Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

Nigerians at a newspaper stand with headlines reflecting the Trump versus Nigeria saga. Credit: Promise Eze/IPS

By Promise Eze
ABUJA, Nigeria, Nov 26 2025 (IPS)

Diplomatic relations between Nigeria and the US have continued to sour after US President Donald Trump threatened ‘military’ intervention over what some American lawmakers have called  “Christian genocide” in Africa’s most populous country.

In a series of posts on his social media platform on October 31, Trump accused the Nigerian government of ignoring the killing of Christians by “radical Islamists.” He warned that Washington would suspend all aid to Nigeria and would go into the “disgraced” country “guns-a-blazing” if Abuja failed to respond.

“Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians are being killed. Radical Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter,” Trump wrote.

He went on to declare Nigeria a “country of particular concern” for alleged violations of religious freedom, instructing the US Department of War to prepare for “possible action” and warning that any strike would be “fast, vicious, and sweet.”

Trump’s remarks follow years of lobbying by American evangelical groups and conservative lawmakers who accuse the Nigerian government of complicity in attacks on Christians in the country.

This is not the first time Trump has accused an African country of genocide. Earlier this year, he claimed that South Africa was committing genocide against white farmers.

Recently, the US stayed away from the G20 summit in South Africa, apparently because of these widely disputed claims that white people are being targeted in the country.

Disputed Narratives

According to an organization that claims to track persecuted Christians, Open Doors International, Nigeria remains one of the world’s most dangerous places to be a Christian, ranking seventh on its 2025 World Watch List of nations where believers face the most persecution.

A report by the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law estimated that jihadist groups killed more than 7,000 Christians and abducted 7,800 others in 2025 alone. The organization asserts that since 2009, they have killed over 125,000 Christians, destroyed 19,000 churches, and displaced more than 1,100 communities.

Open Doors’ data suggests that Christians in northern Nigeria are 6.5 times more likely to be killed and five times more likely to be abducted than Muslims.

However, the Nigerian authorities have rejected claims of a state-sponsored Christian genocide, insisting that both Christians and Muslims suffer from extremist violence.

Analysts caution that portraying Nigeria’s insecurity as purely religious oversimplifies a crisis rooted in political and economic failure.

With its 230 million citizens divided almost evenly between Christians and Muslims, the country faces multiple overlapping threats, from Boko Haram’s Islamist insurgency and farmer-herder conflicts to ethnic rivalries and separatist agitations in the southeast.

While Christians are among those targeted, researchers note that many victims of armed groups are Muslims living in Nigeria’s predominantly Muslim north, where most attacks are not driven solely by religion.

Data from the US-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) show that between January 2020 and September 2025, 20,409 civilians were killed in 11,862 attacks across Nigeria. Of these, only 385 incidents were explicitly linked to victims’ Christian identity, resulting in 317 deaths, while 196 attacks targeted Muslims, leaving 417 dead.

“Trump’s comment has certainly drawn global attention to the problem of insecurity in Nigeria, but it also raises questions about foreign influence and national sovereignty,” said Oludare Ogunlana, Professor of National Security at Collin College in Texas. “What I’ve observed is that many who present themselves as experts on African or global security often lack a nuanced understanding of Nigeria’s realities.”

He described Trump’s claims as misguided, stressing that Nigeria’s insecurity is multifaceted and should not be given a religious coloring.

“If you examine the situation closely, it is not a religious war. It reflects systemic governance failures, economic inequality, and weak law enforcement,” he said. “Citizens of all faiths—Christians, Muslims, atheists, and traditional believers—have suffered from kidnapping, organized crime, and other forms of violence. These criminal activities emerge from disparities in wealth and control over resources, resulting in loss of life across communities.”

Religious Tensions

Trump’s remarks have already inflamed tensions at home and analysts have cautioned that framing Nigeria’s insecurity as a religious conflict risks deepening divisions.

Several Muslim groups have condemned Trump’s comments as an attack on Islam and an attempt to demonize Nigeria’s Muslim population. They argue that Trump, who has long enjoyed support from evangelical Christians, is ill-suited to address the complexities of Nigeria’s Muslim-majority north.

Days after Trump’s comments, members of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria marched through Kano to protest the threat of US military action. Chanting “Death to America” and burning the US flag, demonstrators carried placards reading “There is no Christian genocide in Nigeria” and “America wants to control our resources.”

Northern states like Kano have a long history of bloody religious riots, and observers warn that renewed rhetoric could deepen sectarian divides in a region where relations between the two faiths remain fragile.

Christian and non-Muslim groups, on the other hand, maintain that persecution is real. They cite reports noting that more than 300 Nigerians have been killed over alleged blasphemy since 1999, with few perpetrators prosecuted. They call out government officials who support religious extremism and enforce shariah law on non-Muslims.

“It is an honor to be called an Islamic extremist,” wrote Bashir Ahmad, a former aide to ex-President Muhammadu Buhari, in a since-deleted post on X. Ahmad has previously called for the death penalty for blasphemy.

Deborah Eli Yusuf, a peace advocate with Jugaad Foundation for Peace and Nation Building, expressed concern that ongoing arguments could spill into real-world violence, making tensions difficult to contain.

She told IPS that the government should collaborate with stakeholders to maintain peace.

“This is an opportunity for the government to take the lead in facilitating honest interfaith conversations and dialogues that can lead to mutually agreeable resolutions. The government is best positioned to organize discussions that bring together critical stakeholders, including both religious and traditional leaders.

“Many of these conflicts also intersect with ethnic divisions, which further complicate the situation. The conversations happening now present a chance to address these divides. If left unchecked, rising tensions could deepen fragmentation in a country already divided along tribal, ethnic, and class lines,” she said.

Abba Yakubu Yusuf, Coordinator of the Reves Africa Foundation, believes that while Nigeria faces various forms of violent conflict orchestrated by multiple armed groups, it is misleading for the government to deny that Christians are being specifically targeted by some for their faith. He argues that acknowledging this reality is the first step toward finding solutions.

“Since as far back as 2009, the killings in southern Kaduna, Plateau, Benue, and parts of Kano states have been largely religiously motivated,” he claimed. “There was a massacre in Plateau state that saw an entire village wiped out with no survivors. In the northeast, while attacks target Muslims, there are exceptions. In southern Borno, for example, a largely Christian population has suffered the most. Overall, I would say there is a genocide occurring in Nigeria, and we should not lie to ourselves.”

Yusuf warned that continued denial by the government of systematic attacks on Christians, without addressing the root causes, could have serious consequences for the country’s economy.

“We need investors to come to our country, but they are hesitant. This creates a climate of fear and threatens economic growth,” he said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

A plenary session during the Global Development Conference by the Global Development Network (GDN) in Clermont-Ferrand, France, on October 28. Credit: Athar Parvaiz/IPS

By Athar Parvaiz
CLERMONT-FERRAND, France, Nov 26 2025 (IPS)

Weeks after an international conference on inclusive and people-centric digital transformation organized by the Global Development Network (GDN) here, a new narrative is unfolding about the need for digital innovations to serve people first and narrow inequalities rather than widening them.

Earlier this week, amidst a landmark G20 Summit on African soil, world leaders converged on digital innovations as a force for inclusive growth, urging ethical Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance to bridge global divides. Despite the absence of the U.S. the declaration recommitted to “responsible artificial intelligence innovation,” open-source ecosystems, and AI readiness for developing nations.

In the AI focused session, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi called for a digital “technology that is human-centric, global and open-source instead of merely finance-centric, national, and exclusive.” He proposed a Global AI Compact emphasizing transparency, human oversight, and safeguards against misuse, announcing India’s AI Impact Summit in February 2026, themed Sarvajanam Hitaya, Sarvajanam Sukhaya (or Welfare for All).

Host President Cyril Ramaphosa from South Africa highlighted AI’s role in Africa’s industrialization, endorsing the “AI for Africa” initiative to implement the African Union’s AI Strategy and a Technology Policy Assistance Facility for national policies.

Indonesia’s Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka warned, “We cannot let AI create new inequalities where benefits are captured by a handful of people or companies,” advocating fair partnerships to avoid past industrial imbalances.

UAE’s Saeed Bin Mubarak Al Hajeri unveiled a USD 1 billion “AI for Development Initiative” for African AI in education, healthcare, and climate, stating it would “bridge gaps and ensure technology serves the continent’s needs.” Canadian PM Mark Carney said that the “world can move on without the United States,” noting participants represent three-quarters of the global population and GDP for legitimate AI consensus.

Australian PM Anthony Albanese echoed calls for ethical AI to foster skills for one million Africans, while the IMF’s Kristalina Georgieva urged policies for AI readiness.

“Skills development, enabling infrastructure… and taxation that favors innovation without favoring machines over people,” Georgieva said.

These voices lend much-required support to efforts being made by organizations such as the Global Development Network (GDN) for a global south-led pivot toward equitable digital transformation, prioritizing open innovation over monopolies.

Stopping widening inequalities

Late last month, GDN organized a three-day conference, “Inclusive Digital Transformation: Social Impacts and Technological Innovations,” which drew participants, including researchers, activists and technologists from the Global South and North, to explore how technology can drive equitable development.

GDN President Jean-Louis Arcand opened the three-day gathering by emphasizing its mission: amplifying voices from developing regions and fostering policy-relevant research. “Why should development discussions always happen in Washington, D.C., New York, or Paris?” Arcand asked, highlighting Clermont-Ferrand’s symbolic choice as a venue to decentralize global dialogues.

“In the digital era, inclusion means building capacity in the Global South to shape technologies that address local realities, not just adopt imported solutions,” he emphasized.

According to a standout presentation by Shu (Grace) Tian, Principal Economist, Asia Development Bank (ADB), over the past five years, mobile coverage in developing Asia has expanded by about 156 percent, reflecting significant progress across the region. In terms of mobile internet use, Tian said that penetration has grown by 5 percent during the same period, and overall data speeds have increased nearly fourfold, now reaching around 2.2 billion people across the region.

Tian said that these advances are yielding tangible benefits. For example, in Indonesia, digitally prepared firms weathered the 2020 lockdowns with far fewer losses, proving digital readiness as a form of economic resilience.

However, despite these benefits, the speaker cautioned that digital transformation can also widen inequality if not managed inclusively. “Factors such as demographics, education, income, skills, and digital literacy can exacerbate social divides. Furthermore, automation and digitalization may displace certain types of jobs, creating new labor market disruptions.”

Highlighting the potential AI holds in disaster mitigation and the developmental path, some presenters sparked excitement, such as AI-based remote sensing for predicting disasters like floods and droughts, empowering smallholder farmers to adapt proactively. African and South Asian practitioners showcased offline AI-enabled learning tools for remote villages, demonstrating that inclusion doesn’t require high-end connectivity, proving technology can reach the most excluded.

Yet, the discussions during the conference didn’t shy away from challenges, framing them as opportunities for deliberate action. Speakers noted persistent divides, such as 40 percent of Malaysians lacking basic digital skills, even as rural-urban gaps endure in countries like India and cybersecurity vulnerabilities threaten progress.

Nandan Nilekani, in a recorded address, stressed that technology succeeds only when it serves “the most excluded citizen,” reducing leakages in service delivery and fostering transparency.

