You are here

Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

Subscribe to Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE feed
News and Views from the Global South
Updated: 3 hours 49 min ago

Graduation Must Be a Springboard, Not a Stumbling Block

3 hours 49 min ago

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

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

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

USG Rabab Fatima

Graduation with momentum:
Graduation often coincides with a significant shift in the international support landscape. As preferential trade arrangements, concessional financing, and dedicated technical assistance begin to phase down, countries may face heightened fiscal pressures, reduced competitiveness, and increased exposure to external shocks. Without well-sequenced and forward-looking transition planning, these shifts can slow progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and strain national systems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

 


!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');  
Categories: Africa, Swiss News

What Daily Life Looks Like for Afghan Women Now

5 hours 24 min ago

“Like countless other women I am tied to domestic work.” Credit: Learning Together.

By External Source
Dec 1 2025 (IPS)

I am an educated Afghan woman and a former government employee. I have long been active in women’s rights struggles, education, and community development. For me, living in Afghanistan is fraught with dangers and difficulties. In a context where women are denied the right to study, work, or participate in public life, my previous roles in government institutions and international organizations, and my afvocacy for women’s rights, place me at particular risk.

With the fall of the previous government and the Taliban takeover, all my work in women’s rights and civil society issues has effectively turned into a target on my back; I am now being pursued by Taliban operatives and others equally opposed to women’s freedom. I have been repeatedly threatened, both directly and indirectly, by the Taliban and individuals associated with the group.

These threats are not only directed at me as a women’s rights activist, but my husband is also facing similar threats for having worked for the previous government. Thus, our entire family is facing an array of hostile forces; it makes it difficult to continue living in Afghanistan.

Under these circumstances, perhaps it is useful to describe what an average day looks like for me.

My day begins at five in the morning. There is no electricity because our solar panels are old and no longer capture and store enough energy, so the house is dark. I find my way to the kitchen using my phone’s flashlight to prepare breakfast. I ration our flour carefully. Prices are high and wasting food is unthinkable.

 

The writer is from Bamiyan province in central Afghanistan. Credit: Learning Together.

 

I also use gas sparingly, only to prepare rice because it is expensive. I heat water using a small makeshift stove that runs on wood and store it away in thermos flasks for tea and other daily needs.

My youngest daughter wakes up and cries. I breastfeed her, and she falls back asleep. Then I take my son to school. Sometimes he is reluctant to go because he is afraid. The road is unsafe, and he does not have pocket money and is increasingly under peer pressure. Despite this, we manage to persuade him.

He often returns from school hungry. Breakfast is usually tea with dry bread or tea with sugar, so he is often undernourished and weak.

After my son has left for school, the rest of the family would then sit down and have our breakfast.

My husband usually goes away to the mountains to meet friends and former work colleagues, so I am often left alone at home with my daughter. By 8 a.m., I have had most of the house chores done before the children’s snack time at 10 a.m.

After finishing with the chores, I feed my daughter and put her down for a nap. It is time to do the laundry, which I do by hand every other day because children’s clothes need frequent washing due to their playing habits in the dirt.

After all the running around, when I can still find a little time, I try to revisit my books. I try to go over my old books or review notes on psychology and education that I studied years ago. It saddens me, because I know that in today’s Afghanistan I cannot continue my education or return to work.

Some days I feel so exhausted and unwell that I lack the energy to do housework or even tend properly to my daughter. But because this innocent child had no choice in being born into this world, I force myself to look after her. On many days, life feels unbearable.

Before noon I return to the kitchen to prepare lunch before my son returns from school at 12.00 p.m. Lunch is usually boiled potatoes and bread, which has become too repetitive for my children’s liking but we have no alternatives. They often cry, but eventually they eat their meal. By 1:30 p.m., the children are done with lunch. After that, I put them down for a nap, wash the dishes and then perform my prayers.

 

Doing the laundry is part of her daily routine. Credit: Learning Together.

 

In the afternoons, I teach English and basic literacy to women in the neighbourhood. These lessons help me to stay in contact with the people around us and maintain awareness of their general situation. It also brings some peace to all of us. Most of our conversations revolve around daily struggles – rising prices, lack of money, and worries about our children’s future. None of us has much hope, but sharing our burdens lightens up the gloom engulfing our lives and lifts our spirits.

Our home is outside the city center, in a village where we are not well known. This distance from the provincial center means the Taliban rarely come prowling, which makes the prohibited teaching easier. The women also come in small groups and bring no books or pens that might raise suspicion and likely filter back to the Taliban. I work with them at home, and the literate women take photos of the lessons on their phones, while the others learn on the spot, since they have no further opportunity to study in their own homes.

The learning also involves practicing household skills such as sewing clothes, attaching headscarves, and other practical crafts to maintain their skills.

My husband returns home in the evening, usually tired, disillusioned and very depressed. I try to comfort him, even though I am deeply worried myself. My son struggles with his schoolwork, often showing frustration. I have to sit with him and go over his lessons.

For dinner, I usually cook whatever is immediately available, most often, local rice because it is more affordable.

After dinner, which is usually around 8 p.m., and all the dishes are washed and stacked away, I try to revisit my online psychology studies at the university. Psychology is the subject needed in today’s circumstances, and I am passionate about it. I am truly grateful to those who have supported me in this endeavor, and I thank them for their help. Many of my difficulties are eased, and it brings me happiness.

When everyone goes to sleep, I am left alone lost in thought. I worry about my daughter’s future, knowing she cannot go to school in Afghanistan. I think back to the days when I studied at university and had big dreams. Now, all I can do is pray that someday women will again have the opportunity to study, work, and live freely.

Most nights, these thoughts keep me awake. I lie in bed until morning, exhausted and hopeless. By dawn, I feel as though I have already worked so hard that I cannot even lift myself from the bed. I wake up dizzy, weak, and depressed, yet the day begins again.

It’s important to share that I live this same daily routine every single day. I am no longer a government employee, and like countless other women, I am confined to my home, with no time for rest, leisure, or even a moment of freedom. In the past, days off meant visiting friends or relatives, exploring the city, or enjoying simple outings. Transportation and the possibility of movement made it all possible.

Now, the Taliban have banned women from walking the streets, entering public spaces, or even leaving home for the simplest errands. Every step outside is forbidden, every opportunity to live fully taken away.

I am deeply grateful to those who read these words of mine. Through you, I hope my silenced voice can be heard. I hope it can reach the outside world, not just for me, but for hundreds of women whose lives are trapped under the same restrictions. Together, perhaps, a path can be found to reclaim life, dignity, and hope. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Excerpt:

The author is an Afghanistan-based female journalist, trained with Finnish support before the Taliban take-over. Her identity is withheld for security reasons
Categories: Africa, Swiss News

COP30 Fails the Caribbean’s Most Vulnerable, Leaders Say: ‘Our Lived Reality Isn’t Reflected’

10 hours 35 min ago

A coastal community in the Eastern Caribbean. Small island states say their extreme climate vulnerability is still not reflected in global finance decisions made at COP30. Credit: Alison Kentish/IPS

By Alison Kentish
CASTRIES, St Lucia, Dec 1 2025 (IPS)

Caribbean small island states say this year’s UN climate conference has once again failed to deliver the urgency and ambition needed to tackle escalating climate devastation across the region. From slow-moving climate finance to frustrating political gridlock, leaders say COP30 did not reflect the realities that small islands are living through every day.

Jamaica is recovering from Hurricane Melissa, which left over 30 percent of the country’s GDP in losses and billions of dollars in damage. While the country has been able to respond rapidly thanks to a suite of innovative developmental finance tools, including a USD 150 million catastrophe bond, parametric insurance and a disaster savings fund, its Minister for Water, Environment and Climate Change, Matthew Samuda, warns that the vast majority of Caribbean islands do not have similar mechanisms.

Speaking at a press conference organized by Island Innovation and themed “Islands, the Climate Finance Gap, and COP30 Reflections,” Samuda said this is precisely why global negotiations must center the lived experiences of SIDS.

“I think I perhaps may be a little more disappointed than I am usually at the end of a COP because seeing what Jamaica is going through, seeing what Vietnam is going through, seeing extreme weather events pop up all around the world over the last 10 days, you would think that the urgency and the facts staring us in the face would have brought about greater ambition,” he said, adding that “unfortunately, the global geopolitical landscape didn’t allow for us to go much further.”

A Struggle Just to be Heard?

For many small islands and territories, simply participating meaningfully at COP30 was an uphill battle. The British Virgin Islands, like other Caribbean territories, had to rely on partners, including the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States and the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre for accreditation and access to the negotiations.

“We try to split up and cover as much as we can,” said Dr. Ronald Berkeley, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Climate Change. “Our reliance on partners shows how limited our reach still is.”

Berkeley said that despite the Caribbean’s visible and worsening climate impacts, it remains difficult to get major emitters to understand the region’s urgency.

“For small islands, this is real. I’m not sure a lot of the big players believe us,” he said. “Until you live through being almost blown to smithereens by a Category Five hurricane, you will never understand.”

The BVI recently established its own climate trust fund, currently funded with about US$5.5 million, to address some financing shortfalls, but Berkeley emphasized that this cannot make up for reliable, large-scale climate funding.

Barriers to Pledges

Caribbean officials are echoing the same concern—that climate finance exists on paper but rarely reaches small, vulnerable nations at the speed or scale required.

“At COP there were positive commitments, about US$1.3 trillion annually by 2035 for climate action, the tripling of adaptation finance and operationalizing the Loss and Damage Fund,” said Dr. Mohammad Rafik Nagdee, Executive Director of the Caribbean Centre for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (CCREEE).

“But the elephant in the room is the global finance gap,” he said. “Even where access exists, it’s not accessible at the speed the climate crisis demands. Processes are lengthy, requirements heavy and small governments simply don’t have the technical capacity.”

Nagdee said the region needs “greater predictability, simpler pathways and finance that is actually ready to disburse.”

Living Through it—Not Debating it

For Jamaica, which is emerging from one of the most devastating storms in its history, the mismatch between climate impacts and climate action is glaring.

“In the past four years, Jamaica has had its hottest day on record, its wettest day on record, its worst droughts, two tropical storms, a Category 4 hurricane and now what could be classified as a Category 6,” Samuda said. “That’s climate change in reality. That’s not an academic debate for us.”

Caribbean leaders widely described COP30 as a ‘mixed bag,’ with negotiations with incremental progress overshadowed by inadequate urgency.

“We cannot talk about building back better if the resources arrive slowly,” Nagdee said.

For small island states living on the frontlines of warming seas, rising temperatures and record-breaking storms, the message from COP30 is clear and becoming all-too familiar—that  climate change is accelerating and the price of delay is already being paid.

This feature is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 


!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:


Regional leaders say the outcome of the ‘mixed bag’ climate talks once again overlooks the real and mounting threats faced by Caribbean countries.
Categories: Africa, Swiss News

Vulnerable Populations Will Suffer With UNAIDS Early Closure

11 hours 57 min ago

UNAIDS campaigns have dominated the global effort to end HIV/Aids as a public threat since 1999. Credit: UNAIDS

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Dec 1 2025 (IPS)

“It’s like adding fuel to an already burning fire,” says Aditia Taslim.

“We have not recovered from the impact of the US funding cuts earlier this year, and closing down UNAIDS prematurely will only make things worse, especially for key populations and other criminalized groups, including people who use drugs,” Taslim, who is Advocacy Lead at the International Network of People Who Use Drugs (INPUD), tells IPS.

Her view is shared widely by HIV activists around the world who were stunned by a proposal from UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in September, included in a report on progress on UN reforms, to shut down the UN’s main agency to fight HIV/AIDS next year.

UNAIDS, the civil society groups that sit on its board, experts, and national governments across the globe had already been working on a transformation plan for the agency, which would see it end in its present form around 2030 when current HIV targets expire.

And many still do not understand exactly why closure next year is now being planned.

“There is a lot of confusion around this right now. We’re not sure why 2026 was chosen. Perhaps it was because we were in fact already in a process of transformation,” Angeli Achrekar, Deputy Executive Director of the Programme Branch at UNAIDS, told IPS.

But the proposal has been met with vociferous pushback—a call from the UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board (PCB) NGO Delegation to the Secretary General urging him to reconsider was endorsed by more than 1 000 NGOs.

World Aids Day has been commemorated since 1988 and is a significant platform for people to unite against the disease. Credit: UNAIDS

Many of those same groups have warned that if the early closure does go ahead, gains in fighting the disease will be at risk, and, some are certain, lives will be lost unnecessarily.

“If this happens, the world will be much less effective in preventing and treating HIV, which means more people dying from a disease that is completely preventable and treatable. There’s no doubt in my mind that closing UNAIDS will lead to more HIV infections and deaths,” Julia Lukomnik, Strategic Advisor at Dutch organization Aidsfonds, told IPS.

UNAIDS, which started operations in 1996, is unique among UN structures in that its governing board actually includes civil society groups. This, experts say, has meant that in all its work, those on the ground working directly with the communities affected by the disease – not just people living with HIV (PLHIV), but also key populations most at risk, including drug users, sex workers, members of the LGBT+ community, and others—have had a crucial say in developing its policy and implementing its work.

Indeed, while the agency’s activities include treatment projects, in many countries it is seen as a vital bridge, directly and through partnerships with local NGOs, between communities and local, regional, and national authorities.

“If UNAIDS were to close in 2026, the impact would be significant, particularly in countries like Vietnam where community-led organizations depend on UNAIDS for data, technical guidance, coordination, and engagement space. UNAIDS has played a critical bridging role, connecting governments, donors, and civil society in Vietnam,” Doan Thanh Tung, Executive Director at Lighthouse Vietnam, one of the largest LGBTQ+ organizations in Vietnam, told IPS.

This is of particular concern at a time when marginalization and criminalization of key populations and PLHIV in many countries is worsening.

UNAIDS has played a crucial role in advocating for the rights of key populations and PLHIV, including helping bring in landmark legislation enshrining some rights and access to services.

UNAIDS workers provide support to communities in need of their services. The organization and its workers have been badly affected by the impact of a sudden acceleration of cuts to international HIV financing. Credit: UNAIDS

Campaigners fear that without UNAIDS presence, some communities would very quickly face increased marginalization or criminalization, without anyone to speak up for them.

“We’re in a context of increasing criminalization of key populations for the HIV epidemic. We know—in part because of UNAIDS— that violating the rights of key populations leads to increased HIV cases. When you criminalize gay and trans people, you increase HIV cases. When you criminalize sex workers, you increase HIV cases. When you criminalize safe injection sites, you increase HIV cases,” said Lukomnik.

“Closing the UN body that most strongly advocates for the human rights of these groups at the very time when these rights are increasingly threatened will almost certainly increase both rights violations and HIV cases,” she added.

Within UNAIDS, officials are aware this could be a problem.

“The question is where can advocacy for key populations be maintained [without UNAIDS] in countries. UNAIDS can raise issues to do with key populations with governments. Will other organizations be able to do that?” Eammon Murphy, UNAIDS Director, Regional Support Teams for the Asia Pacific and Eastern Europe and Central Asia regions, told IPS.

“One of the critical functions we perform is being the voice of communities. The voice of the community must be safeguarded at the local, regional and global levels,” Achrekar said.

As well as allowing it to advocate for communities, the trust that communities have with the agency means it can have a better view of an epidemic in a given country than state authorities might have, say experts.

They highlight UNAIDS’ vital role in collecting and evaluating data on the disease in specific communities and using data to develop effective interventions and national policies and set HIV targets. If that monitoring and evaluation capacity is lost suddenly with no time to replace it properly, the impact on authorities’ efforts to fight an HIV epidemic could be devastating, they argue.

“UNAIDS set the targets for the global AIDS response that has given countries the ability to shape their strategic plans to respond to HIV and AIDS. Those targets and strategic plans ensured high-impact interventions that led to a reduction of new HIV infections, addressing inequalities, gender-based violence and stigma and discrimination against people with HIV or AIDS,” Tendayi Westerhof, National Director, Pan African Positive Women’s Coalition-Zimbabwe, told IPS.

“It was responsible for the Global AIDS  Programme report that monitored progress of the AIDS response by countries. If UNAIDS is closed, this will have a huge impact on the monitoring of progress by countries in fighting AIDS,” she added.

The proposed closure of the agency also comes at a time when HIV groups are still reeling from recent upheavals in global aid funding.

The withdrawal of US aid at the start of this year, which had previously accounted for 73 percent of international HIV/AIDS financing, has already had a devastating effect on the fight against the disease, forcing many organizations on the frontline of the HIV response to close.

UNAIDS modeling forecasts the funding cuts could lead to an additional 6.6 million new HIV infections and 4.2 million AIDS-related deaths by 2029.

Closing UNAIDS against this backdrop could further imperil the sustainability of the HIV response in some places, especially in those where services for key populations are already underfunded.

“We have seen the impact of the abrupt funding cuts from the US, which have crippled a lot of harm reduction services and forced many drug user-led networks and organizations to close their operations. Harm reduction has also been severely underfunded. Closing down UNAIDS will only create reasons for governments to close down services and programmes, as well as funding for people who use drugs,” said Taslim.

“In most low- and middle-income countries, services and programmes for people who use drugs… are still heavily dependent on international donors. Closing UNAIDS prematurely means that services and programmes for our community will be the first to be removed from national priorities. There is no sustainability strategy in place for services and programmes for people who use drugs and other key populations, as well as other criminalized and marginalized communities,” he added.

Tung warned that dismantling UNAIDS at a time when global funding for HIV is shrinking “would likely erode global-to-local solidarity, reduce community engagement in the HIV response, and weaken independent data systems, which could further exacerbate the epidemic and undo decades of progress in HIV prevention and control that would be extremely difficult to recover.”

But while activists warn of the potential for a 2026 closure of UNAIDS to profoundly impact the world’s HIV response, they also point out that so far it is only a proposal and that there is some hope it may not come to pass.

“The proposal to end UNAIDS in 2026 was made by the UN Secretary General, but it’s really up to the UNAIDS PCB to make this call,” said Lukomnik.

UNAIDS officials point out that the agency had already begun a process of transforming itself.

Earlier this year, the PCB set out its plan to restructure between 2025 – 2027, and then review its structure and mandate again in 2027. It had been expected that after that, a transition period would see key UNAIDS functions shifted to other parts of the UN system or other actors involved in the HIV response by 2030.

The first phase of this restructuring involved the agency this year beginning a huge reduction in the number of its staff and offices around the world—both are to be cut by more than 50 percent.

Achrekar said the transformation was in part a response to global funding changes but also to reflect moves towards greater sustainability in the global HIV response.

“Our transformation is partly because of the current funding volatility, but it was already underway before that. We are focused on ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030 and even before the General Secretary’s proposal, we at UNAIDS knew that we had to transform for where the HIV response was shifting to in the future—that as countries start to approach 2030 HIV targets, the HIV response would need to be sustainable after 2030. Our transformation means we can be fit for when the HIV response needs to become sustainably supported by countries,” said Achrekar.

“We are not certain if this SG proposal can be turned back. But we believe there could be a way to bring some coherence to what the SG has proposed and the transition we had already planned. UNAIDS is not afraid of transforming,” she added.

However, if the proposal does come to pass and UNAIDS closes next year, the organization is hoping others involved in the global HIV response will be able to step up, to some extent, to help maintain the response.

“We are just one player in the HIV response and all the others have critical roles too. The global solidarity in the HIV response must be maintained in future and we have to be able to safeguard what is critical in the HIV response and the people affected by HIV,” Achrekar said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 


!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');  
Categories: Africa, Swiss News

Africa’s Critical Minerals Poised to Power Global Green Energy Transition

14 hours 12 min ago

Open-pit mine Archives. Credit: Africa Renewal, United Nations

By Zipporah Musau
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 1 2025 (IPS)

Although Africa holds more than 30 per cent of the world’s critical green minerals—including cobalt, lithium, manganese, and rare earth elements vital for building batteries, wind turbines and solar panels— this has not translated into prosperity for the continent.

At the Africa Climate Summit 2025 held in Addis Ababa in September 2025, leaders and experts explored ways Africa can benefit more from its resources.

Under the theme “Accelerating renewable energy, nature-based solutions, e-mobility, and scaling up climate finance,” the Summit sought ways to build a resilient and prosperous future for Africa. The important question, however, was whether Africa would continue exporting its raw materials for others to reap the profit or seize this moment and drive the agenda of its transformation.

Speaking at the Summit, the Executive Secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), Claver Gatete, called for a united African front in order to leverage these resources strategically.

“We cannot afford to repeat the exploitative patterns of the past,” he said. “Africa must industrialise using its own resources, creating jobs and sustainable growth of our people.”

The current net-zero clean energy race has triggered surging global demand for minerals used in batteries, solar panels and wind turbines, of which Africa is a key supplier.

Mr. Gatete emphasised the need for African governments to invest in local processing, value addition, and stronger regional cooperation, and avoid exporting raw minerals.

Risks and opportunities

The Summit highlighted both opportunities and risks. On one hand, critical minerals could generate billions in revenue, accelerate clean industrialisation and help Africa achieve the SDGs.

On the other hand, unchecked extraction will not benefit Africans and would worsen inequality and environmental degradation.

Mr. Gatete called for building continental capacity to process, refine, and manufacture components like batteries within Africa. He cited the ECA—Afreximbank Battery and Electric Vehicle (BEV) value chain initiative, launched in the DRC and Zambia, to build special economic zones (SEZ) for producing electric vehicle battery precursor and components as a concrete example of this shift “from resource extraction to technological innovation and prioritisation of local value addition.”

To expand this further, participants emphasised the importance of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) to develop integrated regional value chains, reduce external dependence, and unlock economies of scale. In the same breath, they called for continental unity to avoid fragmented national policies that could weaken Africa’s bargaining power.

To address this, ECA proposed the formation of African Critical Minerals Alliance—to harmonise regulations, negotiate better trade deals and promote intra-African collaborations.

“Unity is our strength,” Mr. Gatete reminded participants. “By working together, African countries can ensure that green minerals become a foundation for prosperity, not another lost opportunity.”

Africa’s financing gap for climate action was also discussed at the Summit, with leaders renewing their calls for increased international climate finance, debt relief and technology transfer. They also underscore the importance of the private sector investment aimed at strengthening regional value chains, building local processing capacity and expanding critical infrastructure.

The Africa Climate Summit 2025 ended with the adoption of the Addis Ababa Declaration, a renewed commitment to place sustainability, equity, and local development at the heart of mineral exploitation. The message was clear—Africa holds the key to the global green transition. The challenge now is how to turn that potential into lasting, inclusive prosperity for its people.

Source: Africa Renewal, United Nations

IPS UN Bureau

 


!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');  
Categories: Africa, Swiss News

The UN’s “International Days” Range from the Sublime to the Ridiculous

Fri, 11/28/2025 - 10:21

When the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution to designate 25 May as World Football Day. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 28 2025 (IPS)

The 193-member General Assembly, the UN’s highest policy-making body, routinely designates ”International Days” and “World Days’” on a wide range of subjects and events – from the sublime to the ridiculous: described as “a sudden shift from something grand and awe-inspiring to something silly and unimportant”.

The commemorations range from the International Women’s Day and the International Day to Combat Islamophobia to the International Moon Day and World Bicycle Day (not forgetting World Tuna Day, World Bee Day, International Day of Potato, World Horse Day, World Pulses Day and International Day of the Arabian Leopard).

According to the UN, the world body observes 218 international days annually (and counting).

One of the first designations came from the UN General Assembly’s declaration in 1947 that 24 October should be celebrated as United Nations Day, the anniversary of the adoption of the UN Charter that founded the Organization.

Since then, UN Member States have proposed more than 200 designations, presenting draft resolutions to the General Assembly so the entire membership, representing 193 nations, can vote.

But a new resolution aimed at revitalizing the work of the General Assembly “notes with concern the significant increase in the number of proposals to proclaim international days, weeks, months, years or decades”.

The resolution decides, on a trial basis, to put on hold consideration of new proposals for international days, weeks, months, years and decades during the eighty-first and eighty-second sessions.

The resolution also requests the President of the General Assembly, effective from the eighty-first session in 2026, to group all proclamation requests for international commemoration into a single resolution per agenda item, where each proposed commemoration contains its own operative paragraph focused on its establishment.

The upcoming International Days in March 2026 include:
1 March – World Seagrass Day
1 March – United Nations Zero Discrimination Day
3 March – International Day for Ear and Hearing Loss
3 March – World Wildlife Day
5 March – International Day for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Awareness
8 March – International Women’s Day
10 March – International Day of Women Judges
15 March – International Day to combat Islamophobia
20 March – International Day of Happiness
20 March – French Language Day
21 March – International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
21 March – World Poetry Day
21 March – International Nowruz Day
21 March – World Down Syndrome Day
21 March – International Day of Forests
21 March – World Day of Glaciers
22 March – World Water Day
23 March – World Meteorological Day
24 March – World Tuberculosis Day
24 March – International Day for the Right to the Truth concerning Gross Human Rights
25 March – International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery
25 March – International Day of Solidarity with Detained and Missing Staff Members
30 March – International Day of Zero Waste

The list for December includes:
01 Dec – World AIDS Day
02 Dec – International Day for the Abolition of Slavery (A/RES/317(IV)
03 Dec – International Day of Persons with Disabilities (A/RES/47/3)
04 Dec – International Day of Banks (A/RES/74/245)
04 Dec – International Day Against Unilateral Coercive Measures (A/RES/79/293)
05 Dec – International Volunteer Day for Economic and Social Development (A/RES/40/212)
05 Dec – World Soil Day (A/RES/68/232)
07 Dec – International Civil Aviation Day (A/RES/51/33)
09 Dec – International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of this Crime (A/RES/69/323)
09 Dec – International Anti-Corruption Day (A/RES/58/4)
10 Dec – Human Rights Day (A/RES/423 (V)
11 Dec – International Mountain Day (A/RES/57/245)
12 Dec – International Day of Neutrality (A/RES/71/275)
12 Dec – International Universal Health Coverage Day (A/RES/72/138)
18 Dec – International Migrants Day (A/RES/55/93)
18 Dec – Arabic Language Day
20 Dec – International Human Solidarity Day (A/RES/60/209)
21 Dec – World Meditation Day (A/RES/79/137)
21 Dec – World Basketball Day (A/RES/77/324)
27 Dec – International Day of Epidemic Preparedness (A/RES/75/27)

Categories: Africa, Balkan News

Authorities Urged to Take Lawful Measures to Stop Mass Abductions in Nigeria

Fri, 11/28/2025 - 09:45

Newspaper headlines reflect the abductions of girls and others in Nigeria’s northern states. Credit: Hussain Wahab/IPS

By Hussain Wahab
ABUJA, Nov 28 2025 (IPS)

On the morning of 17 November 2025, darkness cloaked Maga town in the Danko/Wasagu Local Government Area, Kebbi State, until gunfire shattered the silence. It was around 4 am when armed attackers stormed the Government Girls Comprehensive Secondary School, firing into the air to terrify residents before heading to the staff quarters. There, they killed two, including Hassan Yakubu, the school’s Chief Security Officer and then abducted 26 female students.

Two later escaped, said Halima Bande, the state’s commissioner for Basic and Secondary Education. This brazen raid came less than 72 hours after the killing of Brigadier-General Musa Uba in an ambush by the insurgents.

A rescue mission by Nigerian soldiers to intervene in Kebbi’s abduction was itself ambushed and injured by the insurgents, heightening fears that such violence is spiraling beyond the reach of conventional security responses.

Since then, 24 girls have been released, Nigerian President Bola Tinubu announced.

Abubakar Fakai, whose nine nieces are among the 26 abducted schoolgirls, told IPS that his family and the entire community have been plunged into unbearable grief.

A father of four of the kidnapped girls, Ilyasu Fakai, is still in shock. Almost every household in the close-knit village has been affected. For more than a week they received no credible information about the girls’ condition or whereabouts, Abubakar said.

“Every night we try to sleep, but we can’t, because we keep thinking of the girls lying somewhere on bare ground, scared and cold. These are teenage girls, and we fear for their dignity and their lives. We just want the government to rescue them quickly and reunite them with us. This pain is too much for our community to bear,” he told IPS.

The Kebbi raid was one of several mass abductions that occurred within days of each other.

At least 402 people, mainly schoolchildren, have been kidnapped in four states in the north-central region—Niger, Kebbi, Kwara and Borno—since 17 November, the UN human rights office, OHCHR, said on Tuesday.

Call to Authorities

“We are shocked at the recent surge in mass abductions in north-central Nigeria,” OHCHR Spokesperson Thameen Al-Kheetan said in Geneva.

“We urge the Nigerian authorities—at all levels—to take all lawful measures to ensure such vile attacks are halted and to hold those responsible to account.”

A day after the Kebbi incident, a church was attacked in Eruku, Kwara; two were killed and about 38 abducted during a live church session. State Gov. AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq, in a statement, said President Bola Tinubu deployed an additional 900 troops to the community.

In Niger State, a St. Mary’s School in Papiri was also attacked on Friday, November 21, and 303 boys and girls, plus 12 teachers, were abducted; only 50 are said to have escaped as of Sunday, November 23. This number surpasses the number of girls kidnapped in Chibok, prompting an international “Bring Back Our Girls” campaign.

The same day, militants launched another deadly attack in Borno State. The list is not exhaustive, underscoring how Nigeria’s overlapping insurgency and banditry crises are converging in devastating ways.

Insurgency a Threat to Food Security

The rise in insurgent attacks is threatening regional stability and causing a spike in hunger, according to the the World Food Programme (WFP)

The latest analysis finds nearly 35 million people are projected to face severe food insecurity during the 2026 lean season from June to August—the highest number ever recorded in the country.

Insurgent attacks have intensified this year, the UN agency said.

Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), an al-Qaeda affiliate, reportedly carried out its first attack in Nigeria last month, while the insurgent group Islamic State in West Africa Province (ISWAP) is apparently seeking to expand across the Sahel region.

“Communities are under severe pressure from repeated attacks and economic stress,” said David Stevenson, WFP Country Director and Representative in Nigeria.

“If we can’t keep families fed and food insecurity at bay, growing desperation could fuel increased instability with insurgent groups exploiting hunger to expand their influence, creating a security threat that extends across West Africa and beyond.”

Human-rights activist Omoyele Sowore drew national attention to the lawlessness in a viral post.

A Long Shadow Over Schools

Human-rights activist Omoyele Sowore drew national attention to the lawlessness in a viral post.

These recent incidents are not isolated—they are part of a deepening national crisis that has targeted schools for more than a decade. According to Save the Children, 1,683, schoolchildren have been kidnapped in Nigeria from April 2014 through December 2022. UNICEF similarly reports that over 1,680 schoolchildren have been abducted within that period and according to a SBM report, 4,722 people were abducted and N2.57 billion (about USD 1.7 million) was paid to kidnappers as ransom between July 2024 and June 2025.

These statistics reflect both past challenges and an enduring failure—despite Nigeria’s endorsement of the Safe Schools Declaration, the protections promised on paper have not reached many of its most vulnerable schools.

Experts and analysts say these incidents reflect a broader model: criminal gangs and insurgents are increasingly seeing schoolchildren as high-value targets. This surge underscores a chilling truth: educational institutions, especially in rural and poorly guarded areas, are no longer safe havens. They are strategic targets.

“This has now become a national and international discussion, giving Nigeria a very bad name,” said Colonel Abdullahi Gwandu, a conflict expert, in an interview with IPS, criticizing the government’s failure to anticipate such attacks and the slack competency of security forces, putting not only education but every sphere of the nation in mayhem.

Trauma, Trust, and Retreat

In the wake of the Kebbi abduction, fear rippled across communities. Uncertain of their children’s safety, parents in Maga and nearby areas rushed to withdraw their daughters from schools. Community leaders responded with grief and prayer. Maga’s traditional ruler announced a special prayer gathering, calling on God to bring the girls home safely.

Habibat Muhammad, a youth advocate, said it concerned her that these trends put the education of girls at risk.

“When you train a girl child, you train a nation but how do you train a nation when girls who should be sitting in class are dragged out of their hostels by people who have learned to exploit government negligence?”

She said many rural girls’ schools lack basic security infrastructure: trained guards, perimeter fencing, early-warning systems and proper lighting. She argued that this absence of protection contrasts sharply with the layered security given to public officials or financial institutions. “Education must be treated as a national priority, not a soft target,” she told IPS.

Why the State Can’t Seem to Stop Attacks

Security experts and community voices agree that the Kebbi attack exposed major systemic flaws. Gwandu described the incident as a stark reminder of how fragile rural school security has become. He noted that the deliberate killing of a school security officer signals a shift in tactics: attackers are now targeting authority figures in addition to students. He stressed the need for a more intelligence-driven strategy and urged the military to take firmer action. “

The Northwest Division, headquartered in Sokoto, should be given full authority and resources to respond quickly and aggressively by combining human intelligence with AI to track bandits and their informants while addressing poverty and poor education to reduce criminal recruitment, Gwandu said.

Beyond immediate security, he argues, the government must tackle root causes: poverty, lack of education, and widespread youth unemployment make banditry and kidnapping more appealing for disenfranchised young people.

The Cost Beyond the Kidnapping

Dr. Shadi Sabeh, an educationist and the vice-chairman of the Iconic University, argues that closing these wounds must be central to Nigeria’s recovery strategy.

“We have to be there for our children. Guidance and counselling are almost absent in our education system.” he calls for trauma-informed curricula, peer support groups, bravery training, and sustained mental health services within schools to help students cope, heal, and reclaim their futures. This highlights the need to keep youth productive.

“A hungry man is an angry man and an idle hand is a devil’s workshop.

Jeariogbe Islamiyyah Adedoyin, Vice President of the School of Physical Sciences, added a more personal plea.

“No child should ever have to go through something like that just to get an education. Our girls deserve to learn without fear. She said when schools are no longer safe, the future of the nation is at risk.”

What the Government Is Doing—And Why It’s Not Enough

In response to the crisis, authorities have initiated both immediate and longer-term measures. Short-term responses include deployment of troops to high-risk regions like Kebbi and Niger, search-and-rescue operations involving military, police, and local vigilantes, closure of some schools deemed vulnerable and public condemnation from religious and political leaders.

However, high levels of poverty, unemployment, and illiteracy, and lack of parental care make marginalized youth vulnerable to recruitment by armed groups and defeat these efforts.

A legal expert, Waliu Olaitan Wahab, told IPS that the roots of insecurity in northern Nigeria run far deeper than the activities of Boko Haram, herdsmen, or bandit gangs. He described the crisis as multifaceted, arguing that decades of neglect by northern elites have created a system where millions of children grow up without support, opportunity, or protection—making them easy targets for recruitment.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 


!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');  
Categories: Africa

Burkina Faso: Three Years of Broken Promises

Thu, 11/27/2025 - 07:27

Credit: Sergey Bobylev/RIA Novosti/Anadolu via Getty Images

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Nov 27 2025 (IPS)

Three years ago, Captain Ibrahim Traoré seized power in Burkina Faso with two promises that have proved hollow: to address the country’s deepening security crisis and restore civilian rule. Now he has postponed elections until 2029, dissolved the independent electoral commission and pulled the country out of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). Burkina Faso has become a military dictatorship.

The journey began in January 2022, when protests over the civilian government’s failure to address jihadist violence opened the door for Lieutenant-Colonel Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba to seize power. Transitional authorities promised a return to democracy within two years, agreeing to a timeline with ECOWAS. But eight months later, Traoré led a second coup, accusing Damiba of failing to defeat insurgents.

When Traoré’s promised deadline of June 2024 approached, the military government convened a national dialogue that most political parties boycotted. The resulting charter extended Traoré’s presidency until 2029 and granted him permission to stand in the next election, transforming what was meant to be a transitional arrangement into consolidated personal power. The dismissal of Prime Minister Apollinaire Joachim Kyelem de Tambela and the dissolution of his government in December 2024 removed the pretence of civilian participation in governance.

As the military has entrenched its rule, civic freedoms have evaporated. The CIVICUS Monitor downgraded Burkina Faso’s civic space rating to ‘repressed’ in December 2024, reflecting the systematic silencing of dissent through arbitrary detention and a particularly sinister tactic: forced military conscription of critics. Four journalists abducted in June and July 2024 disappeared into the military, with authorities announcing they had been enlisted. In March 2025, three prominent journalists who spoke out against press freedom restrictions were forcibly disappeared for 10 days before reappearing in military uniforms, their professional independence erased at gunpoint.

Civil society activists have suffered similar fates. Five members of the Sens political movement were abducted after publishing a press release denouncing the killing of civilians. The organisation’s coordinator, human rights lawyer Guy Hervé Kam, has been repeatedly detained for criticising military authorities. In August 2024, seven judges and prosecutors investigating junta supporters were conscripted; six reported to a military base and have not been heard from since. This weaponisation of conscription transforms civic engagement into grounds for forced military service, effectively criminalising dissent while claiming to mobilise national defence.

Meanwhile the security situation that supposedly justified these coups has dramatically worsened. Deaths from militant Islamist violence have tripled under Traoré’s watch, with eight of the 10 deadliest attacks against the military occurring under his rule. Military forces now operate freely in as little as 30 per cent of the country. The military has committed mass atrocities: in the first half of 2024, military forces and allied militias killed at least 1,000 civilians. In one incident in February 2024, soldiers summarily executed at least 223 civilians, including 56 children, in apparent retaliation for an Islamist attack.

Conflict has displaced millions, with independent estimates placing the numbers of internally displaced people at between three and five million, far exceeding the government’s last official count of just over two million in March 2023. Some are fleeing across the border. Around 51,000 refugees arrived in Mali’s Koro Cercle district between April and September 2025, overwhelming host communities already struggling with fragile public services. Multiple concurrent epidemics, including hepatitis E, measles, polio and yellow fever, compound the humanitarian crisis in Burkina Faso.

To avoid accountability for these failures, the junta is withdrawing from international oversight. In January, following their joint exit from ECOWAS, which they characterised as being under foreign influence and failing to support their fight against terrorism, military-run Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger formed the Alliance of Sahel States. In September, the three juntas announced withdrawal from the ICC, mischaracterising the body that holds human rights abusers to account as a tool of neocolonial repression. These moves leave victims of extrajudicial killings, torture and war crimes with no realistic prospect of accountability.

The regime’s online propaganda machine has proved remarkably effective in justifying its intensifying repression. Traoré has cultivated an image as a young pan-African hero fighting western imperialism. To some young people across Africa and the diaspora, he represents the charismatic leadership needed to break with discredited politics and colonial relationships. This reputation is built on extensive disinformation that overstates progress, downplays human rights violations and portrays withdrawal from international institutions as bold resistance rather than an evasion of accountability.

The junta’s anti-imperialist rhetoric obscures a simple reality: it has replaced one troubling relationship with another. Having expelled French forces, Burkina Faso has turned to Russia for military support. Russian mercenaries now operate extensively alongside national forces, bringing no pressure to respect human rights while offering Vladimir Putin a shield from accountability for his war in Ukraine. The junta has recently granted a company linked to the Russian state a licence to mine gold.

Yet the democratic ideal survives. Civil society leaders continue to speak out, journalists continue to report and opposition figures continue to organise, despite the enormous personal risks. Their courage demands more than statements of concern.

In the face of the Trump administration’s sudden termination of USAID programmes, other international donors must step up and establish emergency funding mechanisms to support civil society organisations and independent media operating under severe restrictions in Burkina Faso or in exile. Regional institutions must impose targeted sanctions on officials responsible for human rights violations and maintain pressure for democratic restoration. Without sustained international solidarity with Burkina Faso’s democratic forces, the country risks becoming another cautionary tale of how military rule, once consolidated, proves extraordinarily difficult to reverse.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Head of Research and Analysis, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report. She is also a Professor of Comparative Politics at Universidad ORT Uruguay.

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

 


!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');  
Categories: Africa, European Union

ICC Judges & Officials, Under US Sanctions, Live Under Rigid Isolation

Thu, 11/27/2025 - 06:51

International Criminal Court. Credit: UN Photo/Rick Bajornas

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 27 2025 (IPS)

The US sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) have intensified the rigid isolation of judges and officials of the Court based in The Hague, Netherlands.

According to an interview with the French judge Nicolas Guillou, published in Le Monde, ICC judges are also being refused access to American websites and credit cards.

“The sanctions, imposed by the United States after the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli officials accused of war crimes in Gaza, have severely impacted the daily lives and professional operations of the sanctioned individuals”.

Judge Guillou has described his situation as being “economically banned across most of the planet,” forcing him into a lifestyle reminiscent of the pre-internet era.

Asked for a response, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters: “Sadly, he’s not the only person linked to the ICC who’s been placed under unilateral sanctions.”

As you know, the ICC is separate from the UN Secretariat. “That being said, we believe that the International Criminal Court is a very important element of the international justice system. It was set up by Member States. We don’t believe that its members should be targeted by unilateral sanctions, which as I think, as the article says and as we know, have a deep impact on people and their families.”

ICC Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan, who addressed the Security Council on the Situation in Libya on November 25, also focused on life under US sanctions.

The progress towards justice in Libya, she pointed out, has been delivered despite what are also “unprecedented headwinds faced by the Court”.

“I must be clear that coercive measures and acts of intimidation against the ICC, civil society and other partners of justice do not serve anyone other than those who wish to benefit from impunity in Libya and in all situations that we address.”

It is the victims of murder, sexual violence, torture and the other most serious crimes addressed by our Court that stand to lose the most from these coercive actions.

“I firmly believe that is not a position that is welcomed by any member of this (Security) Council, and it is my sincere hope that we can rebuild a common ground between us for collective, effective action against atrocity crimes,” declared Khan.

Meanwhile, the International Bar Association (IBA) has condemned the imposition of additional sanctions against ICC judges and officials by the US administration as an attack against the global rule of law and the independence of judges, and calls on all ICC States Parties to take actions to protect the Court.

IBA President Jaime Carey is quoted as saying: ‘Judges and prosecutors must be able to carry out their work without fear of retribution. The IBA continues to stand for the independence of judges and lawyers, a fundamental principle of the rule of law.’

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir, a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU), told IPS the US imposed sanctions on two ICC trial judges, Nicolas Guillou and Kimberly Prost, and against two Deputy Prosecutors, Nazhat Shameem Khan and Mame Mandiaye Niang.

They were accused of supporting “illegitimate ICC actions against Israel, including upholding the ICC’s arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant, since they assumed leadership for the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor.” The sanctions ban the four from entering the US and block their US assets.

While the IBA has condemned the sanctions against ICC judges and officials as an attack on the global rule of law and judges’ independence and called on all ICC States Parties to take actions to protect the Court, several other measures can be taken to inhibit, if not stop, Trump from continuously using the power of his office to serve his ego and his misguided political agenda, he said.

First, other countries and international bodies can put collective diplomatic pressure on the US to reverse or reconsider these sanctions. This may involve negotiations or leveraging alliances to show that this kind of punitive action isn’t widely supported.

Second, the International Criminal Court itself, or other international legal bodies, might issue statements condemning the sanctions or seek support from other member states. Although the ICC doesn’t have direct enforcement power over US policies, it can still rally international opinion and try to create global pushback.

Third, on the US side, Congress could raise domestic legal and political challenges if there’s significant opposition within the US; those sanctions could be challenged or eventually reversed. With the court of public opinion on their side, sometimes, just the threat of political backlash can make the Trump administration reconsider.

Fourth, the IBA should urge other international legal organizations or human rights groups to create a broader coalition of support. By doing so, they can amplify pressure on the US government and show that the legal community worldwide stands firmly against such sanctions.

Fifth, the IBA can engage in direct advocacy with other governments to raise this issue at diplomatic forums such as the United Nations or other international gatherings. Essentially, it can continue to use its platform to advocate for broader coalitions of support, keep the issue in the spotlight, and secure direct support to overturn US policy and help generate international momentum.

In short, it’s usually a mix of international diplomatic pressure and domestic US political or legal checks that could be used to push back against this kind of measure. Obviously, none of these measures is easy to implement; nevertheless, they are the main avenues to consider.

“For the US to use the club of restrictive sanctions on a group of judges who are simply trying to honor humanity’s legal protections is a kind of vindictiveness akin to madness. This irrational action weakens global humanity’s legal protections. Everybody on earth has less safety and security if international law is flouted in such a way. The court is a vital component fostering international justice and peace”, said Jennings.

James E. Jennings, President, Conscience International, told IPS the Trump Administration in Washington is good at two things: chest thumping and distracting attention from the main issue at hand. The White House has now vindictively added fresh sanctions on judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC). And why? To defend Israeli impunity from charges of war crimes and worse in Gaza.

Federica D’Alessandra, Co-Chair of the International Bar Association’s Rule of Law Forum, said that “The measure has brought the tribunal’s day-to-day operations to a near standstill, raising existential concerns about its future.”

Trump, for years a practitioner of the use of fear for making his enemies back down, is trying to intimidate the judges by Mafia-like behavior. Although it won’t work in the long run because Trump will not be around forever, the strategy is working presently to delay, delay, delay justice.

Justice delayed, according to a well-known slogan, might very well be in this case justice denied. By slapping sanctions on the four ICC judges, Trump and his minions have thrown sand in the wheels of international accountability.

Even though the technique is contra bonos mores (opposed to decent morality) as long ago enacted in Roman Law, It might work in this case because it threatens to gum up the works of international order, he pointed out.

“International law is the only mechanism that can truly regulate the bloody tooth and claw of the natural order. Watch a few videos of apex predators at work in the jungle and you’ll understand what damage an unregulated dictatorship like Russia’s can do to civilian life and infrastructure in both Ukraine and Russia. Israel’s “mad dog” Likud military regime is even worse—because Russia at least has not attacked six nations,” declared Jennings.

Meanwhile, specific impacts, according to an AI Overview, include:

    • Financial Services: All accounts with major US credit card companies like Visa, Mastercard, and American Express have been deactivated. Some non-American banks have also closed their accounts due to the global reach of US sanctions.
    • Online Services: Access to accounts with American tech and e-commerce companies has been terminated. This includes services such as Amazon, Google, Apple, Airbnb, and PayPal.
    • Travel and Booking: Online reservations for hotels and travel services have been canceled. For example, a hotel booking made on Expedia for a location within France was canceled hours later due to the sanctions.
    • General Commerce: Online commerce has become nearly impossible because one cannot know if a product or its packaging involves an American entity.

These measures effectively prohibit any American person, company, or their foreign subsidiaries from providing services to the sanctioned individuals without authorization from the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

 


!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');  
Categories: Africa, European Union

From Access to Action — Carbon Markets Can Turn Developing Countries’ Ambitions into Realities

Wed, 11/26/2025 - 19:02

Local farmer ploughing a field in Indonesia. Credit: Unsplash

By Ana Carolina Avzaradel Szklo
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil, Nov 26 2025 (IPS)

The UN climate talks at COP30 once again brought the critical issue of climate finance to the forefront of global discussions.

However, while much of the debate revolved around traditional forms of aid directed at developing countries most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, a faster, more transformative approach lies in expanding access to carbon markets.

When emerging and developing economies (EMDEs) are equipped with the tools and knowledge needed to engage in these markets on their own terms, carbon finance can be generated and harnessed in ways that reflect their unique natural assets, governance, social contexts, and national priorities.

Achieving global climate and sustainable development goals depends on ensuring that those worst affected by climate change can fully participate in and benefit from this growing flow of finance.

EMDEs are on the frontlines of climate change — from rising sea levels threatening Pacific island nations to intensifying droughts and fires in the Amazon and Horn of Africa, and increasingly intense and frequent hurricanes in the Caribbean. These crises often hit hardest in regions that have contributed least to global emissions and in the most difficult position to react to them.

Yet, these same nations face a climate finance shortfall of $1.3 trillion per year. Carbon markets present an opportunity for these countries to bridge this gap by turning their natural advantages into climate finance assets.

Despite successful initiatives aimed at bolstering both high-integrity supply and demand for carbon credits, significant barriers to access persist, particularly for EMDEs. From fragmented policy landscapes to weak governance structures, limited institutional capacity, and low investor confidence, various obstacles prevent the vast potential of EMDEs to engage fully.

The Access Strategies Program — led by the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative — is a direct response to these challenges. It helps governments design and implement their own pathways into high-integrity carbon markets, enabling them to build the policies, institutional capacity, and investor confidence needed to meet their climate finance needs and transform their potential into progress.

Each country’s natural capital — from Brazil’s vast rainforest and agricultural landscapes, to the Caribbean’s blue carbon ecosystems, or Kenya’s grasslands and renewable energy potential — represents a unique competitive advantage, ready to be realised.

Simultaneously, no two countries share the same development goals or governance contexts. In some, carbon markets can drive forest conservation and biodiversity protection; while in others, they deliver the most impact by strengthening rural livelihoods or financing clean energy transitions.

The Access Strategies model recognises this uniqueness, tailoring its support to help countries use carbon finance in ways that align with their own specific economic and environmental strategies and goals.

For example, the Partnership for Agricultural Carbon (PAC) — developed with the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) — is building capacity across Latin American and Caribbean agriculture ministries to participate in high-integrity carbon markets. It provides training, policy guidance, and decision-making tools that help governments and farmers identify viable carbon projects aligning with national agricultural and sustainability goals.

The collaboration has given small and medium producers a clearer route to investment, while positioning agriculture as a central player in regional climate strategies. Another example of the Access Strategies work is the recently launched Amazon Best Practices Guide, which will help Amazon state governments design and implement carbon market frameworks made specifically for their unique ecological and governance realities.

Moreover, in countries such as Kenya, Peru, and Benin, the Program has provided tailored support to develop policy and regulatory frameworks, strengthen institutional capacity, and attract responsible investment for high-priority climate mitigation projects — all in line with country-led goals.

These examples show what’s possible when governments have the tools and expertise to engage in high-integrity carbon markets on their own terms. More countries should seize this opportunity to tap into the growing flow of finance from carbon markets.

While carbon markets are not a silver bullet, they are one of the few scalable and self-sustaining tools available when grounded in integrity and tailored to each country’s needs.

Programs like Access Strategies do more than transfer technical knowledge — they build the enabling conditions for locally led action, drawing on countries’ unique ecological, social, and institutional insights to shape solutions that work in practice.

The focus of global climate action should not only be on new funding pledges, but on ensuring funding that is already available is effectively redirected for EMDEs countries to harness their own natural capital and promote social inclusion, while meeting their climate goals and reshaping their development pathway.

Building this kind of capacity is how we turn global ambition into lasting, locally owned progress, and moreover how carbon finance can become a true instrument of sustainable development.

Ana Carolina Avzaradel Szklo, Technical Director, Markets and Standards, Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI)

IPS UN Bureau

 


!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');  
Categories: Africa, European Union

South Africa’s G20 Presidency: Diplomatic Victory, but a Weak Final Declaration

Wed, 11/26/2025 - 18:38

UN Secretary-General António Guterres addresses the media at the G20 Summit in South Africa. Credit: UN Photo/Ropafadzo Chiradza

By Danny Bradlow
PRETORIA, South Africa, Nov 26 2025 (IPS)

US president Donald Trump’s efforts to derail a successful wrap-up of the G20 summit in Johannesburg failed. Trump boycotted the meeting and the US told other countries through diplomatic channels not to sign a communiqué. Nevertheless, the 19 remaining countries and regional organisations signed a 30-page declaration.

This called for, among other things, increased funding for renewable energy projects, more equitable critical mineral supply chains and debt relief for poorer countries. Senior research fellow Danny Bradlow explains what was, and wasn’t, achieved.

In what ways was South Africa’s G20 presidency a success?

The G20 has been a great diplomatic success for South Africa in at least three ways.

First, it succeeded in leading all the other G20 countries and organisations to adopt by consensus a leaders’ declaration despite a boycott and bullying tactics by Washington.

The 120 paragraph Leaders’ Declaration covered all the issues embodied in the “Solidarity, Equality and Sustainability” theme that South Africa chose for the G20. They included:

    • • debt and access to affordable, sustainable finance

 

    • • financing for a just energy transition

 

    • • critical minerals

 

    • • inequality

 

    • • a second phase for the

Compact with Africa

    • The first phase was launched in

2017 during Germany’s G20 presidency

    • and provided a framework for Africa’s engagement with its development partners.

 

    • • illicit financial flows

 

    • inclusive growth.

Second, South Africa succeeded in launching a number of initiatives over the course of the year.

Firstly, the G20 acknowledged South Africa’s five years of support for the establishment of an African Engagement Framework within the G20’s finance track. It is intended to support enhanced cooperation between Africa and the G20.

Secondly, leaders expressed support, in various ways, for the G20 working group initiatives on illicit financial flows, infrastructure, air quality, artificial intelligence, sustainable development and public health. The ministerial declaration on debt was also supported. This includes reforms around initiatives supporting low and middle income countries facing debt challenges.

Thirdly, the Ubuntu Legacy Initiative was launched. This is designed to fund cross-border infrastructure in Africa. It was also agreed that an Ubuntu Commission will be set up to encourage research and dialogue on dealing cooperatively with global challenges. Ubuntu can be explained with reference to the isiZulu saying ‘umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu’ which means ‘a person is a person through other people.’ It entails an ethics of care, compassion and cooperation.

Lastly, South Africa succeeded in delivering an effective, efficient and constructive G20 year. This is no small feat. It required the country to organise more than 130 meetings of G20 working groups, task forces and ministerial meetings, in addition to the leaders’ summit.

Is this only a good news story?

It is inevitable that any complex, multifaceted and voluntary process involving participants with strong and contrasting views will not be an unqualified success.

This, without doubt, is the case with South Africa’s G20 year. The environment was complicated by a number of factors:

    • • the wars in Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan

 

    • • the actions of the US and some of its allies to undermine the international community’s efforts to address the intertwined challenges of climate, biodiversity, energy, poverty, inequality, food insecurity, debt, technology and development, and

 

    • trade wars initiated by Trump imposing tariffs on trading partners.

These factors meant that getting the diverse membership of the G20 to reach agreement on a broad range of complex issues would be extremely difficult. In fact, it would only be possible to do so at a high level of abstraction.

Unfortunately, this proved to be the case. The result is that the G20 Leaders’ Declaration largely boils down to a set of general statements that are almost totally devoid of commitments for which states can be held accountable. Such general statements are not uncommon in the diplomatic statements issued at the end of high-level multilateral meetings. However, this is an extreme example.

The leaders expressed their support for a number of voluntary principles on issues such as disaster relief, artificial intelligence, critical minerals and debt. They also expressed support for the work of organisations like the multilateral development banks and the International Monetary Fund, and for some specific South African led initiatives like the review of the G20 itself.

However, there are no time frames or deliverables attached to these expressions of support.

What needs to be done to make the declaration effective?

The G20 is a voluntary association with no binding authority. The declaration’s efficacy therefore ultimately depends on all the G20’s stakeholders both taking – and advocating – for action on the issues raised in it.

These stakeholders include states and non-state actors like international organisations, businesses and civil society organisations.

The value of the declaration is how both the state and non-state actors use it to advocate for action. That can be in future G20 meetings as well as other regional and international forums.

How can the declaration be used to lead to action?

One of the biggest challenges facing African countries is debt. Over 20 are either in debt distress or at high risk of debt distress. Many African countries are being forced to choose between servicing their debts and investing in the development and climate resilience of their own populations.

The challenge that this creates for African states is exacerbated by their limited access to affordable, predictable and sustainable sources of development finance.

This means that African countries are unlikely to gain a sustainable path to reaching their development and climate goals without substantial action on debt and development finance. The Leaders’ Declaration, in paragraphs 14-22, clearly recognises the challenge. Key elements include:

    • • the endorsement of

the statement

    • their finance minister and central bank governors made on debt sustainability

 

    • • a reiteration of the support for the

Common Framework

    • for dealing with low-income countries in debt distress. The framework establishes a process for dealing with the official and commercial debt. But the process has proven to be too slow and cumbersome.

 

    • • a commitment to working with the

Global Sovereign Debt Roundtable

    to explore better ways to meet the needs of debtor countries in distress and their creditors. This roundtable establishes an informal mechanism that brings together creditors and debtors and other stakeholders in sovereign debt to discuss ways to improve restructuring processes.

But these will be just empty words unless the endorsements are turned into action.

There are three actions that stakeholders can take.

First, African leaders can form a regional borrowers’ forum to discuss the debt issue and share information on their experiences dealing with creditors and on developing common African positions on development finance and debt. This would build on the work done by:

    • • the African Expert Panel appointed by South African president Cyril Ramaphosa, and

 

    • the African finance ministers under the auspices of the African Union and the UN Economic Commission on Africa.

They can also use this forum to engage in open discussions with African non-state actors.

Second, African non-state actors can develop strategies for holding the leaders accountable if they fail to follow up on the declaration. And they can hold creditors accountable for their actions in their negotiations with African debtors in distress.

Third, African non-state actors should initiate a review of how the IMF needs to reform its operational policies and practices. Africa has eloquently advocated for greater African voice and vote in IMF governance. The next step should be to explore how the substantial changes that have taken place in the scope of IMF operations can be translated into operational practices. These include the macroeconomic impacts of climate, gender and inequality.

Daniel D. Bradlow is Professor/Senior Research Fellow, Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria

IPS UN Bureau

 


!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');  
Categories: Africa, European Union

Trump’s Threat of ‘Military Action’ in Nigeria Stokes Religious Tensions

Wed, 11/26/2025 - 09:48

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.

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

 


!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');  
Categories: Africa, Swiss News

‘Inclusive Digital Transformation Will Pave Path for Prosperity, Bridge Divides’

Wed, 11/26/2025 - 09:32

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

 


!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');  
Categories: Africa, Swiss News

Explosive Weapons Now Leading Cause of Child Casualties in Global Conflicts

Wed, 11/26/2025 - 07:03

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

 


!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');  
Categories: Africa, Balkan News

Continued Inaction Despite G20 Report on Worsening Inequality

Wed, 11/26/2025 - 06:32

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

 


!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
Categories: Africa, Balkan News

COP30: Broken Promises, New Hope — A Call to Turn Words into Action

Tue, 11/25/2025 - 19:11

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

 


!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');  
Categories: Africa, Balkan News

Zanzibar’s Battle to Save Endangered Turtles Intensifies as Global Study Exposes Deadly Microplastic Threat

Tue, 11/25/2025 - 09:33
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 […]
Categories: Africa, Pályázatok

Bonn to Belém: Three Decades of Promises, Half-Delivered Justice, and Rights-Based Governance Is Now Inevitable

Tue, 11/25/2025 - 08:12

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

 


!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');  
Categories: Africa, Afrique

The Role of Youths in Shaping UN’s Post 2030 Development Agenda

Tue, 11/25/2025 - 07:38

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

 


!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');  
Categories: Africa, Afrique

COP30 Was Diplomacy in Action as Cooperation Deepens—Says Climate Talks Observer

Mon, 11/24/2025 - 11:46

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
Categories: Africa, Afrique

Pages

THIS IS THE NEW BETA VERSION OF EUROPA VARIETAS NEWS CENTER - under construction
the old site is here

Copy & Drop - Can`t find your favourite site? Send us the RSS or URL to the following address: info(@)europavarietas(dot)org.