Africa

Portion of the Jáltipan-Salina Cruz pipeline, which operates between the southeastern state of Veracruz and the southern region of Oaxaca. To meet its industrialization goals, Mexico would have to increase its reliance on fossil gas imported from the United States. Credit: Cenagás

By Emilio Godoy
MEXICO, Jan 31 2025 (IPS)

This January, Mexico has embarked on a new industrial path for the next six years, where the viability of its energy component faces fundamental challenges that put it at risk.

Energy scarcity is among the main obstacles faced by the economic program of President Claudia Sheinbaum, who has been in office since October.

Researcher Luca Ferrari from the Geosciences Center of the public National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) identified limited financial resources and energy supply as barriers to progress.

“There are budgetary and energy quantity constraints. Increased industrialization for export will run into energy shortages or very limited availability, due to necessary investments and where they will come from. We are in a very precarious energy situation because we are dependent on fossil fuels and are energy deficient,” he told IPS."These are isolated projects that may be interesting. They are a statement of intentions, but should be read in light of other public policy instruments, such as climate and transition, along with the need to align with a comprehensive energy policy": Carlos Asunsolo.

Launched on January 13 under the general title of the National Industrialization and Shared Prosperity Strategy, Plan Mexico (PM) consists of 10 objectives, 13 goals, 2,000 projects, and a total planned investment of US$277 billion, which would create 1.5 million new jobs in manufacturing and other sectors.

Among the plan’s investments, which are seen internally as a partial response to the arrival of ultra-conservative Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, is an investment by the state-owned Federal Electricity Commissionx (CFE) of US$23.4 billion.

Of this, US$12.3 billion will be allocated to generation, US$7.5 billion to transmission infrastructure, and US$3.6 billion to decentralized photovoltaic production in homes.

Additionally, the government is preparing rules for the private sector’s renewed participation in electricity generation, a modality suspended since 2018 to favor CFE and also the state-owned Mexican Petroleum (Pemex).

This return would include, among other measures, lower energy purchase costs for the electric monopoly and the use of storage batteries to maintain grid stability.

As a result, the plan would add 21,893 megawatts (MW) to the national energy matrix, aiming to reach a 37.8% of clean energy, up from the current 22.5%. By law, CFE controls 54% of the electricity market, with the rest being in private hands.

At least 17 transmission and distribution projects are under study for implementation at an undetermined time, but their development would be independent of the new PM, which does incorporate several projects already underway, as well as new ones.

With a current installed capacity of 89,000 MW, in 2024 approximately 63% of electricity generation depended on fossil gas, followed by conventional thermoelectricity (6.8%), hydroelectricity (5.9%), wind energy (5.8%), solar photovoltaic (5.2%), nuclear (3%), and geothermal (1%).

Renewable sources have an installed capacity of 33,517 MW but only contribute 22.5% of electricity.

In December 2023, during the annual climate summit in Dubai, Mexico joined the Global Commitment on Renewables and Energy Efficiency, which aims to triple alternative installed capacity and double the energy efficiency rate by 2030. Thus, the PM would fall short of the clean generation target.

The first phase of the Puerto Peñasco photovoltaic plant, with a capacity of 120 megawatts and located in the northern state of Sonora, has been operational since 2023. The Mexican government included the project in its multi-billion-dollar investment for the energy sector. Credit: Government of Mexico

Gasify, baby, gasify

Since December 2018, when Sheinbaum’s predecessor and mentor left-wing populist Andrés Manuel López Obrador took office as president, Mexico has pursued the so far unattained goal of energy sovereignty, one of whose effects has been the halt of the transition to less polluting fuels.

Sheinbaum’s new package of projects continues this model but also deviates from its extremes, in what seems like the resurrection of the much-needed energy transition, in a strategy marked by apparent contradictions.

For Carlos Asunsolo, manager of Research and Public Policy at the non-governmental Mexican Center for Environmental Law (Cemda), Plan Mexico lacks specific details, such as the pathways to achieve the goals.

“These are isolated projects that may be interesting. It is a statement of intentions, but it should be read in light of other public policy instruments, such as climate and transition, along with the need to align with a comprehensive energy policy,” he analyzed for IPS.

The expert cited concerns about project execution conditions, their type, human rights guarantees, and transparency.

One of the pillars of PM is promoting the relocation (nearshoring) of companies in sectors such as electronics, high technology, and the automotive industry. This is due to the alteration of global maritime transport routes, the repercussions of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and the trade dispute between the United States and China.

This section also needs energy and projects progress in the construction of 100 industrial parks, including 12 in the Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT), a megaproject already underway under the responsibility of the Ministry of the Navy.

This corridor in the southeast of the country is one of the three most important legacies of the current government, along with the Maya Train in the southeastern Yucatán Peninsula and the Olmeca refinery in the state of Tabasco, also in the southeast. All three are integrated into the new PM.

The CIIT involves the construction and modernization of three rail routes and three ports between the Pacific coast and the Atlantic Gulf of Mexico.

A lone solar panel powering a water well in the rural community of Tahdzui, in the southeastern Mexican state of Yucatán. The government of Claudia Sheinbaum has shown signs of reviving the clean energy transition, which had been suspended since 2018, including decentralized generation. Credit: Emilio Godoy / IPS

But these facilities, which seek regional development in the southeast and the substitution of imports from Asia, require lots of energy. Existing and planned renewable generation would not be enough in this area, which would lead Mexico to deepen its dependence on gas imported from the United States.