Lack of quality data in low-income countries

All AI systems depend on large volumes of high-quality data, said Johannes Jutting, Executive Head, PARIS21 Secretariat, OECD and Honorary Professor, University of Passau. “This data feeds the algorithms and trains the models. If you do not have good data, you cannot expect good AI solutions for your problems. And many low-income countries simply lack quality data,” Jutting told IPS.

“By quality data, I mean data that is accurate, timely, interoperable, accessible, and open, which we often refer to as the FAIR principles: Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable.”

But in many developing countries, he said, state-generated data does not meet these standards. “If you visit the websites of some national statistical offices, you find incomplete datasets, outdated information, or limited accessibility. This is a major barrier. You see it across many low-income African countries, small island states, and lower-income Asian countries such as Nepal and others facing similar constraints,” Jutting said.

The good news, he said, is that AI itself can help. Even in these contexts, AI can be used to clean, structure, and make existing data more usable, according to Jutting. “In that sense, it’s a double-edged sword. On the one hand, countries without strong data systems risk being left further behind. On the other hand, AI can also help them overcome some of the very data challenges that have held them back.”

Jutting emphasized that while the gap is real, there are also possibilities for AI to support these countries “provided the right investments and governance frameworks are put in place” on a priority basis.

Agreed ADB’s chief economist, Albert Park: “Future digital realities hinge on the policies we set today.” To ensure no one is left behind, Park told IPS News, building digital capacity is crucial, especially for improving public service delivery.

“With enough technical support and empowerment at the local level, once countries have reasonable connectivity, a whole range of AI applications will ensure rapid progress and help correct failures,” Park said.

As Arcand noted, the GDN’s focus aligns with evolving global priorities, including the World Bank’s Digital Vice Presidency. The converging themes — from GDN’s warnings against divides to world leaders’ call for equitable AI during the G20 conference-signal a turning point towards a combined effort for a digital future where prosperity is shared, innovation thrives, and no one is left behind.

Note: The reporting and research for this story was supported by Global Development Network

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');  

On 10 October 2025, thousands of Palestinian families are moving along the coastal road back to northern Gaza, amid the extreme devastation of infrastructure. Credit: UNICEF/Mohammed Nateel

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 26 2025 (IPS)

Recently, global conflicts have grown increasingly brutal, with deaths and injuries caused by explosive weapons now surpassing those from previous leading causes such as malnutrition, disease, and a lack of healthcare services. As these conflicts intensify, children continue to bear the brunt of the casualties while impunity for perpetrators persists and funding gaps exacerbate the lack of critical protection services.

On November 20, Save The Children issued a report titled Children and Blast Injuries: The Devastating Impact of Explosive Weapons on Children, 2020–2025, detailing the intensifying threat of explosive weapons to children across 11 contemporary world conflicts. Drawing on clinical studies and field research, the report examines the impact of pediatric blast injuries in healthcare settings and calls on the international community to prioritize investment in prevention and recovery efforts.

“Children are paying the highest price in today’s wars – not only at the hands of armed groups, but through the actions of governments that should be protecting them,” said Narmina Strishenets, the leading author of the report and the Senior Conflict and Humanitarian Advocacy Advisor at Save the Children UK. “Missiles are falling where children sleep, play, and learn – turning the very places that should be the safest, like their homes and schools, into death traps. Actions once condemned by the international community and met with global outrage are now brushed aside as the ‘cost of war.’ That moral surrender is one of the most dangerous shifts of our time.”

The report highlights the precarious conditions in which children in war zones live. Children are uniquely vulnerable to injuries from explosive weapons, as their bodies are far less developed and resilient than adults. Additionally, healthcare, rehabilitation, and psychosocial support services are underfunded and more commonly designed with adults in consideration, leaving children disproportionately left without access to tailor-made and adequate care.

Figures from Save The Children show that children are far more likely to succumb to blast injuries than adults, particularly from head, torso, and burn injuries. Compared to adults, children under seven are roughly two times as likely to suffer from “life-limiting brain trauma.” Furthermore, approximately 65 to 70 percent of injured children received severe burns to multiple parts of their body.

“Children are far more vulnerable to explosive weapons than adults. Their anatomy, physiology, behavior, and psychosocial needs make them disproportionately affected,” said Dr. Paul Reavley, a consultant pediatric emergency physician and the co-founder of the Pediatric Blast Injury Partnership, a collaborative effort between medical personnel and Save The Children UK.

Reavley added, “Many do not survive to reach hospital, and those who do face a higher risk of death than adult civilians in any health system. They often suffer multiple severe injuries that require complex treatment and lifelong care. Yet most health responses to conflict are designed for adults, overlooking children’s distinct needs. Survivors face chronic pain, disability, psychological trauma, and stigma that can last a lifetime.”

According to the report, explosive weapons are causing unprecedented levels of harm to children as wars increasingly move toward densely populated urban areas, with these weapons accounting for a record 70 percent of nearly 12,000 children killed or injured in conflict zones last year. More than 70 percent of child deaths and injuries in war zones in 2024 resulted from explosive weapons, marking a significant increase from the 59 percent recorded between 2020-2024.

These increases highlight a shift in how children are being targeted in modern conflicts. Save the Children identified five key factors driving this change: the rise of new technologies that amplify destruction, the normalization of civilian harm in military operations, the widespread lack of accountability, the unprecedented severity of child casualties, and the long-term social costs of explosive violence.

The deadliest conflicts for children in 2024, based on deaths and life-threatening injuries, occurred in the occupied Palestinian territory, where 2,917 children were affected, followed by Sudan with 1,739 children, Myanmar with 1,261 children, Ukraine with 671 children, and Syria with 670 children. The majority of these casualties were caused by explosive weapons. Additionally, children account for roughly 43 percent of all casualties from mines and other forms of unexploded ordnance, which have plagued farmland, schools, and homes across the world for decades.

In the last two years, Save The Children has recorded a “dangerous erosion of protection norms” for children in conflict zones, with funding shortfalls and the scaling back of civilian harm mitigation and response mechanisms endangering the lives of millions of children around the world. Of the USD 1 billion pledged to mine action in 2023, only half was directed toward clearance efforts while only 6 percent supported healthcare services of victims and only 1 percent went toward mine risk education.

Save the Children is urging world leaders to stop using explosive weapons in populated areas, strengthen policies to protect children in conflict, and invest in support, research, and recovery for children affected by blast injuries.

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and its partners are working on the frontlines to provide essential, basic services that focus on promoting and protecting children’s health, survival and development, such as access to food, shelter, healthcare, and social support. UNICEF is also rehabilitating water and sanitation systems while distributing cash transfers to displaced families and mental health support and educational services for children in conflict zones.

UNICEF also supports survivors of explosive weapons-related violence by providing medical treatment, prosthetics, and psychosocial support services. Furthermore, the agency is collaborating with governments and civil society groups to strengthen protection services, particularly for children living with disabilities.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram and Kuhaneetha Bai Kalaicelvan
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Nov 26 2025 (IPS)

Although inequality among countries still accounts for a far greater share of income inequality worldwide than national-level inequalities, discussions of inequality continue to focus on the latter.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

South African initiative
The G20 Extraordinary Committee of Independent Experts on Global Inequality, chaired by Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, was commissioned by South Africa’s 2025 presidency of the G20, the group of the world’s twenty largest national economies.

South Africa (SA) and Brazil, the previous G20 host, have long had the world’s highest national-level inequalities. However, their current governments have led progressive initiatives for the Global South.

Although due to take over the G20 presidency next year, US President Trump refused to participate in this year’s summit, inter alia, because of alleged SA oppression of its White minority.

Inequality growing faster
The G20 report utilises various measures to show the widening gap between the rich and the poor.

National-level inequality is widespread: 83% of countries, with 90% of the world’s population, have high Gini coefficients of income inequality above 40%.

While income inequality worldwide is very high, with a Gini coefficient of 61%, it has declined slightly since 2000, primarily due to China’s economic growth.

K Kuhaneetha Bai

Meanwhile, wealth concentration has continued. Wealth inequality is even greater than income inequality, with the richest 10% owning 74% of the world’s assets.

The average wealth of the richest 1% grew by $1.3 million from 2000, accounting for 41% of new wealth by 2024! Private wealth has risen sharply since 2000, while public assets have declined.

Besides income and wealth, the report reviews other inequalities, including health, education, employment, housing, environmental vulnerability, and even political voice.

Such inequalities, involving class, gender, ethnicity, and geography, often ‘intersect’. The promise of equal opportunity is rarely meaningful, as most enjoy limited social mobility options.

The report thus serves as the most comprehensive and accessible review of various dimensions of economic inequality available.

Harmful effects
The G20 report condemns ‘extreme inequality’ for its adverse economic, political, and social consequences.

Inadequate income typically means hunger, poor nutrition and healthcare. Economies underperform, unable to realise their actual potential.

Inequality, including power imbalances, influences resource allocation. Such disparities enhance the incomes of the rich, often at the expense of working people.

Natural resources typically enrich owners while undermining environmental sustainability and social well-being.

The report argues that economic inequality inevitably involves political disparities, as the rich are better able to buy influence.

New rules and policies favour the rich and powerful, increasing inequalities and undermining national and worldwide economic performance.

High inequality, due to rules favouring the wealthy, also undermines public trust in institutions. The declining influence of the middle class threatens both economic and political stability, especially in the West.

Drivers of inequality
The report argues that public policy can address inequalities by influencing how market incomes are initially distributed and how taxes and transfers redistribute them.

Market income distribution is determined by asset distribution (mediated by finance, skills, and social networks) and among labour, capital, and rents. Returns to shareholders are prioritised over other claims.

Increased inequality in recent decades is attributed to weakened equalising policies, or ‘equilibrating forces’, and stronger ‘disequilibrating forces’, including wealth inheritance.

New economic policies over recent decades have favoured the wealthy by weakening labour via market deregulation and restricting trade unions.

Tax systems have become less progressive with the shift from direct to indirect taxes, lowering taxes paid by large corporations and the wealthy. Fiscal austerity has exacerbated the situation, especially for the vulnerable.

Financial deregulation has also generated more instability, triggering crises, with ‘resolution’ usually favouring the influential.

Privatisation of public services has also favoured the well-connected, at the expense of the public, consumers, and labour.

International governance
International economic and legal institutions have also shaped inequality.

More international trade and capital mobility have lowered wages, increased income disparities and job insecurity, and weakened workers’ bargaining power.

Liberalising financial flows has favoured wealthy creditors over debtors, worsening financial volatility and sovereign debt crises.

International inequalities have adverse cross-border effects, especially for the environment and public health. Overconsumption and higher greenhouse gas emissions by the rich significantly worsen planetary heating.

International health inequalities have been worsened by stronger transnational intellectual property rights and increased profits at the expense of poorer countries.

International tax agreements have enabled the wealthy, including transnational corporations, to pay less than those less fortunate. Meanwhile, Oxfam reported that the top one per cent in the Global North drained the South at a rate of $30 million per hour.

Inaction despite consensus?
The report claims a new analytical consensus that inequality is detrimental to economic progress, and reducing inequality is better for the economy.

Inequality is attributed to policy choices reflecting moral choices and economic trade-offs. It argues that combating inequality is both desirable and feasible.

