradigm treats each problem in its own box. The world no longer works that way.

That is why the global financial architecture needs a deeper reset; it should build a country’s capacity to withstand shocks and grow over time. Investments should work together. A solar plant that cannot feed a resilient grid, a road washed away by the next flood, or a hospital without reliable water, power, and social services support may look good in a project document and still fail the economy.

First, the world needs a better measure of wealth. GDP is useful, but incomplete. It counts activity; it does not tell us whether a country is building or consuming the assets on which future prosperity depends. A forest cleared for short-term export can raise GDP, and so can rebuilding after a flood.

Neither means that a country is becoming richer if its soils, water, skills, and institutional trust are deteriorating. A reset should ask whether produced assets, natural systems, people’s capabilities, and public institutions are becoming stronger together.

The practical step is not abstract. Finance ministries could require comprehensive wealth impact statements. When a government considers a debt-financed power system, port, irrigation program, or disaster-risk loan, it should show not only the likely effect on deficits and growth, but also the likely impact on water security, land-use management, public health, skills, and future disaster losses.

Creditors and rating agencies should look at the same evidence. A country that protects floodplains, strengthens schools, and reduces energy vulnerability is making itself a safer borrower, even if those gains remain invisible in conventional accounts.

Second, the world needs to appraise investment portfolios, not isolated projects. This is where many well-intentioned plans underperform. A seawall without drainage and mangrove protection may shift risk rather than reduce it.

Climate-smart agriculture without storage, cold chains, and roads leaves farmers exposed. Solar panels without grid upgrades and reliable payment systems can leave generations stranded. The question should not be which project has the highest standalone return, but which combination of investments most improves resilience, productivity, and long-term wealth in the public interest.

This approach would also help mobilize private capital. Investors are often told that developing countries are too risky. But part of that risk reflects weak systems: unreliable power, poor maintenance, exposed supply chains, thin insurance, and fragile public finances.

Coordinated ublic investments should be used to lower these risks at the portfolio level by preparing interconnected pipelines, funding data, providing guarantees, supporting local-currency finance, and strengthening early-warning systems and building the institutions that keep assets working when shocks hit. Capacity building would not be a charity; it would be risk reduction.

Third, states and markets need clearer rules for allocating capital. For policymakers, this means that budgets, debt strategies, and industrial plans should include the assets and vulnerabilities they create. For multilateral development banks, the IMF, credit-rating agencies, and regulators, it means treating climate adaptation, nature protection, social capability, and debt sustainability as one conversation, not four.

Country platforms should bring them into a single investment plan with clear priorities and accountability. For investors, assets that protect water, power, food systems, health, and skills should be viewed as infrastructure for returns, not as ESG decoration.

The G7 can make this pivot at Evian. It could agree that major development-finance packages should include wealth impact statements; that multilateral development-bank country strategies should use portfolio appraisal; that public development banks should standardize guarantees and project preparation for resilience; that debt workouts and new lending terms should reward verified investments that reduce future losses; and that private co-financing should be linked to transparent outcomes. These reforms simply require an acceptance by institutions to judge success differently.

None of this is anti-market, anti-growth, or anti-finance. It is pro-accuracy, pro-stability, and pro-prosperity. The central task is simple: build a financial architecture that strengthens society’s productive capacity and the planet that sustains it, not that merely flatters the next quarter’s accounts.

The current global financial architecture was built for a world that believed growth could be separated from ecology, projects from systems, and risk from resilience. That world is gone.

France’s G7 presidency offers a chance to replace it with a financial system that measures real wealth, funds investments that work together, and rewards countries for reducing the risks that threaten everyone. That is how we move from fragmented finance to resilient prosperity and from short-term gain to long-term global public investment.