Since 2010, the northern neighbor has sent more than 18 billion cubic feet (ft3) of gas to Mexico via pipelines. In 2023, Mexico consumed 8.514 billion ft3 daily, of which it imported 6.141 billion from the United States, making it the supplier of 72% of all its gas.

Additionally, the López Obrador administration promoted the Sonora Sustainable Energy Plan, which includes photovoltaic energy, lithium exploitation, and electric vehicle manufacturing in the northern state of Sonora, and which is now incorporated into Sheinbaum’s PM.

One of its components is the Puerto Peñasco photovoltaic plant in Sonora, whose first phase of 120 MW has been operational since 2023. When completed in 2026, it will provide 1,000 MW, with a total investment of $1.6 billion.

For Ferrari, the UNAM researcher, the only possibility for more energy to sustain the business promise is gas.

“We are already in a ridiculously dependent situation. In the United States, production has stabilized over the past year, and it is likely to fall in the coming years. Gas delivery to Mexico is not guaranteed,” he predicted.

Meanwhile, specialist Asunsolo considers it essential to question for whom and for what more energy is being generated, the size of the projects, and the fueling of consumption, at a time when the climate crisis is tightening its grip on very vulnerable places like Mexico.

“There is a clear bet for CFE, through gas, and Pemex, through hydrocarbons, to be the main energy policy. We are only swapping one problem for another with the change of source. If it does not translate into a reduction of hydrocarbons, only generation capacity is increased. There is a confusing message,” emphasized the Cemda expert.

As it progresses, the PM will not only have to face energy obstacles, according to analysts, but will also have to navigate the growing water deficit.

Northern Mexico and parts of the center, south, and southeast were experiencing some degree of drought by January 15, raising questions about water availability for the large projects outlined in the new industrial plan.

 

The UN estimates another 2,800 were injured as M23 rebels captured the eastern city of Goma.

By CIVICUS
Jan 31 2025 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses activism against oil auctions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) with François Kamate, founder and coordinator of the young environmental volunteer movement Extinction Rebellion Rutshuru.

François Kamate

In October 2024, climate activists in the DRC won the suspension of a controversial oil and gas licence auction that threatened the Congo Basin rainforest and Virunga National Park, two carbon reservoirs that are vital for Africa. The civil society campaign exposed the environmental damage and social costs of oil extraction in these fragile ecosystems. Despite arrests and police violence, campaigners mobilised support through local actions, public protests, petitions and international partnerships. But the suspension is temporary and the government plans to resume auctions. In response, civil society has launched a new campaign, Our Oil-Free Earth.

What’s the current state of oil and gas exploitation in the DRC?

The DRC, a country with unique potential to respond to the global climate crisis, is paradoxically pursuing a policy of auctioning off its oil and gas. Companies such as Alfajiri Energy Corporation, Perenco, Production LLC, Red Winds Exploration and Symbion Power, in collaboration with the political and administrative authorities, have launched tenders to exploit 27 oil blocks and three gas blocks. These areas, which are vital for biodiversity, local communities and the global climate, are now threatened by these projects, which the authorities see as an economic opportunity.

These auctions continue despite the US$500 million agreement signed by the DRC at COP26 to halt deforestation in the Congo Basin. The example of Perenco, which has been exploiting resources in the Central Congo Province for 20 years, illustrates the disastrous consequences: further environmental degradation without any social benefits for local communities.

What would be the consequences of extraction in these ecosystems?

The consequences would be disastrous. In the short term, mining would destroy Upemba National Park, one of the country’s oldest, and Virunga National Park, Africa’s most biodiverse protected area, compromising their crucial role in regulating the global climate. The destruction of peatlands, which store immense amounts of carbon dioxide, would release massive quantities of greenhouse gases, exacerbating the climate crisis. Local communities would be exposed to an increase in respiratory diseases caused by air, soil and water pollution.

In the long term, mining would lead to land expropriation, the disruption of agricultural activities, increased insecurity for thousands of families and massive population displacement. It would also encourage the proliferation of armed groups in protected areas, exacerbating instability and encouraging corruption among the authorities.

What campaign tactics have been effective?

The most effective tactics have been those based on non-violent and peaceful action. We organised peaceful marches to mobilise people and draw attention to our cause. We organised sit-ins in strategic locations to keep the pressure on the authorities. We also used open letters to publicly question politicians and call for boycotts to target companies involved in oil and gas extraction. Public meetings helped raise awareness and mobilise local communities.

‘Dead city’ days – stay-at-home protests – were a symbolic but powerful form of protest, and door-to-door meetings with residents in affected areas strengthened our links with communities. Participatory forums and artistic activities such as musical performances were also essential in spreading our message.

How has the campaign influenced the debate on oil and gas extraction in the DRC?

The campaign has had a significant impact. It exposed the many irregularities in the process of putting oil and gas blocks up for sale. For example, there was a blatant contradiction between the minutes of the Council of Ministers, which announced 16 oil blocks, and the public statements of the Minister of Hydrocarbons, who spoke of 27 oil blocks and three gas blocks, revealing obvious corrupt practices.