Recent research from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has criticised growing national inequalities.

However, there is no evidence of serious efforts by the G20, IMF, and OECD to reduce inequalities, especially inter-country, particularly between North and South.

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');   Related Articles

• Inequality Worsens Planetary Heating
• New Approaches Urgently Needed to Tackle Resurgent Social Crises
• World Inequality Still Rising Despite Some Convergence
• Global Poverty Grows as Super-Rich Get Richer Faster
• COVID-19 Compounding Inequalities
• The Best Law Capital Can Buy
• Meritocracy Legitimizes, Deepens Inequality
• Financialization Increases Inequality
• Inequality and Its Many Discontents
• Neoliberal Reforms Strengthening Monopoly Power and Abuses
• Inequality undermines democracy
• Globalization, Inequality, Convergence, Divergence
• Tackling Inequality Talk Is Easy
• World Bank fudges on inequality
• Growing Inequality under Global Capitalism
• Ensuring Shared Progress for Sustainable Development and Peace
• Inequality and Its Discontents
• Changing Determinants of Global Income Inequality
• Increasing Economic Inequality Not Inevitable

By James Alix Michel
VICTORIA, Seychelles, Nov 25 2025 (IPS)

When the world gathered in Glasgow for COP26, the mantra was “building back better.” Two years later, in Sharm El Sheikh, COP27 promised “implementation.” This year, in Belém, Brazil, COP30 arrived with a heavier burden: to finally bridge the chasm between lofty rhetoric and the urgent, measurable steps needed to keep 1.5 °C alive.

James Alix Michel

What Was Expected of COP30 was modest yet critical. After the disappointments of Copenhagen (2009) and the optimism sparked by Paris (2015), developing nations, small island states, Indigenous groups and a swelling youth movement demanded three things:

• 1. Binding phase-out timelines for coal, oil and gas.

 

• 2. A fully funded Loss and Damage Facility to compensate vulnerable countries already suffering climate impacts.

 

3. Scaled-up adaptation finance—tripling the $120 billion a year pledge and ensuring it reaches the frontline communities that need it most.

However, the negotiations evolved into a tug-of-war between ambition and inertia. Wealthier nations, still reeling from economic shocks, offered incremental increases in adaptation funding and a new Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF) worth $125 billion, with 20 percent earmarked for Indigenous stewardship. The Global Implementation Accelerator—a two-year bridge to align Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) with 1.5 °C—was launched, alongside a Just Transition Mechanism to share technology and financing.

However, the text on fossil fuel phase-out remained voluntary; the Loss and Damage Fund was referenced but not capitalized; and the $120 billion adaptation pledge fell short of the $310 billion annual need.

But there were Voices That Could Not Be Ignored.

Developing Nations (the G77+China) reminded the plenary that climate justice is not a charity—it is a legal obligation under the UNFCCC. They demanded that historic emitters honor their “common but differentiated responsibilities.”

Island States (AOSIS) warned that sea level rise is no longer a future scenario; it is eroding coastlines and displacing entire cultures. Their plea: “1.5 °C is our survival, not a bargaining chip.”

Indigenous Peoples highlighted the destruction of Amazon and Boreal forests, urging that 30 percent of all climate finance flow directly to communities that protect 80 percent of biodiversity.

Youth — The Gen Z generation—marched outside the venue, chanting, “We will not be diluted,” demanding binding commitments and accountability mechanisms.

The Legacy of Copenhagen, Paris, and the Empty COPs

I attended COP15 in Copenhagen (2009), where the “Danish draft” was rejected, and the summit collapsed amid accusations of exclusion. The disappointment lingered until Paris (2015), where the 1.5 °C aspiration was enshrined, sparking hope that multilateralism could still work. Since then, COPs have been a carousel of promises: the Green Climate Fund fell $20 billion short; the 2022 Glasgow Climate Pact promised “phasing out coal” but left loopholes. Each iteration has chipped away at trust.

COP30 was billed as the moment to reverse that trend.

And the result? Partial progress, but far from the transformational shift required.

Did We Achieve What We Hoped For?

In blunt terms: No. The pledges secured are insufficient to limit warming to 1.5 °C, and critical gaps—binding fossil fuel timelines, robust loss and damage funding, and true equity in finance—remain unfilled.

Yet, there are glimmers. The tripling of adaptation finance, the first concrete allocation for Indigenous led forest protection, and the creation of an Implementation Accelerator signal that the architecture for change exists. The challenge now is to fill it with real money and accountability.

Let us look at ‘What Must Happen Next

• 1. Full Capitalisation of Loss and Damage Fund

 

• – G20 nations must commit 0.1 % of GDP and disburse within 12 months.

 

• 2. Binding Fossil Fuel Phase out – Coal, oil and gas with just transition financing for workers.

 

• 3. Scale Adaptation Finance to $310 billion/yr

 

• – Re channel subsidies from fossil fuels to resilience projects.

 

• 4. Direct Funding for Indigenous and Youth Initiatives

 

• – Allocate 30 % of climate finance to community led stewardship.

 

• 5. Strengthen Accountability

 

– Mandate annual NDC updates with independent verification and penalties for noncompliance.

But for all this to become reality, there must be a determined effort to achieve Future Actions.
We have watched promises fade after every COP, yet the physics of climate change remain unforgiving. The urgency is not new; the window to act is shrinking. But hope endures – in the solar panels lighting remote villages, in mangroves being restored to buffer storms, and in the relentless energy of young activists demanding a livable planet.

Humanity has the knowledge, technology, and resources. What we need now is the collective political will to use them. Let COP30 be remembered not as another empty summit, but as the turning point where the world chose survival over complacency.

The future is not written; we write it with every decision we make today.

James Alix Michel, Former President Republic of Seychelles, Member Club de Madrid.

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');  

On a warm morning at Matemwe, a small crowd gathers behind a rope barrier as the sand begins to tremble. A tiny head pushes through a soft mound of earth, then another, and another. Within minutes, the shallow nest—protected for weeks by a ring of wooden stakes and mesh—comes alive with the rustle of dozens […]

By M. Zakir Hossain Khan
DHAKA, Bangladesh, Nov 25 2025 (IPS)

COP30 in Belém is not just another annual climate meeting, it is the 32-year report card of the world governance architecture that was conceived at the Rio Earth Summit of 1992. And that is what report card says: delivery has been sporadic, cosmetic and perilously disconnected with the physics of climatic breakdown.

M. Zakir Hossain Khan

The Amazon, which was once regarded in Rio as an ecological miracle of the world, is now on the verge of an irreversible precipice. Even the communities that struggled to protect it over millennia also demonstrate against COP30 to make it clear that they do not oppose multilateralism, but because multilateralism has marginalized them many times.

Rio Promised Rights, Take Part, and Protection, But Delivery Has Been Fragmented

Rio Summit gave birth to three pillars of international environmental control: UNFCCC (climate), CBD (biodiversity) and UNCCD (desertification). Every one of them was supposed to be participating, equitable and accountable. But progressively delivery disintegrated:

• Rio has only achieved 34 per cent biodiversity commitments (CBD GBO-5).
• CO₂ emissions rose over 60% since 1992.
• The globe is headed to 2.7 o C with the existing policies (UNEP 2024).
• The funding obligations are in a chronic state of arrears, adaptation requirements are three times higher than the real flows.

Rio gave the world a vision. COP30 demonstrates the fact that that vision is yet to be developed.

The Rights Gap: The Key Failure between Rio and Belém

Although Rio pledged to involve Indigenous people, Indigenous people today are only getting less than 1 percent of climate finance. In addition, it caused a rising trend of carbon market-related land grabs and resource exploitation, because of the lack of binding power in the decisions regarding climate. This is not a delivery gap but a right gap. COP30 has been improved technically but has failed to redress the inherent imbalance at Rio that remained unaddressed: decision-making in the absence of custodianship.

The Sleepiness Menace Came to Rio and Detonated by COP30

Rio established three overlapping conventions that lacked a single governance structure. Climate to oceans, food, forests, finance, security, and technology; CBD to traditional knowledge, access and benefit-sharing, and UNCCD to migration, peace and livelihoods all increased over the decades.

The outcome is an institution that is too broad to govern effectively, making watered-down decisions and poor accountability. COP30 is being developed, however, within a system that was never intended to deal with planetary collapse on this level.

The Amazon: The Ultimate Test of Rio on Prognosis

Rio glorified forests as the breathing organs of the world. However, three decades later:

• Amazon was deforested by 17 per cent and was close to the 20-25 per cent dieback mark.
• Native land protectors become increasingly violent.
• Carbon markets run the risk of stimulating extraction in the name of green growth.

Another pledge is not required by Amazon. It requires energy from its protectors. That was missing in Rio. It is still missing in COP30. Indigenous people depicted in CoP30 in all their frustration and agitation are the consequences of the system failure to provide them with a say in the decision-making process and the unceasing denial of their natural rights.

Young: The Post-Rio Generation that was Duped by Incrementalism

The post-Rio generation (those that were born after the year 30) is more than 50 percent of the world population. They left behind a) tripled fossil subsidy regime; b) soaring climate debt; c) ever-turbid biodiversity collapse; d) rising climate disasters; and e) inability to send up $100B/year finance on time.

They are only impatient not because of emotions. They observe that a system that was developed in 1992 to address a slow-paced crisis can no longer be applied to the fast emergency of 2025.

Natural Rights Led Governance (NRLG): Making Good What Rio Left, but Left Incomplete

Natural Rights-Led Governance (NRLG) provides the structural correction that Rio has evaded: a) Nature as a law-rights holder, not a resource; b) Indigenous peoples as co-governors, not consultants; c) Compulsory ecological and rights-based control, not voluntary reporting; d) Direct financing to custodians, not bureaucratic leakage; e) Accountability enforceable in law, not conditional on political comfort. NRLG is not the alternative to the vision of Rio, it is the long-deserved update that will turn the arguments of Rio into reality.

The Verdict: COP30 Moves forward, yet Rio Business Unfinished Haunts it

The advancement of COP30 with its stronger fossil language, more comprehensible measurements of adaptation, new pressure on financing is a reality that is inadequate. It advances the paperwork. It is yet to develop the power shift that would safeguard nature or humanity. As long as rights are not yet non-negotiable, the Rio-to-COP30 trip will be a tale of great promises, half-fulfilled and increasingly dangerous.

What the World Must Do Now

Include nature and Indigenous rights in the COP document; construct governance based on custodianship and co-decision; a system of NCQG to deliver finance to communities; no longer voluntary but obligatory commitments reflecting the final Advisory of ICJ assuming integration of natural rights as a prelude to human rights; and use NRLG as the backbone to all future multilateral climate action.

Rio taught us what to do. COP30 is an education about the consequences of procrastinating. The 30-year period is not going to forgive the errors made in the previous 30. The world should stop being a promise and change to power, negotiate to justice, Rio dream of NRLG deliveries. The deadline is not 2050. It is now.

Rio had sworn justice and rights, but COP30 taught a crueler lesson: the world made promises and not protection. Emission increased, ecosystems failed, money is not spent on fulfilling the finances and Indigenous guardians, to the last remaining forests, continue to get less than 1% of climate money and nearly no say. It is not a policy gap but a failure of rights and governance. If the leaders of the world do not recalibrate climate architecture based on natural rights, since co-decision of the Indigenous and on binding commitments rather than a voluntary one, COP30 will be remembered as the moment when the system was exposed as limiting, not as the moment when the system was fixed. This is no longer a promising problem it is a power problem. And the deadline is not 2050. It is now.

M Zakir Hossain Khan is the Chief Executive at Change Initiative, a Dhaka based think-tank, Observer of Climate Investment Fund (CIF); Architect and Proponent of Natural Rights Led Governance (NRLG).

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');  

17 Goals for People, for Planet.

By Ananthu Anilkumar and Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Nov 25 2025 (IPS)

Less than five years from 2030 it is time for the international community to confront the future of the Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals.

The SDGs turned what was a generic declaration into a tangible and actionable blueprint.

As ample evidence shows, so far, the implementation of the SDGs have been a tremendous disappointment with all the goals being off the track.

Recent UN assessments show how far the world is from meeting the SDGs. Only 16 to 17 % of targets are on track. Out of 137 targets with available data, about 35% show on track or moderate progress, 47% show marginal or no progress, and 18% have moved backwards since 2015.

Some of the most urgent areas are among the furthest off track, including Zero Hunger (SDG 2), Sustainable Cities (SDG 11), Life Below Water (SDG 14), Life on Land (SDG 15), and Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions (SDG 16).

Weak institutional commitments, poor coordination, the failure to integrate SDGs into budgets and policies, and the voluntary nature of reporting have all held back progress. At the same time, breaches of planetary boundaries tied to climate and biosphere integrity threaten the conditions needed for sustainable development.

Even where gains exist, such as in education and disease reduction, they remain slow and fragile. The data is clear. The world is not on course for 2030.

As the world edges toward 2030, these conversations can no longer be postponed. The SDGs did more than outline global aspirations. They created a shared language for justice, dignity, and sustainability. They shaped policy debates and mobilized public attention in ways the development field had not seen before, even if governments often ignored the direction they set.

Yet the SDGs have served an important, we would say, indispensable purpose to the international community even if states wasted it.

First, the SDGs functioned not only as a springboard for action but also as an accountability tool
to keep a check on states’ commitments towards achieving a world without poverty, inequalities and deprivations while guaranteeing a greener, more sustainable and just economic framework.’
Unfortunately, leadership never matched the ambition of the goals.

Many governments failed to translate the SDGs into national and regional strategies capable of real impact.

Least developed countries lacked financial resources and effective institutions, with weak governance, corruption, and mismanagement limiting their ability to plan and implement reforms.

At the same time, wealthier nations refused to scale up development cooperation to levels required for transformative progress.

In short, both governments in the Global South and Global North are complicit in avoiding fulfilling their duties towards the present next generations.

As much as this absence of stewardship towards the people and the planet has been a moral disaster, the international community has enough time to frame a different formula to ensure that whatever will come after the expiration of the Agenda 2030 will be a success.

This loss of momentum reflects more than technical shortcomings.

It shows how fragile political will has been, especially in a model built around voluntary participation. The SDGs lost traction because governments were free to treat them as optional. The gap between aspiration and action became a moral failure as well as a governance one.

Let’s remind ourselves that the launch of the SDGs had started with a “boom”. There was a visible, contagious enthusiasm and everyone was interested to know more about the Agenda 2030.

Notwithstanding the complex negotiations at the UN Secretariat first with the Open Working Group and then with the Intergovernamental Negotiations that followed, there was a vibrant participation of non state actors.

Civil society organizations and global advocacy networks were deeply involved in shaping the SDGs. Their expertise, campaigning, and coordination helped bring local realities, social justice concerns, and thematic priorities into the negotiation rooms.

Then, there was a period, in the aftermath of 2015 when the document was endorsed after three years of negotiations, in which talking about the SDGs was very trendy and on the top of the agenda not only for governments but also for non-state actors, from civil society organizations to universities to corporate players.

That passion soon vanished and there are many reasons for this, including the rise of climate change as a threat to our planet, a phenomenon of paramount importance but somehow overshadowed other important policy agenda.

What will be next?

In 2027 the UN will formally start a conversation about the future of the Agenda 2030.
How to shape the conversation that will lead to a revised framework?

In the months and years ahead, assuring the same level of involvement and participation will be important but not enough. Civil society inputs and contributions must evolve into a broader, more democratic process that moves beyond representation by established organizations.

Communities who live the consequences of global policies every day must be able to shape the next framework directly. Should we start imagining a revamped roadmap that will enable Planet Earth to decarbonize where inequalities are wiped out and where every child will have a chance to have quality health and meaningful educational pathways?

The negotiations that led to the SDGs were contentious and complex in such a way that some of the goals were more the results of internal bargains and trade-offs among governments at the UN rather than genuine attempts to solve policy issues.

Certainly, while brainstorming for the next agenda, the global oversight system of the SDGs will be put into discussion.

Rather than the current model centered on the High-Level Political Forum where, on rotation some goals are discussed and where nations at their complete will voluntarily share their reports, what in jargon is called National Voluntary Reviews, it would be much more effective to have a model resembling the Universal Periodic Reviews applied at the Human Rights Council.

States should mandatorily present updates of their work in implementing the next generation of the SDGs and if we are serious about creating a better world, such reviews should happen annually.

Localization must also become central rather than optional. The localization of the SDGs should also be formally adopted and mainstreamed in the official playbook, prompting local governments to play their parts.

Some have already been doing that but it is a tiny minority and often such a process of localization happens without engagement and involvement of local communities.

This must change in such a way to truly empower local communities to have an ownership over local planning and decision making in matters of sustainable and equitable development.

True localization requires building formal pathways for community participation and ensuring that subnational institutions shape priorities. People closest to the issues should help define the solutions.

Without local ownership, global frameworks remain abstract and ineffective.

While some local governments have aligned their work with SDG priorities, most of these efforts remain isolated and disconnected from the communities they are meant to serve.

Localizing the next Agenda offers an opportunity to democratize the future of the goals.
Development cannot be sustainable when local voices are excluded from planning and decision making.

These and other propositions should be up for debate and review in the months and years ahead.

We do hope that experts and policy makers will discuss in detail ways to strengthen the future development agenda, building on the lessons that led first to the establishment of the SDGs and also leaning on the experiences that are still being made on their implementation.

At the start of the discussions on “what’s next”, we do believe that young people should have a big and real say.

Involving young people and enabling them to have agency in contributing to the future of the Agenda 2030 is one of the best guarantees that the new governance related to the future goals will be stronger and more inclusive.

Imagine youths lab around the world starting the conversation about the post Agenda 2030 scenarios.

How can the goals be strengthened?

Capacity building of students could also become an opportunity to open up the decision making on one of the most important agendas of our time.

Imagine youths’ assemblies and forums to discuss and ideate the future global development goals. Such exercise should not become the traditional top down approach designed and backed by donor agencies like in the past.

Rather it can embed more radical and ambitious principles of grassroots level deliberative democracy and shared decision making.

One thing is certain: without a profound acceleration, the current trends in implementing the SDGs will not shift.

Realistically speaking, it is highly probable that we will reach the 2030 with an abysmal record of accomplishment in terms of realizing the Agenda 2030.

The international community can avoid such shameful outcomes while designing a post 2030 framework.

There is still time to design an agenda that is accountable, inclusive, and grounded in lived experience. But this requires listening to those who will inherit the consequences of today’s decisions.

The next framework can be drastically different if young people, rather than diplomats and government officials, will meaningfully own the process.

The young generations should not only lead in the designing of a new “Global Sustainable Development Deal” but also have a say and voice into its implementation.

Only then, governments at all levels will take the job of ensuring a future for humanity seriously.

Ananthu Anilkumar writes on human rights, development cooperation, and global governance. Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

These processes are all about people. We should never lose our humanity in the process. There should not be a ‘COP of the people’ pitted against a ‘COP of negotiators.’ We need to approach COP jointly as a conference of the people, by the people, and for people. —Yamide Dagnet, NRDC’s Senior Vice President, International

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Credit: UN Photo/Gustavo Stephan
 
The Group of Twenty (G20) comprises 19 countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Türkiye, United Kingdom and United States) and two regional bodies: the European Union and the African Union (as of 2023).
 
The G20 members represent around 85% of the global GDP, over 75% of the global trade, and about two-thirds of the world population. South Africa assumed the G20 presidency on December 1 2024 and will step down on November 30 2025. The next G20 summit will be hosted by the US in 2026.

By Theophilus Jong Yungong and Iolanda Fresnillo
YAOUNDE, Cameroon / BARCELONA, Spain, Nov 24 2025 (IPS)

When South Africa assumed the Presidency of the G20, debt sustainability was placed front and centre, with the promise to launch a Cost of Capital Commission. Many hoped that, with an African country at the helm, the G20 would finally deliver real solutions to the debt crisis gripping the Global South – particularly Africa.

A year later, the South African presidency drew to a close, and nothing has fundamentally changed. The G20 has once again failed, and it is time to look elsewhere for genuine solutions.

Africa’s debt crisis is deepening

Alarm bells have been ringing for years. Africa’s total debt stocks have more than doubled since 2021 to US$ 685.5 billion in 2023, driven in part by the economic fallout of the Covid-19 pandemic, with increasing cost of capital driving debt payments to record highs.
The African Leaders Debt Relief Initiative (ALDRI), spearheaded by eight former Heads of State, demands urgent debt relief, not as “charity” but as “an investment in a prosperous, stable, and sustainable future—for Africa and the global economy”.

While South Africa’s Presidency raised hopes for a change to real solutions by placing Africa’s debt crisis at the centre of the G20 agenda, the outcome has leaned towards more rhetoric than action.

The G20 has failed

If we want to find fair solutions to the increasing debt problems that plague African and other Global South countries, we should no longer expect forums like the G20 to deliver. They are dominated by creditors unlikely to reform a system that serves their own interests.

After four meetings of the Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of the G20, leading on its finance track, South Africa delivered in October a debt declaration. But it contained nothing new and did not provide any actionable commitments on what the G20 will do to solve the debt challenge.

Nothing was delivered either at last weekend’s G20 leaders’ summit in Johannesburg. No reform. No changes. Just a couple of reports, but no decisions at all. As the debt crisis worsens, the G20 remains paralysed and unable to agree even on minimum reforms of its own Common Framework.

This paralysis is structural. While it attempts to appear to be inclusive, the problem with the G20 is that it is not a truly multilateral and democratic institution, but an informal exclusive forum for dialogue among competing powers.

Geopolitical tensions, and particularly the US context, elevates the paralysis to another level. Since decisions are made by consensus, the result is always the minimum common denominator.

The failure of the Common Framework

Launched in late 2020, the G20 Common Framework, was meant to enable faster and fairer debt restructuring for low-income countries. Yet it continues to be highly inefficient. Restructuring processes are slow, debt reductions too shallow, and the sharing of responsibility between public and private creditors deeply unequal, as we’ve seen with Zambia.