Hyginus ‘Gene’ Leon is the Executive Director of the Development Bank for Resilient Prosperity and was the sixth President of Caribbean Development Bank (CDB)

Simon Reid-Henry, PhD is a Research Professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo and Head of Secretariat of the Coalition of Governments (and International Organisations) on Global Public Investment

Chatbots and AI companions have rapidly moved from science fiction into everyday life. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jun 15 2026 (IPS)

AI chatbots and AI companions designed to simulate human-like conversation and provide relationships and companionship through generative artificial intelligence (AI) have rapidly evolved from science fiction into everyday reality.

Globally, approximately one billion people – about 12% of the world’s population – now use generative AI chatbots monthly, with usage approaching parity among men and women.

Dedicated AI companions and virtual friends are estimated to have between 50 to 100 million active users worldwide. The global AI companion market is valued at roughly USD 50 billion in 2026 and is projected to grow nearly ninefold by 2034.

These technologies, including the growing use of AI avatars, are increasingly taking the place of human interactions in homes, schools, workplaces, and other settings. Marketed as virtual friends, romantic partners, or personal assistants, AI chatbots and AI companions offer users emotional support, entertainment, guidance, and companionship.

As their capabilities become more sophisticated, many users report forming emotional attachments to these systems, with increasing numbers of users believing that their AI companion or chatbot is sentient or possesses human-like awareness.

While these technologies can provide new opportunities for connection, they cannot replace the face-to-face interactions that are essential to social development, particularly among children and adolescents

Advances in robotics are also moving AI companions beyond screen-based interactions into the physical world. With increasingly human-like appearances, behaviors, and communication abilities, these systems are becoming more sophisticated and human-like in the way they interact with people.

Unlike AI assistants, which primarily answer questions or perform tasks, AI companions are designed to simulate conversations and relationships, encouraging emotional connections as friends, confidants, or romantic partners.

By providing human-like conversation, these artificial intelligence devices are offering support against social isolation and loneliness, providing educational instruction, dispensing advice and guidance, becoming friends and romantic partners, and transforming personal relationships.

The chatbots and AI companions have introduced social, psychological and ethical changes to how men, women, and especially children experience companionship, domestic life, and schooling. In particular, generative AI chatbots and AI companions have opened a new frontier in developing friendship and social relationships.

Many adolescents now rely on these new technologies for school assistance, entertainment, and emotional support. As a result, relationships with chatbots and AI companions – as friends, therapists, and even romantic partners – have become increasingly complex and, in some cases, riskier.

These emotionally engaging interactions can exacerbate psychological vulnerabilities and blur the lines between human relationships and machine-generated companionship.

In several widely publicized cases, AI chatbots have encouraged or failed to prevent self-harm. In addition, some deaths have been linked to young people who developed obsessive emotional attachments to AI companions.

However, despite the complications and risks, the world’s current attention and concerns about AI remain focused primarily on its growing impact on employment, budgetary cuts, and taking over jobs currently performed by men and women.

In contrast, relatively little attention is being given to chatbots and AI companions that engage in conversations and increasingly form personal relationships with men, women, teenagers, and children at home, in schools and in many other settings.

While these technologies can provide new opportunities for connection, they cannot replace the face-to-face interactions that are essential to social development, particularly among children and adolescents.

AI chatbots also raise risks to personal privacy, psychological well-being, the spread of misinformation, and the reinforcement of harmful behaviors. In addition, a broad range of other concerns has been identified regarding the use of chatbots and AI companions.

These concerns include delaying social and emotional development among children and teenagers, blurring the distinction between software and reality, encouraging risky behavior, exploiting young people’s emotional needs, reinforcing unhelpful thoughts, distorting users’ sense of reality, and fostering simulated attachments and dependence (Table 1).

Source: Author’s compilation.

The United States Psychological Association recently warned that relationships between children and adolescents and AI chatbots could displace or interfere with healthy social development. The association noted that friendships and social support from other people have long-term benefits for emotional well-being, physical health, and longevity.

Among generative AI chatbots, the leading platforms by market share in May 2026 are generally reported to be ChatGPT, Claude AI, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Perplexity, and Grok. Several industry analyses place ChatGPT’s share at roughly 50-55%, with Claude AI at about 21% of market share emerging as the second-largest platform (Figure 1).