Doubts have also been raised about the actual amount of oil available, calling into question the viability of these projects. The inexperience of some of the companies selected, such as Alfajiri, and disputes surrounding some of the blocks put up for sale have also been criticised.

What obstacles have you encountered?

First of all, the ongoing insecurity around some of the protected areas made it difficult to organise our activities. Threats from the authorities and armed groups present in parks such as Virunga were also a major obstacle.

The lack of resources to reach all the communities bordering the oil and gas blocks complicated our work. We also faced bans and repression of protests, intimidation, arrests of activists and interrogations.

To overcome these challenges, we implemented strategic communications, strengthened our international partnerships and adapted our approaches to local realities.

What’s your strategy for dealing with the possible relaunch of auctions?

We have launched a new campaign that will push for the definitive cancellation of the auctions and support for investment in clean and renewable energy. At the same time, we will be demanding that the DRC immediately withdraw from its bilateral agreement with Uganda on the exploitation of hydrocarbons from transboundary resources, given the disastrous impact of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline project on Ugandan people.

In order to achieve permanent cancellation, we need resources to invest in actions on the ground, expand our actions to other platforms, strengthen our links with other structures and organise coaching sessions and online or face-to-face mentoring to support activists in building sustainable social movements. We also need to participate in activist gatherings and international conferences to highlight auction issues and build global support for our cause.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Twitter

SEE ALSO
DRC: ‘Civil society action is needed more than ever, but the space in which it can undertake it is getting smaller’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Bahati Rubango 13.Apr.2024
DRC: ‘Civil society is targeted by politicians who see it as an obstacle to their power’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Jonathan Magoma 08.Feb.2024
DRC: ‘Defending the environment means becoming the target of politicians and businesspeople’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Guillaume Kalonji 02.Aug.2023

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• FEATURED TRANSLATION – FRENCH

By Felix Dodds
SAN FRANCISCO, California / APEX, North Carolina, Jan 31 2025 (IPS)

When it comes to climate change, the awful news has been coming thick and fast. We now know that in 2024, the Earth’s average temperature exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for the first time.

Extreme weather seems to be multiplying, with shocking fires in Los Angeles and storms striking Europe and America’s east coast since the start of the year. U.S. President Donald Trump has announced his country will turn its back on the ambitious Paris Agreement adopted in 2015.

Meanwhile, the United Nations’ latest annual summit—COP29 in Azerbaijan—ended in November with complaints it had done too little to change the narrative. Some even questioned whether the UN’s ongoing exertions were a waste of time, and whether annual global climate summits were still worth doing?

Are things really so bad? Let’s break down the news piece-by-piece and look at each issue in turn.

 

How bad is it that we have broken the 1.5C ceiling?

It’s pretty bad. It means we can expect extreme weather like heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, and flooding to increase in frequency and severity. It’s also going to affect food production, harm many plant and animal species, and risk sending the world over several “tipping points”, such as faster melting of ice in the Arctic, Antarctic, and elsewhere, causing sea-level rise. If you don’t like that our weather is getting more extreme, then sadly it’s too late. We’ll all have to get used to it, and adapt accordingly.

That said, it’s not all doom and gloom. There are some silver linings. First, the world has actually been doing a lot to fight back. Partly prompted by major international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, countries have been actively finding ways to reduce emissions, such as investing in green technologies and working on new policies that affect pretty much everything we do.

Whether it’s new energy efficiency programmes in our homes and offices, efforts to protect our forests, or the rise in hybrid and electric vehicles, a lot is happening. Perhaps the biggest transformation has been the growth of solar and wind power, which is now considerably cheaper and more efficient that earlier sources of electricity like coal or natural gas. The pay-off is clear, with countries like the UK, Sweden, and Denmark already cutting their greenhouse gas emissions in half since the 1990s.

Another silver lining of our efforts to cut emissions is expert projections for temperature rise in the longer term. Before the Paris Agreement, some were predicting temperatures to go up by 4-6C by 2100, which would be catastrophic for humanity and the planet; an extinction event for modern civilization. Now, the estimates sit around 2-2.8C, depending on whether countries honour the goals they’ve set themselves. These numbers are still bad, but nowhere near as terrifying as they were.

So yes, 1.5 is bad and we will need to redouble our efforts to make sure it doesn’t get much worse. But we shouldn’t give up hope just yet.

 

What does President Trump’s decision to leave the Paris Agreement mean?

No one can deny that U.S. leadership greatly helps our global efforts to combat climate change.

Still, there are several reasons why we shouldn’t panic. First, as mentioned above, the world is already on a long-term path to cut emissions. The new U.S. administration may wish to “drill, baby, drill,” but renewables will continue to rise. Why? Because they’re cheaper than the alternatives. As an experienced business leader, President Trump knows as well as anyone that companies are motivated by profits. They will look for the most cost-effective energy option. In many cases, this will mean renewable energy.

Secondly, even if the U.S. does leave Paris and change its domestic policies, there is an inertia in systems. The outgoing Biden administration, which had pledged $3 billion for the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF), has already handed over $2 billion. They’ve also spent much larger amounts on supporting the U.S. transition to a green economy. This is money the new President will not be able to take back. Plus, a country as big and powerful as America can’t turn its entire economy around overnight. For instance, during President Trump’s first term, emissions in the U.S. continued to fall, even if he himself did not support this.

Thirdly, even American presidents aren’t all powerful. There are many other interests and alternative viewpoints in the U.S. Others who might disagree with President Trump will likely step up and try to fill the gap. For instance, business leader Michael Bloomberg has just announced that he will help cover U.S. financial obligations to the UN and its climate work. There is precedent for this, too. Back in the 2000s, a lot of progress was made on climate change at the state and city level throughout the U.S., even though President George W. Bush generally didn’t support it.

Finally, there has been a shift in the centre of gravity when it comes to climate change. The U.S. remains important, but on climate change it matters less than it once did. Under Presidents Obama, Biden, and Trump himself, U.S. emissions have fallen. They now represent about 11% of the global total, down from 30% in 1970. These days, U.S. emissions are dwarfed by the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). These are the countries whose leadership will be needed in the decade to come.

 

There are signs that big corporate players are also turning away from their climate pledges. For instance, Blackrock just left the Net Zero Asset Managers coalition. What does this mean?

The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) was announced at COP26 in 2021. It brings together corporate leaders from the financial services sector to support the transition to an ambitious “net-zero” emissions economy. However, after the recent U.S. election, some big U.S. banks left the Net Zero Banking Alliance, which is part of GFANZ. Now, Blackrock has left a similar coalition for asset managers; which is also a part of GFANZ.

This is not good news. It probably marks a symbolic victory for politicians who had been pressuring big corporate interests to step back from their climate pledges. In some ways, it mirrors the recent abandonment by several big American companies of their DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programmes.

At this stage, it is hard to know how much of a genuine impact this will have. For every company trying to appease the Trump administration by backtracking, it is likely there will also be those—like insurance companies—whose profits are being so badly impacted by climate change that they will be unlikely to change their positions.

 

The latest UN climate summit brought no major breakthroughs but it did achieve some modest successes. Credit: Shutterstock.

 

Was COP29 really a failure?

No. Although the latest annual UN climate summit didn’t result in any big breakthroughs, it did achieve some modest successes. For instance, wealthy industrialized nations agreed to increase annual funding for developing countries from US$100 billion to US$300 billion annually by 2030. This is far less than the US$1.3 trillion many experts believe is needed to combat climate change, though that number was included as a goal for 2035. Although US$300 billion is an improvement on the previous amount, it’s not what developing countries were hoping for, which was closer to $500 billion by 2030.

Other outcomes from COP29 include agreement on standards for carbon markets, which means carbon trading is likely to increase and new finances might flow to the Global South. What’s more, several countries announced that they would strengthen their pledges—known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—under the Paris Agreement. These included Azerbaijan, Brazil, the UK, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Shouldn’t COP29 have done a lot more, given the urgency of the climate crisis? As we have noted in an earlier article for IPS (“Are Climate Summits a Waste of Time?”), the UN climate process is designed to help us make incremental progress, year after year, decade after decade.

And it has. It may seem like the pace of change is too slow—and it often is—but the UN has kept the ball moving over many, many years, and can take credit for helping us forward much more than we realize.

 

Isn’t Azerbaijan an oil producer? Why hold meetings on climate change in fossil fuel states?

Yes, it is. In fact, many countries that have hosted the annual UN climate summit in the past have also been fossil fuel states. These include the UAE, UK, Poland, South Africa, India, and Indonesia. In fact, Poland (a major coal producer), has hosted the climate COPs three times!

Why is this? The hosting of the COPs is decided by the relevant regional groupings of the UN. So, each region gets its turn every few years to decide who hosts.

The fact is, many countries produce fossil fuels, and often these are the ones with the financial and organizational capacity to host large events like a UN summit. As we have argued in the past (“Global Cooperation on Climate Change: What Have We Achieved and What Needs to Happen Next?”), we believe hosts should be judged not on their fossil fuel status, but on whether the annual COP they host is a success.

If we judge the hosts by what the UN summits achieve, then fossil fuel countries have a mixed record. COP29 was not a breakout success, but the recent COPs in Egypt and the UAE achieved a surprising breakthrough, with agreement on a loss and damage fund. Also, some of these fossil fuel producers are slowly transitioning their economies away from selling oil, coal and gas. Azerbaijan, for instance, is promoting its tourism sector.

 

Are UN climate COPs still worth holding? Do they need to change?

As mentioned above, we believe UN climate summits are worth it, as they have helped the world make significant progress over the past thirty years. That said, some people think the COPs need to change how they operate. For instance, there were 65,000 people at COP29, but only a few thousand were actually involved in the UN negotiations. Isn’t this a sign something needs to be done differently?

We think the critics miss the point. While it’s true that the UN climate COPs have become large and unwieldy, they also serve many purposes. First, the world pays attention to these mega-events, which ratchet up the political pressure. Prime ministers, presidents, and other world leaders often attend, knowing the eyes of the world are on them. This, too, raises expectations and sometimes leads to better outcomes.

Not only that, but the COPs are often teeming with other folks from every sector and country, all eager to talk about what they are doing, listen to others, and build networks, coalitions, and alliances. Sometimes, these lead to powerful “coalitions of the willing”. The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) mentioned earlier is an example of this, as is the Global Methane Pledge, a coalition uniting 159 participating countries (and the European Commission) in pursuit of a goal to cut methane emissions 30 percent below 2020 levels by 2030.

On other occasions, participants can generate new ideas that eventually end up in the formal UN negotiations. Recent examples include discussions on agriculture and water management. Currently, it appears as if climate change in the context of oceans and human health may soon be added to the formal discussions.

Of course, the climate COPs could certainly be improved. For instance, the number of formal agenda items could be reduced, since the negotiations are now very complex. However, the UN COPs continue to serve an important function and should, in our opinion, include a wide range of stakeholders.

 

Moisés Savian, Brazil’s Secretary of Land Governance, Territorial and Socio Environmental Development at COP29. He looks forward to COP30 which will be held in his country. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS

 

The next COP is taking place in Belém, Brazil in November 2025. What’s on the agenda, and what needs to happen before then?

The road to COP30 in Brazil lies through Bonn, Germany, which is the location for the annual preparatory meeting each June. UN climate watchers will be paying close attention to the two-week session in Bonn to see if we are on track to make any breakthroughs in Brazil.

The key issues where observers would like to see progress at COP30 include:

1. More countries coming to the table with ambitious pledges in the form of stronger NDCs;
2. Evidence that more funding is being mobilized to fight climate change, especially for the Global South;
3. Proof that countries are keeping their current promises under the Paris Agreement, or that they are at least taking steps to close any gaps;
4. Progress on using Nature-Based Solutions like forest restoration and sustainable land management; and,
5. Stronger private sector engagement, including avoiding any backsliding from major companies, and in particular from the financial sector.

We would also like to see evidence at COP30 that the recently-created Loss and Damage Fund is starting to have an impact, and that the role of oceans in climate change mitigation and adaptation is being taken more seriously.

 

Even though the situation is bad, is there still hope?

Yes. Despite the recent bad news, we remain optimistic. History shows we have made positive strides already. We are convinced now is the time to double down on global, collaborative efforts to combat climate change, and that the UN COPs provide important, regular milestones to meet, review our progress, and strengthen our pledges.

One piece of good news lost among all the big, bad headlines relates to the leadership at COP30. Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago has been chosen as president of COP30. He played a significant role in the Rio+20 negotiations and has been one of Brazil’s top civil servants for many years. His expertise when it comes to climate change and COPs is impressive. The appointment of such a consummate professional is a positive sign of how seriously the Brazilian government is taking its responsibilities as the COP30 host.

 

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

Cycling's world governing body says it has no plans to move the 2025 Road World Championships away from Rwanda despite ongoing conflict in DR Congo.

Cycling's world governing body says it has no plans to move the 2025 Road World Championships away from Rwanda despite ongoing conflict in DR Congo.

The commodities giant went on trial in Switzerland over attempts to gain access to Angola's oil market.

The commodities giant went on trial in Switzerland over attempts to gain access to Angola's oil market.

Ghana's MPs destroyed parliamentary property, including tables, microphones, sound equipment, and other items.

Days of heavy fighting between M23 rebels and DR Congo's army leave hospitals overwhelmed with patients.

Days of heavy fighting between M23 rebels and DR Congo's army leave hospitals overwhelmed with patients.

The United Nations declared 2025 as the International Year of Glaciers’ Preservation to promote awareness about the role of glaciers, snow and ice. The climate system and global hydrological cycle are dependent on accumulated water in solid form as glaciers, snow and ice. Because of the global temperature rise and its impact on the Earth’s […]

Police were called to the scene as the lawmakers tussled with each other and damaged property.

A Rwandan spokesperson denies the charges, saying it is trying to prevent the conflict spilling over.

Rwanda and South Africa are launching rival bids to bring F1 racing back to Africa for the first time since 1993.

Sigrid Kaag, Senior Humanitarian and Reconstruction Coordinator for Gaza, briefs the Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question. Credit: UN Photo

By Dawn Clancy
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 31 2025 (IPS)

Before the three-phased ceasefire deal—proposed by President Joe Biden and dragged over the finish line by the then-incoming Donald Trump administration—silenced the bombs and drones over Gaza and allowed for humanitarian aid to flow into the strip, there was United Nations Security Council Resolution 2720.

Adopted on December 22, 2023, and tabled by the United Arab Emirates, the resolution was created to streamline and accelerate the delivery and distribution of much-needed humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza. However, critics of the resolution say that a lack of political will and cooperation from the Israeli government and COGAT, the aid coordination arm of Israel’s military—identified by UN bodies and aid organizations on the ground in Gaza as the primary obstruction to aid delivery and distribution—paralyzed the implementation of the resolution’s mandate, unnecessarily prolonging the suffering of Palestinian civilians in the battered and bloodied enclave.

COGAT did not respond to a request for comment.

The resolution also tasked Secretary-General António Guterres to appoint a senior humanitarian and reconstruction coordinator to expedite the mandate and to “establish a UN mechanism for accelerating the provision of humanitarian relief.” For that role, he chose Sigrid Kaag of the Netherlands. She officially started the job on January 8, 2024.