Calls to reform the Common Framework have been reiterated by many governments and institutions, but the G20 was unable to deliver. The African Union, for instance, called for reforms including introducing a time-bound aspect, establishing a universally-accepted methodology for comparability of treatment, suspending debt payments during the whole debt restructuring process, expanding its eligibility criteria and establishing a legal mechanism to enforce compliance with restructuring agreements.

Yet it still seems that the G20 is not in the business of acting for the good of the people. Instead it continues to perpetuate creditor interests.

A better path exists: The United Nations

Fortunately, there is another path that provides the much-needed inclusive and democratic multilateral institutional framework to take the necessary reforms forward.

In July, UN Member States worldwide agreed, by consensus, to initiate an intergovernmental process to address the gaps in debt architecture. This process should lead to a UN framework Convention on Sovereign Debt, as supported by the African Union in the Lome Declaration on a Common Position on Africa’s Debt, and to establishing a multilateral sovereign debt resolution mechanism, long demanded by G77 countries.

In the same UN forum it was agreed to establish a borrowers platform, which “will offer debt-distressed countries a way to coordinate action and amplify their voice in the global financial system”.

This is not radical. As Ahunna Eziakonwa, Director of the Regional Bureau for Africa at the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) put it recently, it is a “common sense and long overdue” process.

Yet, some creditor countries, including the European Union, are trying to derail the UN process, claiming it would duplicate G20 efforts. Siding with a status quo that is clearly not working is a political choice that condemns Africa and other Global South countries to greater poverty, inequality and climate destruction.

If rich countries are serious about supporting Africa and Global South countries to address the climate crisis and pursue sustainable development, they need to stop boycotting commitments agreed by consensus, and support the initiation of an intergovernmental process on debt architecture reform.

The G20 has reached its limits. The world cannot afford another decade of deadlock caused by the effectiveness of the Common Framework, while debt burdens soar. Now is the time to shift the centre of global debt governance.

Theophilus Jong Yungong is Interim Executive Director, African Forum and Network on Debt and Development (AFRODAD), and Iolanda Fresnillo is Policy and Advocacy Manager — Debt Justice, European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad)

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');  

André Corrêa do Lago, COP30 President of Brazil, during a highly charged closing plenary. Credit: UN Climate Change/Kiara Worth

By Joyce Chimbi
BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 23 2025 (IPS)

Following tense, nightlong negotiations and bitter rows between more than 190 country delegations, a “politically charged Belém package” was finally forged at COP30—so named because of the highly contentious and difficult-to-negotiate issues within the climate talks. Belém was supposed to be ‘a how’ climate conference. Decisions made at the 30th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change would shape how the Paris Agreement moves from word to action and to what extent global climate actions can be reached. In this COP of “implementation and multilateralism in action,” politics carried the day in more ways than one.

Observers, such as Wesley Githaiga from the Civil Society, told IPS that issues touching on trade, climate finance, and fossil fuels are politically charged because of competing and conflicting national interests.

Gavel came out without a roadmap for ending fossil fuels. Credit: UN Climate Change/Kiara Worth

“Some countries bear more responsibility for the climate crises than others and have a higher financial responsibility to address climate change,” Githaiga said. “Striking a balance between the needs of vulnerable developing nations and the economic priorities of developed wealthy countries is difficult.”

Conflicting national interests escalated when COP30 was suspended for additional side consultations just one hour before the final outcome on Saturday, following an argument that broke out over procedural issues.

The Elephant in the Room: Fossil Fuels

On one hand, a few highly organized petrostates from the Arab Group of nations, including Saudi Arabia, were opposed to Colombia, which was supported by the European Union and other Latin American countries like Panama and Uruguay regarding fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are by far the largest contributors to global warming. Scientists have warned of catastrophic temperature rises of up to 2.5°C by mid-century.

Githaiga says the issue was procedural because Colombia was objecting to an already-approved text. The main point of contention was the transition away from fossil fuels. COP28 achieved a historic breakthrough by advocating for a global shift away from fossil fuels. How to transition had been the most highly contentious issue at Belém.

So contentious that COP30 ultimately decided to sidestep ‘fossil fuels’ altogether.

Despite nearly 80 developed and developing countries standing firm demanding an end to the use of planet-warming fossil fuels, there is no mention of fossil fuels in the final COP30 agreement, only an oblique reference to the ‘UAE consensus.’ Despite the demands of Brazil’s neighbors Colombia, Panama, and Uruguay for stronger language, the announcement of a voluntary roadmap outside the UN process went ahead.

Throughout the tense climate talks, observers speculated that the COP30 outcome would include text on either “phasing away” from fossil fuels or “phasing down.” The end result did not include a roadmap for abandoning oil, gas, and coal. Recognizing that the world expected more ambition, Brazilian COP30 President André Aranha Corrêa do Lago told delegates, “We know some of you had greater ambitions for some of the issues at hand.”

Despite the lack of consensus, the COP30 President announced on Saturday that the presidency would publish a “side text” on fossil fuels and forest protection due to the lack of agreement. There will be two roadmaps on these two issues. The work will be done outside of the formal negotiations headed by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and the Brazilian COP Presidency.

Climate Finance

Nevertheless, all was not lost. According to Mohamed Adow, the Director of Power Shift Africa, the creation of a Just Transition Action Mechanism emerged as a positive development, acknowledging that the global shift away from fossil fuels will not abandon workers and frontline communities.

Adow nonetheless stressed that “developed countries have betrayed vulnerable nations by both failing to deliver science-aligned national emission reduction plans and also blocked talks on finance to help poor countries adapt to climate change caused by the global north.”

“Rich countries cannot make a genuine call for a roadmap if they continue to drive in the opposite direction themselves and refuse to pay up for the vehicles they stole from the rest of the convoy.”

Disagreements are not about climate finance in itself but about how funds will flow from the wealthy to the vulnerable, poor states. But the lack of ambition did not cut across the eight-page declaration developed at the mouth of the world largest rainforest—the Amazon.

The negotiations did succeed in their determination to deliver an economic transition, even though there are concerns that some of the climate finance agreements, such as those on adaptation, are too sweeping, too general, and lacking in specifics. COP 29 raised the annual climate finance target of developing nations from USD 100 billion to USD 300 billion. COP30 agreed to scale finance and to specifically mobilize USD 1.3 trillion annually by 2035 for climate action.

On adaptation, Adow said, “Belém restored some integrity to the Global Goal on Adaptation, removing dangerous indicators that would have penalized poorer countries simply for being poor.”

“The slow pace of finance negotiations is worrying. The promise to triple adaptation lacks clarity on a base year and has now been delayed to 2035, leaving vulnerable countries without support to match the escalating needs frontline communities are facing. As it stands, this outcome does nothing to narrow the adaptation finance gap.”

Adow continues, “COP30 was intended to focus significantly on raising funds to assist vulnerable nations in adapting to climate change; however, European nations have undermined these discussions and removed the protections that poorer countries were seeking in Belem.”

“Europe, which colonized much of the global south and then imperiled it further through its industrialized carbon emissions, now works against even efforts to help it adapt to the climate crisis.”

Many of the countries that have submitted their National Adaptation Plans lack funding. The agreement moving forward is to double adaptation finance by 2025 and triple it by 2035. But it is not clear where this money will come from—public financing, private or wealthy nations.

On the frontlines of the climate crises, Sierra Leone challenged the emphasis on private capital to fund climate adaptation efforts, stating that the private sector is not known for its robust support of adaptation. Observers like Githaiga say instead, there is a need to triple public funding for adaptation.

“If you read the text carefully, you actually realize there is no agreement requiring countries to contribute more funds for climate activities,” he says.

Loss and Damage

On the Loss and Damage Fund, operationalization and replenishment cycles are now confirmed. A first in the history of COPs, trade was and will be discussed within the UNFCCC rather than just the World Trade Organization, in recognition of the intersection between trade and climate change.

The UN climate summit also delivered new initiatives such as the launch of the Global Implementation Accelerator and the Belém Mission to 1.5°C to drive ambition and implementation. This is about meeting the ambition gap by cutting emissions. The ‘Belem Package’ seeks to raise ambition by setting a new 1.5°C warming target to match the pace of the climate crisis. There was also a commitment to promote information integrity and counter false narratives.

Ultimately, COP30 will be remembered for increased climate activism and, more so, the visibility of Indigenous Peoples and the recognition of Afro-descendants. Importantly, it’s the recognition of the cross section between climate change and action and racial justice—although the reaction from some Indigenous peoples is that they would like to have a formal seat at the table.

Belém also raised ambitions for protecting the world’s forests, as the Forest Finance Roadmap is already backed by 36 governments, accounting for 45 percent of global forest cover and 65 percent of GDP. This roadmap seeks to close a USD 66.8 billion annual gap for tropical forest protection and restoration.

UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell summed up the positives.

“So COP30 showed that climate cooperation is alive and kicking. Keeping humanity in the fight for a livable planet. And that’s despite roaring political headwinds. That while one country stepped back. 194 countries have stood firm in solidarity. Rock-solid in support of climate cooperation.

“With or without Navigation Aids, the direction of travel is clear: the shift from fossil fuels to renewables and resilience is unstoppable, and it’s gathering pace,” Stiell said at a press conference at the end of the COP.

However, many others will also remember COP30 for its lack of ambition to deliver on a 2023 promise made to the world to phase out fossil fuels. The lack of a science-based pathway to facilitate a fast, fair and funded phaseout of fossil fuels is a blemish on Belém’s climate deal.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

Excerpt:

Despite nearly 80 developed and developing countries standing firm demanding an end to the use of planet-warming fossil fuels, there is no mention of fossil fuels in the final COP30 agreement, only an oblique reference to the 'UAE consensus.'

Credit: UN News/Felipe de Carvalho

By Ginger Cassady
BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 21 2025 (IPS)

Belém, at the mouth of the Amazon River, was always going to be a symbolic host for the UN COP30 climate summit, but the mood here has gone far beyond symbolism.

Indigenous Peoples, forest communities, women, workers and youth have set the tone in the streets and in the many grassroots spaces across the city. Their message has been consistent and clear — the Amazon cannot survive under the same financial system that is destroying it.

Inside the talks, however, governments are still trying to confront a planetary emergency while operating within a global economic architecture built for extraction. Debt burdens, high borrowing costs, reliance on extractive commodities, volatile currencies and investor-driven pressures all shape what is deemed “possible” long before negotiators put pen to paper.

This is the constraint the UN climate regime cannot escape: countries are expected to deliver climate action within a financial order that makes that action prohibitively expensive.

For wealthier countries, maintaining this structure shields their budgets and geopolitical leverage. For many developing countries, pushing for more ambitious outcomes means navigating the limits imposed by debt service and credit ratings. Emerging economies face their own entanglements, tied to commodity markets and large-scale extractive industries that remain politically powerful.

Overlaying this landscape is the relentless influence of lobbyists from fossil fuel companies, agribusiness conglomerates, commodity traders and major banks. Their presence across delegations and side events narrows the space for solutions that would challenge their business models.

What remains “deliverable” tends to be voluntary measures, market mechanisms and cautious language—steps that do not shift the structural incentives driving deforestation, fossil expansion and land grabs.