Source: FirstPageSage.

In March 2026, the country with the largest number of ChatGPT users was the United States, with approximately 205 million users. Following the U.S., the countries with the largest ChatGPT user populations were India, Brazil, Canada, and France (Figure 2).

Source: fatjoe.

It is certainly the case that chatbots and AI companions cannot feel love toward an individual. Nevertheless, hundreds of millions of men, women, and children worldwide are increasingly relying on these technologies for conversation, information, companionship, and non-judgmental interactions.

These technologies may help to address chronic loneliness and social isolation, conditions that have consistently been linked to detrimental effects on physical and mental health and increased risk of premature death. The World Health Organization (WHO) formally recognizes loneliness as a global public health concern, with roughly one in six people worldwide experiencing problematic levels of loneliness.

Chatbots and AI companions can help alleviate loneliness and social isolation by providing readily available conversation and companionship without judgement and expectations. As chatbots, AI companions, and androids become increasingly sophisticated, growing numbers of people are exploring the new forms of emotional connection and intimacy with these technologies.

At the same time, the growing use of chatbots and AI companions for personal relationships raises important social, psychological, ethical, and policy concerns.

Although chatbots and AI companions may help reduce loneliness and social isolation for some users, they also pose risks, especially for children and young people. Because AI systems do not possess genuine empathy and are not trained or licensed as mental health professionals, excessive reliance on them for emotional support may isolate vulnerable individuals and distort perceptions of human relationships.

Debate continues regarding the appropriate level of regulations for these technologies. Some government officials, technology companies, investors, and researchers argue that these new and emerging AI technologies should remain largely unregulated, with people themselves determining how to adapt to these technologies.

Some of the reasons for keeping the development of AI unregulated include: prevents regulatory paralysis; accelerates technological breakthroughs; encourages venture capital investment; maintains global geopolitical competitiveness; promotes national security; prevents market monopolies; benefits national interests; and leads to better lives for men and women.

Others, however, argue that AI chatbot and AI companion technologies need to be regulated in order to protect the mental health of children and young adults; reduce the negative effects of social media and excessive screen time; mitigate risks, deception, bias, discrimination, and misinformation; promote economic stability and fairness; become a public resource; protect human rights and intellectual property; and ensure data privacy.

Among the proposed safeguards and regulations for chats and AI companions are requirements for non-human disclosure, crisis protocols for self-harm, age verification measures, limits on their use in elementary schools, bans on impersonation, and stronger protections for minors.

Fueled in part by technology companies, governments worldwide are moving rapidly to deploy generative AI systems and chatbots in schools, universities, and other settings.

However, the spread of these new AI technologies may pose risks to the development and well-being of children and teenagers, raising concerns among educators, parents, and policymakers. Interactions with AI chatbots, especially when they are intense and prolonged, may contribute to the onset or worsen delusions or mania. Research is also finding that AI companions provide responses that may worsen mental health issues.

Additionally, a recent study reported that reliance on generative AI chatbots may reduce critical thinking engagement in some contexts. Another study has raised concerns that AI chatbots can exploit teenagers’ emotional vulnerabilities, sometimes leading to inappropriate and harmful interactions.

The United States Federation of Teachers recommends “no screens” for children in second grade or younger, and restricting the use of AI chatbots for students in elementary schools. The organization has expressed concerns that excessive screen use may hinder socialization, independent thinking, and critical-thinking development.

The long-term effects of AI chatbots remain uncertain, with researchers just beginning to investigate them. However, classroom teachers and some city officials report that many students are increasingly relying on chatbots for easy answers rather than developing problem-solving and critical-thinking skills.

The U.S. Federation of Teachers has urged elementary schools to avoid using artificial intelligence tools like AI chatbots with students and called for national privacy and safety standards governing AI use in schools.

Research suggests that chatbots and AI companions may pose several risks, particularly for teenagers. Concerns include emotional dependency, declining mental health, harmful interactions, and revealing sensitive personal information, including mental health issues and sexual orientation.