“There are thousands of trucks [with humanitarian aid] trying and failing” to enter Gaza, said Lana Nusseibeh, the UAE’s ambassador to the UN, in her remarks to the Council before the vote in December 2023. “Unless we take drastic action, there will be famine in Gaza.” The situation for Palestinians, she added, is “desperate” and “unbearable.”

In the name of self-defense and security, Israeli Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Jonathan Miller, told Council members after resolution 2720 was adopted that Israel “will not change” its approach to the delivery and distribution of aid. In stark contrast to Nusseibeh’s warning of a looming famine in the strip, Miller said, “Hundreds of truckloads of aid enter Gaza every day… the only roadblock for aid entry is the UN’s ability to accept them.”

But Kaag chipped away at Miller’s claim in her first public briefing to the Security Council on April 24, 2024—her first official briefing was a closed session with Security Council members on January 30, 2024—which followed an Israeli airstrike on a World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid convoy in Gaza that killed seven aid workers on April 1.

Notably, before the WCK strike, leadership at the highest levels of the UN recognized the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza. Secretary-General Guterres described the humanitarian situation as “appalling.” And Martin Griffiths, the former UN relief chief, told the Security Council that “providing humanitarian assistance across Gaza is almost impossible.”

Jeremy Konyndyk, the president of Refugees International, in a televised interview, called out Israel for “actively blocking humanitarian groups” from getting into northern and southern Gaza. “What we need to see is the opening of border crossings,” said Konyndyk. “We need to see Israel doing much more to facilitate humanitarian action.”

Meanwhile, the “tragic” and unintentional WCK military strike—as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described it in a video statement—drew heaps of condemnation and criticism from the international community, prompting Netanyahu, after a call with Biden, to make commitments to improve Israel’s approach to humanitarian aid in Gaza, which Kaag noted in her remarks on April 24. Some of these steps included an increase in the volume of aid crossing into Gaza, the temporary opening of the Erez crossing and the opening of Ashdod port for humanitarian goods.

“There’s still a lot of work to be done,” Kaag told reporters after the council meeting. She added that her mandate “requires the full cooperation of the Israeli authorities.”

However, three months after the WCK military strike, on July 29, 2024, while briefing reporters at UN headquarters in New York from Amman, Jordan, Kaag, who had just returned from a trip to Gaza, described the situation as “absolutely catastrophic” and the level of destruction as “almost incomprehensible.” When Kaag returned to New York to brief the Council on September 16, her assessment grew darker.

“Effective humanitarian operations require the right quality, quantity and a broad range of goods to meet the daily needs of civilians in Gaza. That goal is not being met.” She added that the breakdown of law and order and looting of supplies “are additional significant impediments to the UN operations in Gaza. “The operating conditions for humanitarian workers include denials, delays, a lack of safety and security and poor logistical infrastructure. This continues to hamper relief operations,” she said.

Contrary to Kaag’s briefing, Danny Danon, Israeli Ambassador to the UN, in his remarks to the council, described Israel’s humanitarian efforts as “unparalleled” for a country that was forced to go to war.

“We have gone above and beyond our obligations, aiming to improve the well-being of a civilian population embedded within the enemy,” he said. Less than a month later, on October 6, 2024, the Israeli military laid siege to north Gaza, complicating Resolution 2720’s mandate by prohibiting aid deliveries, including food and other essential supplies and trapping upwards of 65,000 Palestinians.

“We have been collectively killing ourselves to establish systems, negotiate, to get dual-use items in, to assist children that are deaf, to get their hearing aids… we’ve established the systems, the teams, the mechanism, the database, we’ve organized the suppliers,” Kaag told reporters in New York on December 10, 2024. “But there’s no substitute for political will. You can’t “ask humanitarians to do more.”

On January 17, 2025, the UN’s press office announced the temporary appointment of Kaag as special coordinator for the Middle East peace process. According to the statement, her new role “will be concurrent” with her present mandate as Gaza’s senior humanitarian and reconstruction coordinator.

Notably, as Kaag worked to implement her mandate to increase and streamline aid into the Gaza Strip, the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—the judicial body of the United Nations—ordered Israel on January 26, 2024, to take steps to prevent genocide in Gaza, including taking all measures within its power to provide adequate access to food, water, fuel, shelter and medical supplies to civilians in Gaza. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) issued reports of imminent famine in Gaza. Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report that detailed how Israeli authorities have “deliberately obstructed Palestinians’ access to the adequate amount of water required for survival.”

Amnesty International published a report on December 5, 2024, concluding that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza by “failing to facilitate meaningful access within Gaza so others, particularly humanitarian organizations, could deliver essential services and life-saving supplies.” And on November 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and the “war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.”

Additionally, a recent ProPublica investigation revealed that two humanitarian agencies within the US government had concluded last spring that “Israel had deliberately blocked deliveries of food and medicine into Gaza.” The investigation claims that former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken rejected the agency’s findings.

Despite multiple attempts by IPS to interview a variety of humanitarian aid organizations on the implementation of resolution 2720 and its impact on the ground in Gaza—including whether Kaag has effectively executed her ongoing mandate and whether Israel played a primarily obstructive role in the process—some, due to the issue’s sensitivity, declined to speak on the record.

A spokesperson for Islamic Relief did, however, provide IPS with an email statement.

“UN resolution 2720 did not deliver on its mandate to get more humanitarian aid to people in Gaza. It should have led to a massive surge in aid, but instead the amount of aid getting into Gaza decreased even further. Israel has continued to use starvation and denial of aid as a weapon of war, violating international law and UN resolutions with complete impunity.”

A series of humanitarian access snapshot reports published by a group of international humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza also provides insight into the challenges aid workers face despite what Security Council Resolution 2020 has tried to accomplish. These include, according to available snapshots, denials and delays in the delivery of food, medical and building supplies, forced displacement of humanitarian staff and multiple incidents of the Israeli military targeting areas close to aid distribution sites.

After 15 months of war, President Biden, alongside the Trump administration, announced a three-phased ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, the armed group that attacked Israel on October 7, 2023. The deal’s first phase, which began on January 19, called for a surge in humanitarian aid to Gaza.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has reported that through “interactions with the Israeli authorities and the guarantors for the ceasefire deal,” 915 aid trucks crossed into the Gaza Strip on Monday, January 20, and 897 entered on Tuesday. OCHA estimates that a daily average of 76 trucks carrying humanitarian aid entered Gaza in December 2024. Currently, the flow of aid into Gaza and other critical supplies continues as the ceasefire appears to be holding. It updates humanitarian aid daily.

Still, the uptick in trucks entering Gaza, notably more than the 600 a day stipulated in the ceasefire agreement, has some wondering why aid has been so severely obstructed for the last 15 months.

“You can make the argument that it was more difficult to deliver supplies during Israel’s military campaign than it is during a ceasefire,” said Mouin Rabbani, a nonresident fellow at the Center for Conflict and Humanitarian Studies. However, he added that the sudden surge in aid “shows that there was a decision, a policy to starve the Gaza Strip.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Seeds of Resilience Despite Massive Destruction in Gaza
• Will the UN’s Pact of The Future Modernize the World’s Outdated Multilateral Systems?

By External Source
Jan 31 2025 (IPS-Partners)

 
George the Pinta Island tortoise and Martha the passenger pigeon achieved fame as ‘endlings’ – the last individuals of their species. Their passing is tragic, but can their fate perhaps help us to protect other threatened species?

In this final episode of Season 4, Brit interviews Dr. Alexander Lees, from Manchester University in the UK, who has been working on Amazonian conservation issues for more than 20 years and has a particular interest in birdlife. Brit also hears from Joanna Lilley, a poet who uses verse to capture the beauty and tragedy of endlings.

To find out more about IPBES, head to www.ipbes.net or follow us on social media @IPBES.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

By Jan Lundius
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Jan 31 2025 (IPS)

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO) – a move experts say makes the U.S. and other countries less safe from infectious diseases and other public-health threats. It might thus be opportune to return to the global COVID 19 pandemic. Has the threat really gone away? Can something similar not erupt again?

Around the world, numerous scientific institutions store and experiment with deadly microbes and viruses. This is done for the benefit of humanity, but it might also have more macabre aspects. It has happened that deadly material leaked from laboratories; perhaps not too often, but the risk is always there. On 2 April, 1979, the city of Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinburg), at the time with a population of over a million, was struck by an accidental release of anthrax bacteria, which officially killed at least 68 people (as in similar cases, this figure is likely to be a low estimate). Nevertheless, Soviet/Russian research on the development of chemical and biological weapons continued and, evidently, still does. The use of the radioactive nerve agent Novichok has drawn significant attention. Developed between 1971 and 1993, Novichok has reportedly been used on several occasions to poison and kill Russian dissidents.

A great amount of material from the infamous Japanese Unit 731 was after World War II brought to both the Soviet Union and the U.S. In the USSR it became the basis for the development of the Sverdlovsk facilities and in the U.S. it were brought to the Army Biological Warfare Laboratories at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland, where it, just as in the USSR, were further developed. Strangely enough, the facilities at Fort Detrick were shut down in August 2019, only three months before the first cases of SARS-CoV-2 were reported from China. The reason for the closure was cited as “a risk of severe threats to public, animal, or plant health, as well as animal or plant products.” No further details were provided.

Unit 731 was a secret biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army, where horrific human experimentation occurred – no one survived these experiments, which nevertheless was meticulously recorded by the researchers who performed them, leaving behind a vast documentation. Between 1936 and 1945, approximately 14,000 victims were murdered in Unit 731, established in occupied Manchuria, while at least 300,000 individuals died due to infectious illnesses originating from Unit 731 and spread across China.

So, what is currently happening within intensely guarded and well protected microbiological facilities around the world? First and foremost, vaccines and drugs are being developed to eradicate and cure a variety of often life-threatening diseases. However, like all research, this can also have its downsides. Ron Fouchier is known for his research on respiratory viruses; how they can mutate, and through zoonosis spread from animals to humans. His research is also evidence of how viruses and microbes can be manipulated and altered within a laboratory environment. In 2003, at the annual meeting of the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza, assembled microbiologists listened as Fouchier described how he had transferred avian (bird) influenza from one animal to another, thus making the virus significantly more contagious.