The Just Transition Debate Exposes the Real Fault Line

Nowhere is this tension more visible in the final hours of COP30 than in the negotiations over the Just Transition Work Programme. Many industrialized countries continue to frame just transition in narrow domestic terms: retraining workers and adjusting industries. For most of the G77, it is inseparable from land governance, food systems, mineral access, rights protections and—above all—financing that does not reproduce dependency and extraction.

The proposed Belém Action Mechanism reflects this broader vision. It could embed rights, community leadership, implementation support and a mandate to confront the systemic barriers that make unjust transitions the norm. But its language remains heavily bracketed — a sign of both political resistance and the pressure from vested interests uncomfortable with shifting power toward developing countries and frontline communities.

Debt-Based Forest Finance: The TFFF’s Structural Risks

The Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF), launched by Brazil ahead of COP30, has become a flashpoint for these concerns. Despite political appeal, its reliance on long-term bonds and private capital ties forest protection to the expectations of bond markets rather than to the rights and priorities of the Peoples who live in and protect the forests.

Civil society groups have warned that the TFFF risks locking forest countries deeper into market volatility, exposing them to investor-driven conditions, and prioritising investment returns toward creditors over Indigenous Peoples or forest communities.

By treating forests as financial assets within debt markets, the model risks repeating the very dynamics that have fueled deforestation: inequitable power relations, external control and dependence on private capital.

As the talks wind down, negotiators should be frank about the stakes: debt-based climate finance will entrench, not ease, the vulnerabilities that climate action must confront.

Food, Land and the Weight of Finance

The financialization of land and food systems also looms over COP30’s final outcomes. Agribusiness giants, asset managers and commodity traders have reshaped agriculture into a global investment sector, consolidating land, driving forest loss and sidelining small-scale producers.

Draft texts now reference agroecology and Indigenous knowledge, but the political space for transforming these systems remains limited. Without addressing how speculative capital and global supply chains dictate land use, any agreement will fall short of what climate resilience truly requires.

Rights and Human Safety Under Threat

In the closing days of the talks, attempts to dilute gender language, weaken rights protections and sideline environmental defenders have drawn strong backlash from civil society and many governments. These are not isolated disputes; they reflect the political economy of extraction. Where industries rely on weak rights protections to expand, rights language becomes a bargaining chip.

The Indigenous Political Declaration: A Blueprint for Structural Change

As negotiators haggle over bracketed text, the Amazon-wide Indigenous Political Declaration stands out as one of the most coherent and grounded climate agendas to emerge at COP30. It calls for:

• Legal demarcation and protection of Indigenous territories as a non-negotiable foundation for climate stability.

• Exclusion of mining, fossil fuels and other extractive industries from Indigenous lands.

• Direct access to finance for Indigenous Peoples — not routed through state or market intermediaries that dilute rights or impose debt.

• Recognition of Indigenous knowledge and governance systems as central to climate solutions.

• Protections for defenders, who face rising threats across Amazonian countries.

This is not simply an agenda for the Amazon; it is a structural map for aligning climate action with ecological reality.

The Divide That Now Matters

As COP30 closes, it is clear the old frame of North versus South cannot explain the choices before us. The more revealing divide is between those defending an extractive financial order and those fighting for a rights-based, equitable and ecologically grounded alternative. Many of the interests blocking climate ambition in the North are aligned with elites in the South who profit from destructive supply chains.

Indigenous Peoples, women, workers and small-scale farmers share more in common with one another across continents than with the financial interests influencing their own governments.

Belém has forced the world to confront the limits of incremental change within an extractive order. Whether the final decisions reflect that reality will determine not just the legacy of this COP, but the future of the Amazon itself.

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

Excerpt:

Ginger Cassady is Executive Director, Rainforest Action Network

Plagued by drought, farming families living within the boundaries of the Dry Corridor in eastern Guatemala have resorted to rainwater harvesting, an effective technique that has allowed them to cope

By Edgardo Ayala
SAN LUIS JILOTEPEQUE, Guatemala, Nov 21 2025 (IPS)

Plagued by drought, farming families living within the boundaries of the Dry Corridor in eastern Guatemala have resorted to rainwater harvesting, an effective technique that has allowed them to cope.

This enables them to obtain food from plots of land that would otherwise be difficult to farm.

Funded by the Swedish government and implemented by international organizations, some 7,000 families benefit from a program that seeks to provide them with the necessary technologies and tools to set up rainwater catchment tanks, alleviating water scarcity in this region of the country.

These families live around micro-watersheds in seven municipalities in the departments of Chiquimula and Jalapa, in eastern Guatemala. These towns are Jocotán, Camotán, Olopa, San Juan Ermita, Chiquimula, San Luis Jilotepeque, and San Pedro Pinula.

“We are in the Dry Corridor, and it’s hard to grow plants here. Even if you try to grow them, due to the lack of water, (the fruits) don’t reach their proper weight,” Merlyn Sandoval, head of one of the beneficiary families, told IPS in the village of San José Las Pilas, in the municipality of San Luis Jilotepeque, Jalapa department.

The Central American Dry Corridor, 1,600 kilometers long, covers 35% of Central America and is home to more than 10.5 million people. Here, over 73% of the rural population lives in poverty, and 7.1 million people suffer from severe food insecurity, according to FAO data.

As part of the project, the young Sandoval has taken action to harvest rainwater on her plot, in the backyard of her house. She has installed a circular tank, whose base is lined with an impermeable polyethylene geomembrane, with a capacity of 16 cubic meters.

When it rains, water runs off the roof and, through a PVC pipe, reaches the tank they call a “harvester,” which collects the resource to irrigate the small garden and fruit trees, and to provide water during the dry season, from November to May.

In the garden, Sandoval and her family of 10 harvest celery, cucumber, cilantro, chives, tomatoes, and green chili. For fruits, they have bananas, mangoes, and jocotes, among others.

They also have a fish pond where 500 tilapia fingerlings are growing. The structure, also with a polyethylene geomembrane at its base, is eight meters long, six meters wide, and one meter deep.

Another beneficiary is Ricardo Ramírez. From the rainwater collector installed on his plot, he manages to irrigate, by drip, the crops in the macro-tunnel: a small greenhouse next to the tank, where he grows cucumbers, tomatoes, and green chili, among other vegetables.

“From one furrow I got 950 cucumbers, and 450 pounds of tomatoes (204 kilos). And the chili, it just keeps producing. But it was because there was water in the harvester, and I just opened the little valve for just half an hour, by drip, and the soil got well moistened,” Ramírez told IPS with satisfaction.

En español: Video: La sequía en el este de Guatemala se alivia con la cosecha de agua de lluvia

 

Gary Baker (right), CEO of Equimundo speaks on the SDG Media Zone panel "The Manosphere: Understanding and Countering Online Misogyny" with, from left to right, Janelle Dumalaon, Panel Moderator and US Correspondent for Deutsche Welle; Jaha Durureh, UN Women Regional Goodwill Ambassador for Africa; and Ljubica Fuentes, Founder of ‘Ciudadanas del Mundo’. Credit: UN Photo/Eric Kanalstein

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 21 2025 (IPS)

As the digital landscape continues to expand and integrate into various aspects of daily life, humanitarian experts have raised concerns about the associated risks, particularly as artificial intelligence (AI), online anonymity, and the absence of effective monitoring frameworks heighten the potential for abuse and harassment. Women and girls are disproportionately affected by digital abuse, facing heightened risks, with nearly half of them worldwide lacking effective legal protections.

Ahead of the annual 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence campaign, which aims to leverage digital platforms to empower women and advocate for gender equality, UN Women raises the alarm on the digital abuse crisis affecting women. According to their figures, roughly 1 in 3 women globally experience gender-based violence in their lifetime, with anywhere from 16 to 58 percent of women having faced digital violence.

“What begins online doesn’t stay online,” said UN Women Executive Director Sima Bahous. “Digital abuse spills into real life, spreading fear, silencing voices, and—in the worst cases—leading to physical violence and femicide. Laws must evolve with technology to ensure that justice protects women both online and offline. Weak legal protections leave millions of women and girls vulnerable, while perpetrators act with impunity. This is unacceptable. Through our 16 Days of Activism campaign, UN Women calls for a world where technology serves equality, not harm.”

In recent years, online harassment has become increasingly prevalent, fueled by the rise of platforms such as Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and TikTok. The use of generative AI tools have also contributed to a surge in cyberstalking, non-consensual image sharing, deepfakes, and disinformation aimed at humiliating and intimidating women. According to figures from the World Bank, fewer than 40 percent of countries worldwide have adequate legal frameworks to protect women from online harassment, leaving around 44 percent of women and girls—approximately 1.8 billion—without legal protection against digital abuse.

The rapid advancement of generative AI in recent years has streamlined the process of image-based abuse against women, with user-friendly platforms allowing abusers to create highly realistic deepfake images and videos, which are then shared on social media platforms and pornographic sites. AI-generated deepfakes can be replicated multiple times and stored and shared on privately owned devices, making them difficult to monitor and remove. Accountability remains a significant issue due to the lack of adequate protections and moderation to ensure safe and consensual use.

According to UN Women, image-based sexual harassment has surged over the past few years, with schoolgirls facing increased rates of fake nude images of themselves being posted onto social media, as well as female business leaders being met with targeted deepfake images and coordinated harassment campaigns.

“There is massive reinforcement between the explosion of AI technology and the toxic extreme misogyny of the manosphere”, Laura Bates, a feminist activist and author, told UN Women. “AI tools allow the spread of manosphere content further, using algorithmic tweaking that prioritizes increasingly extreme content to maximize engagement.”

“In part, this is about the root problem of misogyny – this is an overwhelmingly gendered issue, and what we’re seeing is a digital manifestation of a larger offline truth: men target women for gendered violence and abuse,” added Bates.

Digital violence can take many shapes and forms, such as inappropriate messages, actions of abuse and control from intimate partners, and anonymous threats, impacting women from all walks of life. While women and girls in low-income or rural areas are disproportionately affected by digital violence, women and girls in nearly all contexts can be vulnerable to its impact.

“Online abuse can undermine women’s sexual and reproductive rights and has a real-life impact. It can be used to control partners, restrict their decision-making, or create fear and shame that prevents them from seeking help, contraception, information or care,” said Anna Jeffreys, the Media and Crisis Communications Adviser for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

“Young people who experience online harassment or extortion often avoid health services altogether. In extreme cases, it can impact mental health, career progress and even threaten lives,” Jeffreys told IPS.

According to UN Women, young women, journalists, politicians, activists, and human rights defenders are routinely subjected to sexist, racist, or homophobic slurs, with migrant, disabled, and LGBTQ+ individuals being met with misogyny merged with additional forms of discrimination.

“When you get away from your abusers, you feel kind of safe, but digital violence is following you around everywhere you go”, said Ljubica Fuentes, a human rights lawyer and the founder of Ciudadanas del Mundo, an organization that promotes education free from gender-based violence across all education sectors. “You always have to be 120 per cent prepared to make an opinion online. If you are a feminist, if you are an activist, you don’t have the right to be wrong. You are not allowed to even have a past.”

Recent studies from UN Women shows that digital violence, assisted by AI-powered technology, is rapidly expanding in both scale and sophistication, yielding real-world consequences that permeate digital platforms entirely. Digital violence has been increasingly associated with rising rates of violent extremism as abuses silence women and girls in politics and media. Additionally, it is associated with increased rates of femicides in contexts where technology is used for stalking or coercion.

In the Philippines, 83 percent of survivors of online abuse reported emotional harm, 63 percent experienced sexual assault, and 45 percent suffered physical harm. In Pakistan, online harassment has been linked to femicide, suicide, physical violence, job loss, and the silencing of women and girls.

In the Arab states, 60 percent of female internet users have been exposed to online violence, while in Africa, 46 percent of women parliamentarians have faced online attacks. In Latin America and the Caribbean, 80 percent of women in public life have restricted their online presence due to fear of abuse.

UN Women is urging for strengthened global cooperation to ensure that digital platforms and AI systems adhere to safety and ethical standards by calling for increased funding for women’s rights organizations to support victims of digital violence, as well as stronger enforcement mechanisms to hold perpetrators accountable.

“The key is to move toward accountability and regulation – creating systems where AI tools must meet safety and ethics standards before being rolled out to the public, where platforms are held accountable for the content they host, and where the responsibility for prevention shifts from potential victims to those creating and profiting from harmful technologies”, said Bates.

The organization also calls on tech companies to employ more women to facilitate inclusivity and a wide variety of perspectives. Tech companies are also implored to remove harmful content and address abuse reports on a timely basis. UN Women also stresses the importance of investing in prevention efforts, such as digital literacy and online safety training for women and girls, as well as initiatives that challenge toxic online cultures.

Jeffreys tells IPS that UNFPA is on the frontlines assisting survivors of gender-based digital violence by working with governments to review and improve national laws and policies while also working directly with communities, schools, and frontline responders to build digital literacy, promote safe online practices, and ensure that survivors can access confidential support.

“Digital platforms can be powerful tools for expanding access to information, education and essential health services — especially for young people. But these tools must be safe,” said Jeffreys. “UNFPA works with governments, educators and youth-led groups to promote digital literacy and critical thinking, and we call for stronger safeguards from governments, tech providers and others to prevent online spaces from being used to harm women and girls. This includes safer product design, better reporting mechanisms, and accountability for harmful content. When digital platforms are made safe, they can help advance gender equality instead of undermining it.”

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');  

The UN General Assembly in session. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elias

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 21 2025 (IPS)

The 193-member General Assembly (GA), the UN’s highest policy-making body, has long been the repository for scores of long-winded outdated resolutions accumulated over several decades– and lying in cold storage.

As part of the proposed restructuring of the United Nations, which is facing a severe liquidity crisis, there is now a move to streamline and revitalize the General Assembly which has been mired in a bureaucratic backlog.

The President of the General Assembly (PGA), Annalena Baerbock, has called on each Main Committee to review its working methods and propose concrete measures to enhance efficiency, including:

• Merging similar agenda items to avoid repetition;
• Reducing the frequency, length and number of resolutions;
• Using biennial or triennial cycles where appropriate;
• Limiting explanations of vote to five minutes; and
• Simplifying adoption procedures — one gavel, one decision, all texts.

These recommendations, mostly spelled out in a recent resolution, would help re-shape the General Assembly to respond to global challenges with agility and coherence. But unless these reforms are implemented, they remain just words on paper, just another resolution.

“Business as usual will not suffice. We need fewer repetitive resolutions, shorter debates, and smarter scheduling. No more ‘resolutions for resolutions’ sake,” the PGA said.

“We cannot preach on Sunday that we need fewer resolutions, then proceed to submit one for consideration on Monday. And this is, unfortunately, taking place”, she warned.

Dr Palitha Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section and one-time Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations, told IPS the UN is burdened under a heavy baggage of resolutions piled up over 80 years.

“Many are no longer relevant, others are superfluous, and some repetitive. Given its current perilous financial situation, it would be appropriate for each department and office to review rigorously the resolutions under their purview and identify those that could be terminated.”

This, he said, may be done through an omnibus resolution. Some might require delicate negotiations with member states which might claim ownership to resolutions that they had proposed. Sensitively, handled, this could deliver considerable financial and staffing dividends.

New resolutions, he pointed out, should be vetted carefully to avoid redundancies. UN staff could proactively assist in this process. Even where resolutions are to be implemented within existing resource allocations, there will be some cost involved, including time.

Where a proposed resolution could not be implemented due to resource constraints, it should be vetoed from the beginning, said Dr Kohona, who until recently, was Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China.

Action officers should be located or moved to an office where a resolution is most likely to be implemented and it would be most effective. For example, the responsibility for implementing UNDP-related resolutions should be allocated to Nairobi, he proposed. Peacekeeping should also be moved to Nairobi as most peacekeeping now happens in Africa, he declared.

Baerbock said: “We have seen the Main Committees put forward resolutions for three-day conferences, with no budget attached, fully aware of the fiscal situation we are debating at the same moment. We have seen over 160 sides events during High-Level Week, despite the call for less, or the call by some, for no side events at all”.

“And we have seen, already, three or four high-level meetings submitted for consideration for the 81st High-Level Week (next year), with four for each of the 82nd and 83rd, despite the decision of this Assembly – so by all of us – to limit this to a maximum of three.”

“While we all want to protect the things we care about, each of us must make concessions in this time of reform”, she declared.

Dr. Purnima Mane, a former Deputy Executive Director (Programme) and UN Assistant-Secretary-General (ASG) at the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), told IPS the major ongoing effort to review the working methods of each of the Committees of the UN GA and enhance their efficiency is certainly laudable.

It is a golden opportunity to challenge some of the so-called ‘givens’ of the ways in which the GA functions and focus on what matters in a streamlined fashion.

The currently proposed solutions however are somewhat peripheral even if they indicate a desire for change. One of the major problems faced by the Committees is the range of issues taken on without clear prioritization including a lack of focus on neglected, key issues. And the absence of a sense of urgency, she pointed out

“The suggestions offered touch on enhancing efficiency of working but avoid tougher issues perhaps due to lack of time and sometimes will on the part of some members to take the risk of proposing solutions which might necessitate dismantling of well-entrenched methods of working”.

Another barrier, she said, might be concerns about potential difficulties that are likely to be experienced in getting agreement on these methods and more so the possibility of limited involvement by member states in their implementation.

“Perhaps starting small and identifying possibly achievable objectives for how the committees are run and managed might be a good beginning, but without the commitment of member States to the issues being prioritized and to implement the resolutions being proposed, all this change and effort is unlikely to achieve any benefits, including saving of resources”, she said.

Reducing agenda items and avoiding repetitive resolutions and endless debates are all a good start but it requires the will of the member states to implement these resolutions, once passed, she added.

And while the will to implement is understood as a given, in reality that is exactly where the problem sometimes lies. How to encourage and ensure implementation is really the true challenge, said Dr Mane, a former President and CEO of Pathfinder International.

Andreas Bummel, co-founder and Executive Director of Democracy Without Borders, told IPS ironically, the issue of revitalizing the General Assembly itself has become a ritualistic item.

“Tackling the number of annual resolutions and avoiding useless repetition year after year is a no-brainer. This should have been implemented long ago. But deeper changes are needed”.

For instance, he said, there needs to be continuity and institutional memory in the office of the President of the General Assembly. It should be a two-year tenure and receive proper funding.

Further, by creating a Parliamentary Assembly, the instrument of Citizens’ Initiative and Citizens’ Assemblies, the General Assembly can become a center of innovation and inclusion for the entire UN system. This should be on the agenda.

Use or not use at your discretion. The final two sentences are the most important as far as I am concerned, declared Bummel.

Meanwhile, revitalization is also being extended to the Office of the President of the General Assembly (OPGA).

The 80th session, Baerbock said, benefited from an early, seamless handover from the 79th — allowing us to hit the ground running. Yet the volume of work remains immense.

“Our High-Level Week featured over seven major meetings in just a few days;
The remainder of the session will see nearly twenty intergovernmental processes and multiple mandated High-Level Meetings; And the total number of resolutions has barely changed — many nearly identical to those of past sessions.”

But this is not sustainable, she said. And it’s contradicting the call from smaller missions that they cannot be in three meetings at the same time.

Transitions matter. Preparation matters. “We must ensure each presidency is set up for success”.

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');  

A new independent evaluation of the Global Environment Facility’s food systems programs says they are delivering strong environmental and livelihood gains in many countries but warns that a narrow focus on farm production, weak political analysis, and shrinking coordination budgets are holding back deeper transformation. The Evaluation of GEF Food Systems Programs, prepared by the GEF […]

Children and youth engaging at COP. Credit: UN Climate Change/Zô Guimarães

By Cheena Kapoor
BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 21 2025 (IPS)

Jyoti Kumari missed her online classes again today. Her father, a vegetable seller in West Delhi’s vegetable market, had to go to work, taking with him the only smartphone the family uses. Kumari has been taking online classes since November 11, when the state government declared a shutdown of all elementary schools due to air pollution hitting the “severe” category.

A class five student in a government school, she relies on her father’s mobile phone to attend her classes. But her class timings coincide with her father’s work time, and due to this clash, the 10-year-old has been missing her lessons.

She represents what has become a common story in India—children missing school due to extreme weather events caused by climate change.

“Their schools shut down several times during peak summer months due to heatwaves, and the closing of schools due to air pollution in October/November has become a regular thing over the last few years. Now that the winters are starting, they will close again when the mercury drops to a freezing point,” said her father, Devendra Kumar.

In a country that has seen remarkable progress in girls’ education only in the last decade, these regular disruptions due to climatic events are threatening the progress. The school closures, compounded with poverty and loss of income due to extreme weather, threaten to push girls like Kumari into child marriage.

In Delhi, the Air Quality Index has been hovering between the “very poor” (300-400) and “severe” (over 400) categories since last week. Since November 11, when Kumari’s school shut, the government imposed stage three of the Graded Response Action Plan, or GRAP, under which nonessential construction and industrial activities are banned in the city. Civil rights groups and college students have been staging protests demanding immediate action to improve the national capital’s air quality.

But Kumari, who wants to become a scientist when she grows up, does not understand the government’s imposition and worries about her classes, which she has been missing.

As per a UNICEF report from earlier this year, climate-related extreme events disrupted education for 54.7 million students in India in 2024 alone. “April saw the highest global climate-related school disruptions, with heatwaves as the leading hazard affecting at least 118 million children in Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, the Philippines, and Thailand,” stated the report. It also added that fast-onset hazards like cyclones and landslides cause destruction of schools, while environmental stressors like air pollution and extreme heat are hindering school attendance.

Against this backdrop, world leaders have gathered in Belém for the 30th Conference of the Parties, in what is called the world’s largest climate negotiation platform. Decisions taken here will directly affect the future of children like Kumari. But by the 10th day of the summit, it is clear that non-economic loss and damage, or NELD, a term coined for all losses that are not directly related to finance, including mental health effects, loss of biodiversity, education, displacement, and culture, are not a priority.

While negotiators, packed in closed rooms, engage in high-level discussions around climate finance, adaptation targets, and fossil fuels, NELD waits to be noticed through the back door despite its growing relevance. It featured in only one side event where some experts highlighted its urgency, but it remains largely absent from the agenda.