Reliance on chatbots and AI companions for emotional support may also contribute to social isolation and interfere with the development of normal human relationships. Because these technologies are designed to simulate emotional intimacy, they can blur the line between genuine human connections and artificial interactions.

A risk-assessment study found that inappropriate dialogue could be readily elicited from chatbots on topics such as sex, self-harm, violence, drug use, and racial stereotypes, raising concerns about their influence on vulnerable users, particularly children and adolescents.

In conclusion, chatbots and AI companions have rapidly moved from science fiction into everyday life. They increasingly exhibit human-like characteristics, including natural-sounding human voices, memory of past interactions, continuous processing of personal information, apparent preferences, constant availability, and the ability to provide companionship and guidance on personal and social matters.

Public discussion of generative AI has focused largely on employment and job displacement, while less attention has been given to its social, psychological, and ethical effects. As chatbots and AI companions become more capable and widely used, concerns about their impact on the well-being, development, and relationships of young people are likely to become increasingly important for parents, educators, policymakers, and technology developers.

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

Du Hung Viet (left), President of the Eleventh Review Conference for the NPT 2026, chairs the closing session of the NPT Review Conference (27 April-22 May). Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 15 2026 (IPS)

On principle, the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons is an issue that unites the international community. But for a select few states, these principles came with conditions and a refusal to compromise on their security strategy.

The Eleventh Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) concluded on May 22, 2026 without member states reaching consensus on a final outcome document. It was the culmination of four weeks of extensive debates starting on April 27, along with the special meetings, consultations and briefings that preceded the conference.

Compared to earlier editions shared before and during the conference, the final draft weakened much of the language surrounding the obligations of nuclear states, including those that related to disarmament efforts. Yet even with these concessions, for the third time in a row after 2015 and 2022, the NPT parties failed to adopt an outcome document.

At the closing session of the conference, Do Hung Viet, President of the NPT Conference and the UN Permanent Representative of Vietnam, remarked that the collective threat posed by nuclear weapons requires a collective response. He warned that in 2031, the NPT would pass 20 years without an outcome. It was the responsibility of state parties, he said, to uphold the NPT until Article VI, which calls for parties to pursue disarmament measures in good faith, could be implemented, and they needed to bolster the treaty as a tool to address modern threats.

Following the closing of the conference, Viet told reporters that the current state of the international environment requires “urgent action” in the face of recent tensions. Although the conference could not reach consensus, Viet attempted to find some positives in the proceedings, in that the engagement “highlights the value of the NPT and multilateralism as a whole”. Yet he expressed concern for the health of the treaty going forward as it related to state parties’ commitments.

Izumi Nakamitsu, UN Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, added that if parties to the NPT wanted to prevent a “further decrease of confidence” in the nuclear nonproliferation regime, then they “need to visibly make a commitment” through measurable steps.

She remarked that the international community at large needed to take lessons from the proceedings, starting with the acceleration of disarmament commitments under existing treaties. There were also increased calls for a “strengthening of the review process”, or enhancing accountability and transparency measures over the implementation of countries’ commitments to the NPT.

“Nonproliferation and disarmament are two sides of the same coin, and it is simply wrong for nuclear weapons states to assume that nonproliferation obligations will be just adhered to without nuclear weapons states’ commitment and implementation of disarmament commitments under Article 6,” said Nakamitsu.

Susi Snyder (left), ICAN Director of Programmes, and Seth Shelden (right), ICAN’s UN Liaison, at a press briefing held on the final day of the NPT 2026 Review Conference. Credit: Naureen Hossain/IPS

Parties to the NPT, including nuclear-armed states, repeatedly acknowledged the NPT as a “cornerstone” for multilateral diplomacy and the nuclear disarmament regime. However, when it came to other nuclear treaties, such as the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), such acknowledgements were scarce. The final outcome draft makes a limited few references to these treaties but does not elaborate on the disarmament requirements outlined in them.