He mutated the genetic sequence of the avian virus in many different ways, until, as he later put it, “someone convinced me to do something really, really stupid.” He spread the virus by allowing it to mutate in the nose of a ferret and then implanted the animal’s nasal fluid into the nose of another ferret. After ten such manipulations, from one ferret to another, the virus spread by itself among the animals and within a few days killed most of them. Fouchier found five new mutations of the virus and then managed to combine them into a single super-virus, turning out to be far more deadly than the original avian virus. He had thus achieved something that could probably happen in nature, where a virus mutates when transferred from one animal to another and thus become increasingly deadly. What happens in nature can be done much faster and more efficiently in a laboratory. Fouchier’s virus is now securely stored in an underground facility in Rotterdam.

China is the country that so far suffered the most from biological warfare. When Unit 731 had been destroyed and some of its researchers captured by Russians and Americans, the Chinese might not have had much interest, or time, to focus on the scientific results of the Japanese Biological – and Chemical warfare programmes. The country was torn apart by violent fighting between Chiang Kai-shek’s republican forces and Mao Zedong’s communists. However, there were branches of Unit 731 in Chinese-controlled areas. Unit 731’s largest auxiliary facilities had been established in Beijing, Nanjing, and Guangzhou, and it is likely that Chinese forces succeeded in securing some of the material from these installations

After the war and the Communists’ victory, the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ facilities in Beijing became the centre for the country’s microbiological research and branches were soon established throughout China. Wuhan’s microbiological laboratory was founded in 1956 and initially focused on research concerning zoonotic transmission of viral diseases.

The so-called Hong Kong flu struck China in the summer of 1968 and spread to Hong Kong, where half a million people fell ill, and after the disease had spread worldwide more than a million people died. This served as a warning for the Chinese authorities, who, despite the general chaos reigning in the country, discreetly began cooperating with international epidemiologists. This cooperation deepened over the years. Wuhan’s laboratory developed an intimate collaboration and exchange with researchers from Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas, Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory, and Centre international de recherche en infectiologie in Lyon, France.

The SARS virus, a group to which the deadly coronavirus belongs, first appeared in November 2002, causing a relatively mild epidemic, with about 8,500 cases, of which 800 died. It was a group of researchers from Wuhan’s Institute of Virology who found that China’s horseshoe bats were natural reservoirs for the SARS-like coronavirus. Wuhan’s researchers collected samples from thousands of horseshoe bats across China and isolated over 300 bat coronavirus sequences. In 2015, an international team, including two researchers from the Wuhan Institute, published their research results concerning the probability that a bat’s coronavirus could infect a human cell line. They had constructed a hybrid virus by combining a bat coronavirus with a SARS virus, which was then adapted to grow in mice and subsequently replicate human diseases. It was found that this hybrid virus could infect human cells.

We are still stuck with the question – where did SARS-CoV-2 originate? Can it be traced all the way back to Unit 731? Probably not. Did it come from a bat? It is very possible. Did it leak from Wuhan’s Institute of Virology? This continues to be an open question. The prestigious British scientific weekly journal Nature, stated in 4 December 2024 that most researchers now agree that SARS-CoV-2 finds its origins in animals. However, since the virus’ definitive origin has not yet been traced to any animal, some researchers continue to claim that the virus may have been developed in and then leaked – either by accident or intentionally – from Wuhan’s Institute of Virology.

In August of the same year, an editorial in the equally prestigious British medical journal The Lancet did in its monthly issue Lancet Microbe call for an end to all unscientific conspiracy theories about the virus leaking from Wuhan’s research laboratory, stating that “SARS-CoV-2 is a natural virus that found its way into humans through mundane contact with infected wildlife that went on to cause the most consequential pandemic for over a century. While it is scholarly to entertain alternative hypotheses, particularly when evidence is scarce, alternative hypotheses have been implausible for a long time and have only become more-so with increasing scrutiny. Those who eagerly peddle suggestions of laboratory involvement have consistently failed to present credible arguments to support their positions.”

The Lancet’s editorial writer continued to state that zealous attacks from amateurs might intimidate and even scare scientists, who are trying to objectively pursue their research.

“A worrying potential consequence of this saga is that it might have a chilling effect on the pursuit of answers in the future on both COVID-19 and new potential threats. With researchers unwilling to ask questions freely for fear of being persecuted when facts lead to inevitable refinement or revision of earlier conclusions.”

Accordingly, we have to let science continue to work undisturbed, though under supervision. However, this does not mean that we have to yield to unfounded conspiracy theories and leave global scientific cooperation. By leaving WHO, the U.S. is taking a first step on a dangerous road. This becomes even more worrisome while considering President Trump’s decision to nominate Robert F Kennedy Jr, a man without medical expertise and prone to believe in conspiracy theories, to become U.S. health secretary, overseeing everything from medical research to food safety and public welfare programmes. One of the mandates Trump will provide Kennedy with is to remove “corruption” from health agencies, whatever he might mean by that?

Main sources: Harris, Sheldon H. (2002) Factories of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare 1932-1945, and The American Cover-up. New York: Routledge, and Specter, Michael (2012) “The deadliest Virus”, The New Yorker, March 4.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

A selection of the week's best photos from across the African continent and beyond.

A selection of the week's best photos from across the African continent and beyond.