“Social impacts of climate change are already worsening, and long-term impacts can lead to stunted education,” said Saqib Huq, Managing Director at the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD). “Within the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage, experts are collating data and knowledge regarding NELD, but we keep hearing that we need more data and more policy. Meanwhile, impacts are escalating.”

Part of the challenge, researchers say, is that NELD does not fit into a straightforward financial evaluation. While economic losses like collapsed infrastructure and destroyed crops are easier to quantify and thus draw funding, non-economic harms require more subtle accounting. Lost childhoods and interrupted learning do not fit into traditional finance frameworks.

But for Jyoti, the next few days do not depend on the negotiations and draft text in Belém, but rather on whether the pollution in Delhi falls enough for her to go to school again.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

Excerpt:

Social impacts of climate change are already worsening, and long-term impacts can lead to stunted education. —Saqib Huq, Managing Director at the International Centre for Climate Change and Development

Oceans contribute to climate regulation by absorbing over a quarter of human-caused CO₂ emissions and around 90 percent of excess heat but attract only 1.7 percent of everything that’s invested in science.

It is urgent to rethink and transform agrifood systems by accelerating mitigation and adaptation measures. But doing so requires addressing a critical financing gap. Credit: @FAO/Miguel Arreátegui

By René Orellana Halkyer
SANTIAGO, Nov 20 2025 (IPS)

Climate change is no longer a future threat; it is a reality that is reshaping agrifood systems and compromising global food security. Its impacts are evident in both the quantity and quality of food, affecting agricultural yields, water availability, pest emergence, disease spread, and fundamental processes such as pollination. Even changes in atmospheric CO₂ concentration are altering crop biomass and nutritional value.

In 2024, climate shocks were the main driver of food crises in 18 countries, affecting 72 million people experiencing high levels of food insecurity. Hurricane Mellisa, which struck Jamaica, Haiti, and Cuba, is a recent example of the severe effects these events have on agrifood systems.

Over the past five decades, climate change has reduced global cereal yields by 2%-5%; in Latin America alone, maize yields have declined by around 5%. Since 1961, climate change has reduced global agricultural productivity by 21%, which is equivalent to losing seven years of progress.

If we truly want agrifood systems that are more sustainable and resilient, climate financing must prioritize agriculture and the livelihoods of rural communities. Without sufficient resources, international commitments will remain words on paper rather than concrete results

These figures make one conclusion clear: it is urgent to rethink and transform agrifood systems by accelerating mitigation and adaptation measures. But doing so requires addressing a critical financing gap.

Despite the urgency, in 2023 only 4% of climate-related development financing was allocated to agriculture, livestock, fisheries, and forestry. This imbalance threatens the ability of the most vulnerable countries to adapt and transition toward sustainable production models.

If we truly want agrifood systems that are more sustainable and resilient, climate financing must prioritize agriculture and the livelihoods of rural communities. Without sufficient resources, international commitments will remain words on paper rather than concrete results.

In this context, COP30 is decisive. The promotion of agroforestry projects in the Amazon, which restore degraded lands and directly benefit local communities, is a fundamental element for the sustainability of ecosystems related to food and agriculture.

The presentation of the Tropical Forests Forever Fund (TFFF), led by Brazil with support from the World Bank, proposes an innovative model to finance global forest conservation, seeking to mobilize USD 25 billion from countries and USD 100 billion from private investors. This approach shows that sustainability can also be an economic opportunity when there are vision and commitment.

The early approval of the COP30 agenda demonstrates political will to advance on climate financing, energy transition, adaptation, and resilience. The challenge now is to turn commitments into concrete targets, with clear deadlines and real resources. History has shown that promises without action do not feed anyone.

At FAO, we are promoting strategies that combine mitigation and adaptation, such as integrated fire management, whose Call to Action was launched at this COP under the leadership of Brazil and with the support of 50 countries.

COP30 arrives at a crucial moment to place agriculture, food, and the role of Indigenous Peoples and rural communities at the center of global discussions.

The future of food, sustainability, and global stability depends on COP30 being more than a Summit: it must be the beginning of a new era of climate action centered on agrifood systems.

Excerpt:

René Orellana Halkyer, Assistant Director-General and FAO Regional Representative for Latin America and the Caribbean

Fabio Nogueira, a leader of the Menino Jesus Quilombola Afro-descendant community, stands in front of a proposed landfill, which is 500m from their homes. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

By Joyce Chimbi
BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 20 2025 (IPS)

Just 30 minutes from where the UN climate negotiations are unfolding in the port city of Belém, Afro-descendant communities are engaged in a fierce struggle for the full recognition and legal titling of their ancestral territories—critical as their security and livelihoods are compromised by businesses wanting to set up contaminating landfill sites and drug cartels.

A boat ride along the expansive Amazon basin takes you inside the forest. It is the largest rainforest in the world, estimated to be 5.5 to 6.9 million square kilometers and spanning eight countries.

In the forest are the Quilombos or communities founded by descendants of Africans who escaped enslavement. They have defended their rights for generations. Across Latin America and the Caribbean, they may be known by different names, but they are all Afro-descendant communities with shared histories.

Well over 130 million people in Latin America identify as Afro-descendant, descendants of those forcibly brought to the Americas during the transatlantic slave trade. In Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, and Suriname, these communities collectively hold recognized management rights to nearly 10 million hectares, or nearly 24 million acres, of land.

Açaí is harvested in an Afro-descendant community near Belém, Brazil, where COP30 is underway. Açaí is part of the daily diet and is historically known as a source of subsistence. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

But the Amazon is the backdrop for the struggle for the full recognition and legal titling of their ancestral territories, as guaranteed by the Brazilian Constitution of 1988.

IPS spoke to Fabio Nogueira, a leader among the Menino Jesus Quilombola community home to 28 families about their struggles and successes.

“Without titles, Quilombolas are exposed to invasion and displacement from big companies, ranchers, farmers and land grabbers.”

Alarmingly, criminal gangs target the Quilombola communities and their leaders for illegal activities.

Increased surveillance and drug seizures on direct routes from Latin America to Europe have turned the Amazon into a drug corridor. In Brazil, drug traffickers use ‘rios de cocaine,’ or cocaine rivers, jeopardizing the safety of the Quilombos along the Amazon rainforest.

Major rivers and remote areas in many Quilombola territories serve as key “cocaine corridors” for drug trafficking. The lack of state presence and land titling makes these communities soft targets.

Today, the Amazon rainforest is also the scene of a fierce struggle against landfills or sites for the disposal of waste material. He says landfills in the Amazon cause significant problems, including contaminating the soil and water with heavy metals and other toxins and releasing greenhouse gases like methane.

“We are currently 15 kilometers away from the lixão de Marituba landfill and it still pollutes our air and environment. Now they want to bring a landfill only 500 meters from our community. The landfill will be 200 hectares in size. We are saying no to landfills and have a case in court,” Nogueira said.

“The Menino Jesus quilombola community is in a legal dispute. We are resisting the proposed landfill project.”

Belém is a port city and gateway to Brazil’s lower Amazon region. A 30-minute boat ride through the expansive Amazon River takes you inside the forest. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

The project was planned without recognition of their existence or the impact it would have on them. The Public Defender’s Office of Pará has filed legal action and recommended the project’s suspension, citing that the land is public and part of the area traditionally occupied and claimed by the community for twenty years.

If the Brazilian State maintains the current pace of land regularization of quilombola territories, it will take 2,188 years to fully title the 1,802 processes currently open at the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform.

The slow pace of titling negatively affects forest preservation. Despite two studies indicating that the Quilombola play a crucial role in climate solutions, their ongoing struggle for basic recognition makes it difficult for them to secure their rights or access climate finance in formal spaces, such as COP30, according to Malungu, the coordinator of Associations of Remaining Quilombo Communities of Pará, which represents and advocates for the Quilombola communities in the state.

Two recent studies indicate that titling is a determining factor for the success of Quilombos in protecting the Amazon and titled territories maintain 91 percent of their forests, while non-titled territories preserve 76 percent.

“Alarmingly, self-declared territories that do not yet have certification (necessary for starting the titling process) had a rate of forest loss 400 percent higher than that of titled territories, highlighting the urgency of recognition to halt degradation.”

During COP30, a visit to the two Quilombos—Menino Jesus and Itaco-Miri—in the Amazon rainforest demonstrates the significance of communal land titling. It illustrates how this titling enhances the well-being of Afro-descendant peoples across the Amazon and how secure land tenure contributes to climate goals through carbon absorption, forest protection, and biodiversity preservation through traditional agriculture.

Throughout six generations, Quilombola communities stand out as caretakers and conservers of the Amazon rainforest’s biodiversity, using sustainable practices passed down through generations.

Menino Jesus and Itacoã-Miri territories and other Afro-descendant community lands ‘have high biodiversity and irrecoverable carbon and were associated with a 29 to 55 percent reduction in forest loss compared to control sites.’

Still, communities deliver better results with tenure security. Key data from Instituto Social Ambiental’s Study on Quilombo Territories in the Brazilian Amazon shows that while Quilombos face significant land tenure challenges, approximately 47 percent of mapped Quilombos lack even basic delimitation or fixing of boundaries, and over 49 percent of communities have not even passed the first step.

Along the Amazon basin, communities often live in houses facing the river. The forest is their backyard. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

Meanwhile, they remain outstanding in their conservation performance. They have preserved nearly 92 percent of mapped Quilombo territories, including forests and native vegetation. From 1985 to 2022, these territories lost only 4.7 percent of original forest cover, compared to 17 percent loss in private areas.

But political recognition has moved much more slowly than scientific recognition. Shortly before COP30, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva visited the Afro-descendant communities of Menino Jesus and Itacoã-Miri near Belém, Pará, as part of an agenda of preparatory meetings for the COP30 climate conference.

It has taken 30 COPs for a historic breakthrough, as COP30 has included the term ‘people of African descent’ in draft negotiating texts of the UN climate convention for the first time. This inclusion is a significant step toward formally recognizing this population in global climate policy.

The term ‘people of African descent’ has been incorporated into draft documents, including those related to the Just Transition and the Gender Action Plan. This had never happened in the history of the UN climate convention system, which has often been more technical and less focused on human rights and racial justice.

The Belém Declaration on Fighting Environmental Racism is a political commitment that was joined by 19 countries at the leaders’ summit before COP30 began. The text acknowledges the disproportionate exposure of people of African descent, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities to environmental harms and climate risks.

This declaration is an international agreement that seeks to foster a global dialogue on the intersection of racial equality, climate change, and environmental justice. The declaration recognizes the global ecological and racial justice crises as intertwined and proposes cooperative actions to overcome historical inequalities affecting access to environmental resources.

Its goals include reinforcing human rights and social justice in environmental policy, broadening the scope of equality in sustainable development, and building a more equitable future for all.

Coelho Teles from the Quilombo community told IPS that he is not aware of this recognition because they have “been sidelined. We do not know how to get involved and participate in COP30.”

Brazil identified forests and oceans as twin priorities and launched the Brazil-led Tropical Forests Forever Facility at COP30, seeking to compensate countries for preserving tropical forests, with 20 percent of funds reserved for Indigenous Peoples.

Science has shown communities keep forests standing. For the Tropical Forests Forever Facility to achieve desired results, those in Quilombo territories say their recognition and participation will need to be significantly more substantial.

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');