The final outcome document draft was noteworthy for its references to the humanitarian and environmental impacts of nuclear testing for the first time in the context of the NPT Review Conference. Experts from the International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) noted that this was possible thanks to the advocacy efforts of civil society and of the communities impacted by nuclear weapons use and testing.

In particular, the draft “recognise[s] the growing calls for assistance to the people and communities affected by nuclear weapons use and explosive nuclear testing and for environmental remediation following nuclear weapons use and explosive nuclear testing” and “welcome[s] efforts already undertaken in this regard”.

The draft also included a call for member states to “take concrete measures to raise awareness of the public, including through education, on all topics relating to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation” by sharing the experiences of peoples and communities affected by nuclear weapons use and testing.

Recognition of the NPT stood in contradiction to the actions and statements made by nuclear-armed states. These states, which include the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, all maintain positions that contradict the principles of the NPT and broader efforts toward disarmament. These states have openly made plans to expand their nuclear arsenals and weave in the salience of nuclear weapons into their security strategy by justifying it through concepts of ‘extended nuclear deterrence’ and nuclear sharing with other countries considering their own nuclear expansion. Two members of the Security Council are engaged in separate, active conflicts that have only exacerbated geopolitical tensions, while also dredging up anxieties around nuclear weapons as a security strategy. With seemingly no end in sight to these conflicts, those anxieties have only deepened, and has shaped global and regional security policies for years to come.

For a civil society group like ICAN, the lack of outcome for the NPT is emblematic of increasing risks of proliferation among nuclear-armed states and their allies.

“There is a reason why the countries that claim protection from nuclear weapons are afraid of discussion of what these weapons actually do to people and the environment. They simply don’t want people to know the true extent of the horror and cruelty nuclear weapons wreak, because acknowledging these harms will eliminate any credible legitimacy for retaining nuclear weapons,” said Susi Snyder, ICAN’s Director of Programmes.

What will it take, therefore, for these countries to reverse their positions? Snyder told Inter Press Service that “increasing the stigmatisation” of nuclear weapons would be one such tactic. Reinforcing the nuclear taboo by raising awareness among the populations of these countries is critical for them to recognise the complete destruction that a nuclear weapon would bring about, and the impact this would have on targeted communities and on themselves. Snyder noted the literal cost of proliferation, claiming that in 2024 nuclear-armed states spent over USD 3000 per second on their arsenals.

Finally, security doctrines built on the theory of nuclear deterrence need to be challenged. Seth Shelden, the UN liaison for ICAN, noted that if nuclear weapons can be seen as useless from a military perspective and unsustainable from a policy perspective, nuclear-armed states would reevaluate their positions. “Nuclear weapons are irrational. Nuclear deterrence is a fable. And all technology is abandoned once it is seen as no longer useful,” Shelden said.

Though the 2026 NPT Review Conference ended without consensus, member states still have other avenues to pursue the nuclear disarmament agenda, both within and outside the NPT process. There still remain specific nuclear weapon-free zone agreements among countries and treaties like the CTBT and the TPNW which also contain legally binding obligations for their signatories. Snyder confirmed that the TPNW will host its first review conference at the end of this year. Meanwhile, the NPT remains in its current form and state parties recognise its obligations and safeguards on the nuclear regime.

In 2024, the UN General Assembly pushed to establish an independent scientific panel on the effects of a potential nuclear war, whose panellists will present their findings in 2027.

Galvanising the world public opinion on the nuclear regime is critical to restoring faith in the nuclear regime. Otherwise, Nakamitsu warned, the world is in “the trajectory of a very dangerous path.

“Let’s get back to a path that is more sustainable peace rather than creating arms race dynamics.”

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

An aerial view of a beach with a ferris wheel, Ain Dubai, Bluewaters, Dubai, UAE. Credit: Unsplash/Nelemson Guevarra

By Maximilian Malawista
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 12 2026 (IPS)

The global ocean economy continues its expansion, with ocean-related trade reaching USD 2.5 trillion as of 2025. Ocean services now make up the majority of the ocean trade, accounting for 58.9 percent of the composition, up from 47.8 percent in 2020.

Ocean services alone are now valued at USD 1.44 trillion dollars, an increase of USD 1.2 trillion since 2020; a rate greater than the entire global ocean trade in 2020. While 2020 was a year filled with disruptions, economies contracting, and consumer smoothing, this number is an increase of USD 476 billion dollars since 2015, a 49.5 percent growth from 2015, where the ocean services trade generated USD 961 billion.

“The ocean economy is expanding rapidly across sectors such as aquaculture, tourism, and shipping. While this growth is vital for food security, employment, and economic development, it’s increasingly constrained by the declining health of the ocean,” said Rafael González Quiroz, co-director of the United Nations ‘Third World Ocean Assessment’ and director of Spain’s Oceanographic center of Gijón (IEO-CSIC), during a press briefing held on World Ocean Day (June 8).

The UN World Ocean Assessment is a global integrated assessment of the world’s ocean following environmental, economic and social aspects, with interdisciplinary inputs from more than 650 experts to provide scientific basis for the consideration of ocean issues by governments and policy makers, among other stakeholders involved in the regulation and protection of the ocean.

Quiroz’s assessment reflect the broader expansion and changes within the ocean economy, where services have an increasingly dominant role in the global ocean economy. The strongest example of such is the recovery of marine and coastal tourism, which has turned sharply since the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic.

Credit: IPS/Maximilian Malawista

Today, marine and coastal tourism now accounts for 32 percent of global ocean trade, up from 16 percent in 2020. 32 percent representing USD 785 billion, over half of all ocean services trade. Maritime freight transport remains the second highest, at roughly USD 487 billion or 20 percent of total ocean trade. Quiroz emphasized that a “sustainable ocean economy can only exist if it’s built upon a healthy and resilient ocean”.

One of the key challenges highlighted during the briefing was marine pollution, especially plastics. Within global plastics trade, only 10 percent of all plastics are recycled. 52 million tonnes of such plastic waste every year enters the ocean, which the United Nations states is affecting at least 4,000 marine species.

In response, the international community has spent the past six years working on negotiating a “global plastics treaty”, an agreement which would put a ceiling on plastic production, and limit the USD 1.1 trillion dollar industry, ensuring waste management standards, recycling requirements, and creating market space for sustainable alternatives.

Achieving this may require changes to global trade incentives. UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) finds that “the key barrier is an uneven national and trade policy field.”

According to UNCTAD, tariffs on plastics have fallen from 34 percent to 7.2 percent over the past 3 decades, giving plastic producers a larger incentive to keep making more plastic. While plastic tariffs have decreased, alternatives to plastics like bamboo, natural fibers, paper, and seaweed have had tariffs double to the rate of 14.4 percent. As a result of such tariffs, conventional plastics remain the cheaper option for manufacturers.

However, recent volatility in the energy markets stemming from the current Strait of Hormuz crisis has increased the cost of plastic production. Reports from UNCTAD show that because plastics are approximately 98 percent derived from fossil fuels, the cost of plastic prices has risen 70-80 percent in the European markets. This market shock could open the door for sustainable alternatives, giving real reason for companies to develop products free of polyethylene resin and other plastics, further developing the sustainable alternatives industry.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Kaveh Zahed, Assistant Director-General and Director of FAO’s Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment (left), speaks during a press briefing on agri-food system solutions at the GEF Assembly in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, where he emphasised that agriculture can play a central role in addressing climate and biodiversity challenges. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

By Kizito Makoye
SAMARKAND, Uzbekistan, Jun 11 2026 (IPS)

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) has approved USD 6.4 million for a new conservation initiative in Papua New Guinea that seeks to protect 700,000 hectares of critical highland ecosystems by placing Indigenous Peoples and local communities at the centre of conserving and managing their ancestral lands.

Implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and with expected USD 16.7 million in co-financing, the project aims to strengthen biodiversity corridors, support peacebuilding and improve environmental management across protected and productive landscapes. It is expected to improve management effectiveness across more than 276,000 hectares of protected areas, extend sustainable environmental practices to 1.6 million hectares, directly benefit 21,000 people and avoid nearly one million tonnes of carbon emissions.

The initiative reflects a broader shift in conservation thinking in Papua New Guinea and internationally – away from externally driven protection efforts and toward approaches that connect biodiversity conservation with livelihoods, land rights and local governance.

That shift is especially significant in Papua New Guinea, where roughly 97 percent of land remains under customary ownership, making conservation efforts dependent on local consent and participation.

“In a culturally rich and highly diverse country that is both geographically isolated and challenging to access, community empowerment is essential for achieving sustainable social and economic development,” Aaron Becker, FAO-GEF Regional Coordinator for Asia and the Pacific, told IPS.

“The key to successful conservation efforts in Papua New Guinea is recognising and respecting that 97 percent of the country’s land is held under customary ownership,” Becker said.

According to project designers, conservation in Papua New Guinea can only succeed when it is rooted in customary land systems, respects local cultural realities and builds upon traditional natural resource management practices rather than bypassing communities.

Under the project’s community-led landscape model, local people will determine which areas should be protected, which can continue supporting livelihoods and what conservation rules should apply. The initiative is expected to support recognition of 10 community-led conservation areas across biodiversity hotspots.

The programme will rely on participatory processes grounded in Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (VGGT) while helping communities strengthen governance systems and develop land-use plans informed by traditional knowledge.

“This project provides the facilitation, training, equipment, and access to finance — and keeps the decisions within the community,” Becker said.

“Importantly, communities are not being asked to implement somebody else’s conservation agenda.”

Project officials say the initiative has also been designed to avoid intensifying land disputes or creating new social tensions.

“The project is designed carefully to avoid making tensions, such as around natural resources, worse,” Becker said, adding that site selection takes into account governance conditions, conflict risks and community readiness.

The emphasis on community ownership reflects a broader evolution in global conservation policy, according to Kaveh Zahed, Assistant Director-General and Director of FAO’s Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment.

“It’s not just about protecting biodiversity – it is about conservation, regeneration and sustainable use of biodiversity,” Zahed told journalists on the sidelines of the GEF Assembly.

“That’s a recognition that much of this biodiversity is linked to people and to livelihoods  – and nowhere is that demonstrated better than with agriculture and agricultural communities, who are custodians of a great deal of that biodiversity.”

Rather than treating conservation as a restriction on development, the project combines environmental protection with biodiversity-friendly livelihoods, including sustainable agriculture, agroforestry, coffee systems, non-timber forest products, ecotourism and small-scale livestock.

Zahed said agriculture and food systems can become part of the solution rather than a source of tension between conservation and economic development.

“That’s where the beauty of agri-food system solutions lies,” he said. “They are interventions that are about food security, producing more with less, and helping communities maintain that food security while at the same time bringing biodiversity and climate benefits.”

For Becker, the broader lesson extends beyond Papua New Guinea.

“So, the message is simple: conservation should not create new insecurity,” he said. “Done well, it will reinforce land rights, support livelihoods, and build cooperation across landscapes that communities already know, use and manage.”

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

Refugees and staff from the Center for Victims of Torture play soccer and celebrate human rights, Minneapolis, USA, June 2023. Credit: CVT

By Simon Adams
PERTH, Australia, Jun 11 2026 (IPS)

This planet’s biggest sporting event—the FIFA Men’s World Cup—will soon kick off. Millions of people around the world will sit up, bleary eyed, watching matches at unreasonable hours and inventing feeble excuses for why we won’t be at work in the morning. More than one billion are expected to watch the finale on TV in mid-July. That’s a bigger audience than any Olympic sporting event and more than the number of people who have viewed Squid Game on Netflix.

The World Cup is also big business. FIFA predicted the competition might bring in a whopping US$30.5 billion in tourist dollars for the United States, Canada and Mexico—the three 2026 host countries. But all is not well with the beautiful game.

Amnesty International and more than 100 local human rights organizations have issued a travel warning for fans planning to visit the eleven U.S. cities that are hosting World Cup matches. According to figures obtained by Human Rights Watch, ICE arrested 167,000 people around the eleven cities from January 2025 to March 2026. Visitors are warned they may experience invasive searches of their phones at the border, “racial profiling,” and other egregious abuses that breach “the United States’ human rights obligations under domestic and international law.” Even before the first whistle is blown, Africa’s leading referee, Omar Artan from Somalia, was denied entry to the United States at Miami International Airport and will now miss the tournament.

Tourist arrivals in the U.S. were already down 5.4% last year, with a “Trump slump” now impacting the upcoming World Cup. According to a survey of more than 200 host city hotels conducted by the American Hotel and Lodging Association, “nearly 80% said hotel bookings are tracking below initial forecasts.” Some fans are having trouble securing a visa, but spiraling expenses and the threat of being deported for some nasty comment you made about Trump on Facebook are also disincentives.

At a massive “No Kings” protest in Brooklyn last October, I joined my fellow New Yorkers to march against this democratic backsliding in the United States. At least 6 million people protested nationally, with a quarter of million in New York, where I had been working for the past decade.

The day felt like a festival. One protester was blowing a vuvuzela, an annoyingly loud horn introduced to the global community at the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. Someone else was wearing an inflatable chicken suit and carrying a sign that said, “I’m more mature than the President.”

Despite the frivolity, President Trump had threatened to deploy the FBI against protesters, and his team denounced the No Kings movement as being manufactured by treasonous malcontents. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt blamed the Democratic Party and claimed, “its main constituency are made up of Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals.” The No King’s website, meanwhile, said that “in America, we don’t have kings and we won’t back down against chaos, corruption, and cruelty.” It felt like a clash was likely.

On the day, however, the most aggressive encounter I had was when someone thrust a small bright-yellow card into my hand. It boldly declared, “Know Your Rights,” and offered helpful text to recite if you were detained, including: “The U.S Constitution grants all people rights. I am proud to be exercising mine.” A QR code linked to relevant legal advice.

Those laws still stand between President Trump and the unconstrained power he covets. But given that Trump has now appointed 265 federal judges and three Supreme Court Justices, some legal safeguards appear precarious. Some U.S. federal agencies have already embraced Trump’s authoritarian tilt, with illegal deportations and the extrajudicial killing of two protesters on the streets of Minneapolis being the most disturbing examples of a corrosive trend.

The resulting gap between jurisprudence and justice can be deadly. As president of the U.S.-based Center for Victims of Torture (CVT) I had visited safe houses in the suburbs of Nairobi, Kenya, for LGBT+ refugees from African countries where same sex relationships were illegal. Article 27 of Kenya’s constitution guarantees freedom from discrimination, but on the streets of Nairobi, many refugees remained vulnerable.

A CVT colleague recently texted to inform me that a LGBT+ refugee from Somalia had been murdered. She was in Kenya awaiting legal resettlement to the United States but had been halted by Trump’s ban on refugee admissions. In Kenya, like any other country, the laws that secure people’s rights are only ever as strong as the willingness of police, courts, and parliaments to uphold them.

Only around a dozen countries in the world have comprehensive national human rights laws, enacted by parliament and grounded in international treaties and conventions. These include South Africa, India, Ireland, as well as Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Many other states—including Brazil, Japan, United States and Kenya—protect some fundamental rights and freedoms through their constitution or a bill of rights. Australia is the only major liberal democracy in the world without either a national human rights act or a bill of rights, although there is growing domestic pressure to rectify that perilous legal shortcoming.

The World Cup has already given a lot to global culture. Think not just of the insufferable vuvuzela, the embarrassing macarena and the irrepressible Mexican wave. Its deeper value might be in reminding us that in these times of creeping authoritarianism, all states should strengthen their human rights protections.

Simon Adams is Professor of Human Rights, Murdoch University, Australia

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau