Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi at the official launch of the new injectable drug for HIV prevention, Lenacapavir. Credit: GCIS

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Jun 9 2026 (IPS)

As South Africa officially launches the rollout of a groundbreaking HIV prevention drug,  civic groups in the country have slammed the plan, saying it will not reach anywhere near enough people.

President Cyril Ramaphosa on June 5 launched the roll-out in South Africa of lenacapavir, a twice-yearly injectable HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) drug that has been shown to offer almost complete protection against the disease, billing it as a ‘historic event’.

But activists say there is nothing to celebrate, warning the targets set in the rollout are too low, and the volumes of the drug provided by the pharma firm behind its development, Gilead, are tiny.

“In an ideal world, South Africa would not be rolling out lenacapavir as a small pilot. We would be treating it as an epidemic-ending intervention. The objective should be to get millions of people onto lenacapavir as quickly as possible, not a few hundred thousand over several years,” Tian Johnson, founder and strategist of the Pan-African health justice advocacy group, African Alliance, told IPS.

“South Africa has the world’s largest HIV epidemic. We also helped generate the scientific evidence that made lenacapavir possible. An appropriate response would therefore be a national scale-up plan linked to epidemiological need, not constrained by artificial scarcity created by patent monopolies, donor allocations, and supply decisions made outside the country,” he added.

South Africa has the world’s highest burden of HIV, with around 8 million people living with HIV. In 2024 it recorded 170,000 new infections, accounting for roughly 13% of the 1.3 million new cases globally that year.

Lenacapavir has been shown in trials to provide almost complete protection against HIV acquisition. It has been praised not just for its effectiveness but also for its potential for very high adherence, as it is an injection given only every six months.

Civic groups say that if rolled out in a timely manner and with greater volumes, it could avert up to 52,200 new infections per year in South Africa alone.

They also point to modelling which has shown that around 2 million people in South Africa need to be taking lenacapavir annually for it to have a real impact on the number of new HIV infections.

But the government’s rollout is expected to reach only around 450,000 people over the next two years. Moreover, only just under 38,000 doses have so far arrived in the country.

Activists blame adversarial US policy and effective monopolies on the drug’s supply for this and say it has highlighted concerns over who has real control over efforts to end the epidemic in the country.

The Global Fund to Fight Aids, TB and Malaria (GF) and the United States President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR) have historically been central to funding South Africa’s HIV response.

But days after Donald Trump entered the White House early last year, PEPFAR slashed around half of its funding for HIV in South Africa – what is left of it is due to run out this month.

So far, the Trump administration is refusing to fund lenacapavir for South Africa as the two countries lock horns politically and ideologically.

This means that the doses to be used in South Africa over the next 18 months to two years will be funded by the Global Fund and are expected to be only sufficient for 456,000 people.

Meanwhile, since Gilead is currently the only manufacturer of lenacapavir and generics are not available on the market yet, there is no alternative path available to secure more doses for the rollout.

Currently the cost of Lenacapavir is about USD 28,000 per person a year in the U.S., but Gilead has issued six licences to companies to manufacture generics, which will be available to 120 low- and middle-income countries. These are expected to become available in 2027, potentially for as little as USD 40 per person per year.

Earlier this year, it was announced the South African government was working to identify a local company to manufacture lenacapavir. Once identified, that company would then be recommended to Gilead for a voluntary licence to produce the drug.

In 2024, Gilead granted such licences to six generic manufacturers across India, Egypt and Pakistan to produce and supply the drug ⁠to 120 low- and middle-income countries. At the time, critics pointed out that no South African ​drugmakers were included.

Gilead has said it is open to adding another licence for local manufacturing in Sub-Saharan Africa. But activists warn that any final decision on a licence will rest with the company.

The groups also highlighted previous delays in the rollout of the programme, which had initially been scheduled to begin in April. When the first doses arrived in South Africa in March and April, they were subject to obligatory regulatory tests. Gilead could have asked for an exemption to the tests but did not, activists claim.

They say all this means properly protecting people against HIV in South Africa is effectively dependent on a pharmaceutical firm and US political policy.

“Gilead currently exercises extraordinary influence over who receives lenacapavir, in what quantities, and on what timeline. When a country with the world’s largest HIV epidemic cannot independently determine access to a medicine that was partly researched within its own borders, something is fundamentally wrong with the balance of power. The uncomfortable reality is that key decisions affecting South Africa’s HIV response are still being made in corporate boardrooms and donor negotiations rather than in South Africa. That should concern everyone, regardless of where they stand on this rollout,” said Johnson.

“Many countries are receiving doses funded by the US, and then also being funded as a result of re-allocation of already committed Global Fund funding repurposed for lenacapavir. The US is refusing to fund South Africa ‘s lenacapavir program, even though there is no better example of a country that needs lenacapavir, and [the programme] would immediately show impact,” Asia Russell, Executive Director of HIV advocacy group Health Gap, told IPS.

“The US government has stated its goal is to bend the curve of new HIV infections, but it is blocking access to the doses urgently needed in South Africa, which means it will fail to reach its goal. It should immediately reverse this decision, stop bullying  South Africa, and provide doses – South Africa’s minuscule allocation of lenacapavir only from the Global Fund means the pandemic will continue raging in South Africa,” she added.

It will also have a detrimental effect on wider efforts to tackle HIV outside South Africa, others say.

“South Africa accounts for more than 13 percent of new HIV infections globally each year, and is a home for millions of other public health care recipients from other countries who benefit from the South African health care system. The US government’s refusal to support South Africa with lenacapavir and cut off other funding is not only cruel but also contributes to delays in ending the HIV pandemic,” Bellinda Thibela, Coordinator for Health Justice and Human Rights at Health GAP, told IPS

Meanwhile, activists point out what they see as another huge injustice in the situation.

South Africa was key to the development of the drug – it hosted testing sites, its clinics were used in research, and subjects came from its communities – yet it is now struggling to secure sufficient supplies of that same drug.

“South Africa played a pivotal role in the clinical development of lenacapavir, hosting 25 of the 28 trial sites that participated in the PURPOSE 1 Phase III study of this groundbreaking long-acting HIV prevention tool. Yet, despite this substantial contribution, my country has found itself in the difficult position that, following approval by the US FDA and rollout in several high-income countries, access to lenacapavir at scale for PrEP remains abysmally low and challenging. And not just for South Africa,” Fatima Hassan of the Health Justice Initiative (HJI), told IPS.

“This underscores persistent inequities within the global innovation ecosystem, where countries that bear a disproportionate burden of disease and contribute significantly to research and development often face delays in accessing the very health technologies they helped bring to fruition. It also raises important questions about local manufacturing, technology transfer, regulatory capacity, affordability, and equitable access in markets that are frequently perceived as less commercially attractive, despite their central role in generating the evidence that drives global health innovation and the development of new health technologies,” she added.

In a statement, Gilead said the launch of the rollout was an important step toward expanding access to lenacapavir for communities most affected by HIV.

“South Africa is at the heart of global efforts to end HIV. With the country’s launch of lenacapavir, there is now an opportunity to rapidly accelerate progress,” said Daniel O’Day, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Gilead Sciences. “Through partnerships with country leadership, the Global Fund, and the U.S. State Department via PEPFAR, Gilead is working to bring lenacapavir to the communities most in need, ahead of the broad rollout of generic versions of the medicine.”

The company also highlighted what it said was its commitment to supporting broad, equitable and sustainable access to lenacapavir for HIV prevention globally,  pointing to its royalty-free voluntary licence agreements with six manufacturers enabling generic supply across 120 low- and lower-middle-income countries to support long-term, lower-cost medication supply.

“As highlighted by today’s announcement and the strong, coordinated leadership demonstrated in South Africa, the continued collaboration between countries, global health partners and industry will be critical to reaching people with new innovations at scale, reducing new HIV infections and advancing our shared goal of ending HIV as a public health threat,” the company said in the statement.

Civic groups have called on South Africa’s government to scale up the volumes for the rollout and expand it to make sure it can be accessed by more people – they have criticised the fact that out of more than 3,000 public clinics, just 300 in 23 districts have been chosen for the rollout, and mobile clinics, which would be more likely accessed by some communities, are not being used.

They also want to see more pressure put on Gilead to drastically expand its current licence territories to help manufacture lenacapavir.

“At the moment, we have a Gilead-driven launch event, but we do not have a credible epidemic-ending plan. The bigger issue is that South Africa appears to have accepted the limits imposed by Gilead rather than challenging them,” said Johnson.

He added that under the current roll-out plan a crucial opportunity to end the HIV epidemic sooner in South Africa was being missed.

“The tragedy is that South Africa is not dealing with a scientific failure –  the science worked. Lenacapavir is one of the most promising HIV prevention tools ever developed. What we are facing is a political and access failure. If we know that roughly two million people need access annually to achieve maximum public health impact, then a faux roll out reaching a fraction of that number inevitably means preventable infections will continue occurring.

“Every year we delay large-scale access is another year in which tens of thousands of South Africans will acquire HIV despite the existence of a prevention tool capable of dramatically reducing transmission. This is why the debate is not really about a rollout. It is about whether South Africa intends to end the epidemic or manage it. The current approach manages the epidemic dismally. An epidemic-ending strategy would look very different,” Johnson said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

 

Inter Press Service (IPS), IPS News,

Related Articles

• Vulnerable Populations Will Suffer With UNAIDS Early Closure
• XDR-TB Drug Trial Participants Continue to Celebrate its Success
• Activists Challenge Pharma Company Gilead Over HIV Medication

The world often asks whether we can afford to invest in preparedness before a crisis occurs. The more relevant question is whether we can afford not to. Credit: UNICEF/Carmel Ndomba Mbikayi

By Mario Jimenez and Ifeanyi Nsofor
WASHINGTON DC, Jun 9 2026 (IPS)

When the world learned that Ebola was spreading across parts of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda, one fact stood out above all others: there was no approved vaccine for the virus responsible.

Not because scientists only recently discovered it.

Not because the technology does not exist.

But because the world never made the investment.

 

No Vaccine Exists Because the World Failed to Invest

The current outbreak is caused by the Bundibugyo ebolavirus, one of several species that cause Ebola disease. The virus was first identified in Uganda in 2007. Nearly two decades later, as hundreds of suspected infections and dozens of deaths are reported across Central and East Africa, health workers are confronting the same deadly disease without a licensed vaccine or treatment approved to prevent or treat it respectively.

This is not simply a scientific failure. It is a health equity failure.

The outbreak is unlikely to become another COVID-19. Ebola spreads through direct contact with bodily fluids, making it far less transmissible than airborne viruses. Yet the lesson it offers is no less important. It reveals whose health risks attract sustained investment and whose are allowed to remain neglected.

For years, global health leaders have warned that epidemic preparedness cannot focus only on threats that endanger wealthy countries. Pathogens do not become priorities because of their biological risks alone. They become priorities because of political attention, financial incentives and public visibility.

The result is a troubling pattern: communities facing the greatest risks often have access to the fewest tools.

Bundibugyo virus has caused only a handful of outbreaks since its discovery. Unlike the more common Zaire strain of Ebola, which drove major epidemics in West Africa and eastern Congo, Bundibugyo attracted relatively little research funding and commercial attention. While effective vaccines and treatments were developed for the Zaire strain, investment in countermeasures for Bundibugyo remained limited.

Now the consequences are visible.

 

The Outbreak Exposes a Global Health Equity Gap

Doctors and nurses in eastern Congo and Uganda are relying primarily on supportive care, isolation measures, contact tracing and community engagement to stop transmission. Scientists are racing to develop vaccines and treatments, but those efforts are occurring during an outbreak rather than before one.

The contrast is striking. We are witnessing extraordinary scientific mobilization precisely because the crisis has already begun.

The Cycle of Panic and Neglect Continues

Last week, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, announced up to US$50 million through its First Response Fund to accelerate vaccine development and support outbreak response. CEPI has committed tens of millions more to advance vaccine candidates being developed by Moderna, the University of Oxford and IAVI. The European Union has mobilized humanitarian funding and emergency supplies. The World Health Organization has activated its highest emergency response mechanisms and is coordinating clinical trials of potential treatments.

Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have some of the world's most experienced Ebola responders. Their scientists, surveillance officers, laboratory teams, community leaders and frontline health workers have repeatedly demonstrated remarkable expertise and courage under difficult circumstances

These investments are essential and deserve recognition.

But they also raise a difficult question: why did it take an outbreak to generate this level of urgency?

Scientists have understood the threat posed by Bundibugyo virus since 2007. Promising vaccine approaches have existed for years. Researchers have identified monoclonal antibodies that demonstrated protection in animal studies. Yet many of these efforts struggled to secure sustained funding once the immediate threat faded.

This is a recurring problem in global health. Funding surges during emergencies and recedes once headlines disappear. Research programs are launched and then abandoned. Preparedness becomes a priority only after vulnerabilities have already been exposed.

The result is a cycle of panic and neglect.

This is where the health equity dimension becomes impossible to ignore.

Health equity is often discussed as a moral imperative. It is that. But it is also a practical necessity.

Countries that rapidly detect outbreaks, share biological samples and alert the world to emerging threats are providing a global public good. The benefits extend far beyond national borders. Those countries should be able to expect that the products of scientific innovation—vaccines, diagnostics and treatments—will also be available to them in a timely and equitable manner.

Instead, we too often ask vulnerable countries to contribute to global security while denying them equal access to its benefits.

Preparedness Requires More Than Vaccines

The outbreak also highlights another reality that deserves greater attention: strong health systems remain the world’s best defense against emerging epidemics.

As Norway’s International Development Minister Åsmund Aukrust recently observed, “No country can face these challenges alone.” Experience from decades of global health cooperation shows that rapid detection, trained health workers, effective laboratories, community trust and resilient primary healthcare systems remain our most powerful tools against infectious disease threats.

Vaccines matter enormously. But vaccines alone are not preparedness.

The countries currently confronting Ebola understand this better than most. Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have some of the world’s most experienced Ebola responders. Their scientists, surveillance officers, laboratory teams, community leaders and frontline health workers have repeatedly demonstrated remarkable expertise and courage under difficult circumstances.

The international response succeeds when it strengthens local leadership rather than substitutes for it.

The broader lesson extends far beyond Ebola.

The next global health security emergency will begin where health systems are weakest, where surveillance gaps are largest and where scientific neglect has been allowed to persist.

The world often asks whether we can afford to invest in preparedness before a crisis occurs.

The more relevant question is whether we can afford not to.

On that test, the Bundibugyo Ebola outbreak should make all of us uncomfortable.

 

Mario Jimenez is a health economist working to increase access to immunization in low-income countries. He is a Senior Atlantic Fellow for Health Equity.

Ifeanyi Nsofor is a public health physician and co-founder of the Africa Behavioral Science Network. He is a Senior Atlantic Fellow for Health Equity. In 2015, Ifeanyi co-led the African Union’s Intervention to End Ebola and Strengthen Health Systems in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone (ASEOWA).

By Anis Chowdhury
SYDNEY, Jun 9 2026 (IPS)

The World Bank considers corruption a major obstacle to eradicating global poverty. The Bank officially has a zero-tolerance policy against fraud and corruption in its projects. Concerned with widespread corruption in Bangladesh, the Bank and the Government agreed on the Governance-oriented Country Assistance Strategy (GCAS) in 2006 and the Bank’s subsequent Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) ostensibly has been more selective on governance and anti-corruption (GAC) issues. Ironically, however, the Bank’s funding enables corruption. The Bank’s recent decision to advance a US$350 million loan allegedly for enhancing energy security is a glaring example.

Anis Chowdhury

Corruption-riddled energy sector

The Interim Government’s White Paper on the state of the economy documented the extent of collusion and corruption in the energy sector. It noted the authoritarian kleptocratic government’s inflated demand forecast, disregarding professional projections. Thus, the installed capacity hugely exceeds actual demand. Against the peak summer demand of approximately 17,000 MW, the installed capacity is nearly 32,000 MW (or 30,000 MW considering aging infrastructure). According to the White paper, this artificially “increased capacity was driven by unscrupulous motivations” to benefit the regime’s cronies who formed a monopoly cartel in the power sector.

A series of dodgy moves facilitated unprecedented misappropriation of public money in the sector. The first was the awarding of contracts to 17 private rental plants through ‘negotiation’ in 2010, circumventing the Public Procurement Rules. The second was the Quick Enhancement of Electricity and Energy Supply (Special Provision) Act 2010, which protected energy contracts from competitive bidding and legal challenges. Such indemnity is a license for corruption, facilitating unchecked project approvals and non-transparent often dollar-denominated Power Purchase Agreements.

These agreements enabled the purchase of electricity from furnace-oil-based plants at prices 40-50% above market rates and from gas-fired plants at prices 45% above market rates, according to the Interim Government’s review committee. Initially established for a four-year period to address an emergency supply situation, the arrangement has been extended multiple times, allowing the cronies to be paid an exorbitant excess capacity charge.

The estimated total excess capacity/rental payment to the private sector from 2010-11 to 2023-24 was approximately US$2.93 billion. In the 2024-25 fiscal year alone the capacity charge was approximately US$3.42 billion, while nearly 63% of installed electricity generation capacity remained idle. According to the review committee, an estimated excess generation capacity of roughly 7,700 to 9,500 MW is causing an additional annual expenditure of US$900 million to US$1.5 billion in capacity payments.

The White Paper estimated that the rental power plants made as high as 35% profit against a standard 15%! The private sector power companies received payments from the government as rent for power plants under the guise of power purchase agreements, where corruption, rather than electricity supply, was the main objective.

Most of the operational private power plants in Bangladesh are owned/controlled by a group of five cronies. They control country’s power sector to loot vast amounts of money. While the kleptocratic regime beat the drum of “self-sufficiency” in electricity, its cronies were pillaging the state coffer.

While the cronies enjoyed excess profits through extraordinary corrupt practices, consumers paid the price. Electricity prices were increased 12 times at the wholesale level and 14 times at the retail level over 15 years during the kleptocratic regime, ostensibly to reduce losses and subsidy requirements. But neither losses nor subsidies declined.

The review committee recommended that contracts containing evidence of corruption should be cancelled immediately. It also recommended renegotiation of high-cost and unequal power purchase agreements to revise and convert them to a “take-and-pay” model following Pakistan’s example.

Instead of taking these recommended measures, the current government has chosen the path of the kleptocratic regime’s looting model. The decision to hike the electricity price will protect the fatty pockets of cronies at the expense of the common people.

The World Bank’s role

The Bank has been a prime advocate of privatisation of Bangladesh’s energy sector, citing widespread corruption and inefficiency of the publicly-owned power sector. It pushed for “unbundling” vertically integrated state monopolies, facilitating Independent Power Producers (IPPs), and mobilising private capital through financial guarantees – a strategy that supposedly should improve energy security and at the same time ease public fiscal burden.

The Bank has been providing loans ostensibly to help Bangladesh improve its energy security. But that has made the country heavily reliant on imported Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and fossil fuels and has locked Bangladesh into steep capacity payments, draining foreign exchange reserves. Thus, the Bank’s loans allegedly for ensuring energy sector security have created a vicious circle of debt burden and plunder of public coffer through hefty capacity payments.

Instead of further advancing loans of US$350 million, the Bank should have told the government to implement the recommendations of the Interim Government’s review committee; i.e., cancel the unscrupulous agreements with IPPs and stop fiscal bleeding through unfair capacity payments. The savings from the capacity charges would have been more than enough to pay for the imports of LNG without incurring additional debt burden.

The Bank’s anti-corruption record

Why does the Bank advance loans to the sector riddled with widespread corruption? The Bank’s anti-corruption record is at best disappointing globally. The Bank once took a firm anti-corruption stance in Bangladesh when it pulled out of the Padma Bridge project alleging corruption. But it scrambled to recover its lost ground when other lenders with strategic interests came forward to fill the gap.

Evaluating the Bank’s engagement in Bangladesh during 2011-2020, the World Bank’s own Independent Evaluation Group concluded, “Despite a trend of deterioration in the country’s institutional quality and economic management, the Bank Group significantly increased financing to Bangladesh over the review period, making Bangladesh one of the largest borrowers”.

As a lending agency, the Bank’s existence depends on debtor countries’ borrowings, regardless of its lofty ideals, such as poverty reduction. A fundamental flaw in the international aid system: “the donors are more desperate to give than the recipients are to receive”. Therefore, the Bank takes a “pragmatic” approach, and tolerates corruption.

Then why did the Bank declare zero-tolerance policy against corruption? Perhaps this is because it has to satisfy the public anti-corruption sentiment in creditor nations; their citizens do not want to see their tax dollars being misappropriated.

Renowned political economist, Robert Wade conceptualises this as gesturing to appease creditor governments while acting to the contrary to appease borrower governments. Thus, the Bank’s “organised hypocrisy” enables corruption in poor borrower countries.

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

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!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

• Corruption in Bangladesh: Will Development Partners Remain Complicit?
• The Demise of Democracy and Human Rights Violations in Bangladesh: International Financial Institutions’ Culpability

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram and Felice Noelle Rodriguez
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Jun 9 2026 (IPS)

Recent geopolitical trends threaten more food crises, especially in developing countries. A new IPES-Food report urges a strategy of ‘resilient self-reliance’, proposing available opportunities to improve equity, sustainability and solidarity.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Enhancing vulnerability
The New Geopolitics of Food. Navigating policies for resilient self-reliance argues that international food systems have been profoundly transformed by the geopolitical changes of the last four decades.

Geopolitics – referring to political sanctions, trade disputes, military conflicts, multilateral challenges, aid cuts, planetary heating, and corporate interests – is affecting food availability worldwide.

Corporate interests have increasingly reshaped food systems over the last half-century – promoting selective trade liberalisation, deregulation, privatisation, financialization and cost reductions, ostensibly to improve food security efficiently.

Prioritising cost and fiscal savings led to the neglect and closure of buffer stocks. Food systems became more vulnerable as price volatility worsened.

Just-in-time supply chains have also been more susceptible to geopolitical shocks, planetary heating, and market manipulation.

World Bank structural adjustment programmes made developing countries more reliant on food and input imports. Tariffs and sanctions have disrupted food supplies worldwide.

Felice Noelle Rodriguez

Supplies have become more vulnerable to disruption, whether due to poor harvests or political sanctions. Price volatility has also worsened food insecurity, even in large countries.

Wars in Ukraine, Iran and elsewhere have disrupted supplies, spiking prices, and have most hit poor food-importing countries. Powerful governments have also weaponised food supplies for political reasons, as against Cuba.

Major donor countries have cut aid, with lethal consequences for the most vulnerable, as in Sudan, Palestine, Afghanistan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The legitimacy and capacity of multilateral institutions – such as the UN, World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Health Organization (WHO) – have been deliberately undermined by superpowers abusing international arrangements for their own advantage.

Food prices have been much higher since 2020, following the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ukraine and Iran wars, and other major disruptions. For instance, the Hormuz fertiliser disruptions will hurt food supply for some time to come.

Import bills have risen sharply, worsening debt burdens in poor food-importing countries. Food inflation has hurt low-income communities most, especially when governments juggle imports with debt servicing.

Corporate concentration has also worsened fertiliser and food supply and price volatility, especially hurting smaller producers. Powerful interests have also abused food crises for profit.

Geopolitics has also worsened environmental crises, as planetary heating intensifies extreme weather events, hurting crop yields and food availability.

Managing markets
To enhance food security, governments must effectively influence markets with appropriate policy instruments.

The report proposes adapting policy tools once widely used before corporate-inspired neoliberal reforms, to improve contemporary market management, supply resilience and price stability.

Public stockholdings (PSHs) involve government procurement, storage, and timely release of stocks to enhance food security, including by stabilising prices. PSHs can thus help smallholdings while improving emergency preparations.

Using minimum support prices with its Targeted Public Distribution System, India subsidises grain for two-thirds of its people, while insulating national food prices from international volatility.

Meanwhile, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has established a Regional Food Security Reserve to pool members’ stocks and collectively respond to crises.

Supply management
Other supply management mechanisms include production quotas, marketing boards, and import controls.

Market management has also supported other policy goals aimed at improving rural vitality, equity, food sovereignty, environmental sustainability, and democratic participation.

Thus, unlike in the US, Canada’s dairy, poultry, and egg production is subject to quotas and negotiated minimum prices to limit price volatility and stabilise farm incomes.

But policy implementation remains challenging. PSH programmes are often complex and costly, and risk leakage, corruption, and inefficiency.

Government commitments, such as trade agreements, limit policy options. Supply management measures may also raise consumer prices and favour wealthier farmers, as neoliberal critics have been quick to exaggerate.

But these policy tools can also support small-scale producers, reduce waste, strengthen national supply chains, and mitigate risks posed by highly centralised industrial agriculture.

Resilient Self-Reliance
The report promotes resilient self-reliance, requiring appropriate market management to stabilise food supplies and improve equity, sustainability, and food sovereignty.

Resilient self-reliance combines resilience (the ability to withstand and recover from shocks) with food self-reliance (the capacity to meet food needs with domestic production and cooperative trade).

The report recommends innovative trade partnerships, including international buffer stocks and cooperative regionalism, citing CARICOM’s regional food strategy.

Resilient self-reliance upholds food sovereignty norms, emphasising farmer rights, agroecology, territorial markets, and democratic governance, stressing equity, diversity, ecological balance, and flexibility.

Managing markets can also support agroecological transitions, culturally appropriate food diversity, territorial markets, and strategic reserves to cushion shocks.

Vulnerable countries, often due to earlier neoliberal reforms, typically try to reduce their susceptibility to international market volatility, but are usually less able to do so.

Market management mechanisms, agroecological practices, territorial markets, and cooperative trade arrangements can help ensure more stable and equitable food systems.

Stressing the urgent need for policy reform, the authors argue that recent geopolitics not only threatens crises but also offers new opportunities to reform food systems for greater equity, solidarity and sustainability.

For instance, the Hormuz crisis may spur developing economies to accelerate transitions to more renewable energy, thereby reducing their vulnerability to fossil fuel and other energy imports.

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

  

 

Related Articles

• Food Systems and Policies Undermining Food Security
• Weaponizing Food Worsens Starvation
• Food Systems Worsen Diets, Health
• New Geopolitics Worse for Global South
• Sanctions Now Weapons of Mass Starvation
• Beware UN Food Systems Summit Trojan Horse
• Struggle for the Future of Food
• Agribusiness Is the Problem, Not the Solution
• Agricultural Trade Liberalization Undermined Food Security

By CIVICUS
Jun 8 2026 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses the interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla on its mission to bring humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza with Musa Roshdy, a humanitarian activist who took part in the flotilla.

Musa Roshdy

On 15 April, the flotilla set sail from Barcelona, Spain. Israeli forces intercepted it in international waters on 29 April and detained 180 activists, holding them in a makeshift prison on a military ship for around 40 hours before leaving all but two of them in Crete, Greece. Two people on the Global Sumud Flotilla steering committee, Saif Abukeshek and Thiago Ávila, were taken to Israel and imprisoned until being deported on 10 May. The remaining boats regrouped and were joined by additional vessels. On 14 May, over 50 boats carrying 428 people set off from Marmaris, Turkey. The Israeli military intercepted the flotilla on 18 and 19 May, abducting all on board and taking them to Israel. Videos released on 20 May by far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, showing zip-tied detainees as he taunted them, triggered a global backlash. After being processed through Ketziot Prison, most activists were deported to Turkey on 21 May.

What’s the Global Sumud Flotilla and why is it important?

The Global Sumud Flotilla was the second civilian maritime mission launched by a coalition of Palestinian solidarity organisations advocating for aid delivery to Palestinians in Gaza and the end of Israel’s illegal siege of Gaza. While it was the Global Sumud Flotilla’s second mission, this was the 39th sea-based attempt to break Israel’s illegal blockade. The Spring 2026 flotilla was organised in direct response to a call for aid put out by civil society organisations on the ground in Palestine.

On 15 April, we sailed from Barcelona with several hundred activists from dozens of countries including Brazil and Spain, determined to deliver aid to Palestinians facing severe deprivation. Our mission highlighted a crucial reality: if everyday civilians from all over the world can mobilise and get this close to establishing a humanitarian corridor, then governments can certainly do it. What’s missing is not ability or infrastructure, but political will. The flotilla represents civilian solidarity with Palestinians and a direct challenge to the illegal blockade. We were prepared for interception after Israel arrested the previous flotilla last year, but not for the scale of violence that followed.

How were you kidnapped?

I was kidnapped by the Israeli navy in the interception that occurred on 29 April, when we were sailing in international waters over 600 miles from occupied Palestine, off the coast of Crete. They attacked us in the middle of the night. We had little warning before military motorboats approached us at high speed. They pointed rifles at us and announced on a megaphone that they were the Israeli navy, they were boarding our vessel and we needed to go inside immediately or they would shoot us.

That night, the Israeli military stopped 22 of the 54 boats in the flotilla en route to Gaza. There’s no legal precedent for military action so far from Israel’s sea borders. We were in the European Union’s search-and-rescue zone, under Greek jurisdiction. But instead of protecting us, Greek coastguard ships observed Israel’s raid and then received us after we were tortured for two days.

Israel’s legal claims were absurd. They accused us of illegal entry into Israel when we were sailing to Gaza and were kidnapped en route. Most of the 180 activists were released in Greece, but two of us were abducted and brought before Ashkelon Magistrate’s Court in Israel on charges with no legal basis.

This violated fundamental principles of international law. You cannot take military action in international waters so far from your territory. You cannot abduct foreign nationals without due process. You cannot torture detainees. Yet all this happened.

Israel acts with impunity because the international community has failed to hold it accountable.

What did you endure in detention?

It was clear from the start they were trying to denigrate us for standing with Palestinians. I was forced onto my hands and knees and held in uncomfortable positions for hours. Soldiers stole my shoes, then stomped on my feet with their combat boots. I was left in just leggings and a tank top. We were held in makeshift prisons built from shipping containers. The soldiers deliberately manipulated the temperature, wetting the floor to freeze us at night, then forcing us outside under intense heat during the day. I experienced hypothermia both nights, as confirmed by a doctor who was imprisoned with me. When comrades tried to give me sweaters, soldiers took them away. At one point, a soldier pointed a rifle at my comrade and threatened to kill him for offering me a jacket in the cold.

Soldiers banged on containers and shone huge lights while we slept to keep us awake. They threw flashbangs and used force to drag people into solitary confinement. On the last day, they shot activists at point-blank range with rubber bullets. They took photographs and videos that showed us collecting our medications when they kidnapped us, but then denied us access to our medications once we were on the prison boat. Sixty-one people went on hunger strike. The food they provided, mostly bread, was insufficient to feed the rest of us, even with a third of us not eating. This cruelty is consistent with what Palestinians experience in Israeli detention, though what we experienced pales in comparison with the cruelty they face.

The Israeli military intended to deter the humanitarians sailing to deliver aid to the people of Gaza, but they were unsuccessful. People around the world recognise that Palestinians in Gaza still have an overwhelming need for aid, legal protection and solidarity. Many activists who were detained with me on 29 April set sail again a few weeks later on 14 May and were intercepted off Cyprus just days later on 18 and 19 May.

What must change internationally?

What governments must do is clear but consistently absent. They must condemn the kidnapping of their citizens. They must impose targeted sanctions against Israeli officials, not humanitarian activists. They must denormalise diplomatic relations with Israel. For instance, Croatia’s leader just refused to approve Israel’s new ambassador to Croatia due to Israel’s current policies.

The most fundamental step is an arms embargo. If we stop supplying weapons to Israel, it cannot do what it is doing. Last year, civil society in Belgium won a court case preventing the transit of military equipment to Israel. France recognises Palestine but still supplies weapons. Governments know these mechanisms exist but lack the political will to prioritise Palestinian lives over strategic interests.

Western states are also complicit in other ways. Some of our torturers had US accents. Another had a German accent. Western governments allow their citizens to join the Israeli military, which commits war crimes and kidnaps and tortures their nationals, then lets them return home without consequence.

Instead of holding Israel accountable, many western states are restricting the space for pro-Palestinian activism. In the UK, Palestine Action faced an absurd terrorism designation for blocking weapons manufacturing. In Germany, authorities banned the watermelon symbol as antisemitic.

On 19 May, as the Israeli military was kidnapping humanitarians in international waters, the United States Department of the Treasury sanctioned four leaders of the Global Sumud Flotilla, calling humanitarian aid delivery ‘pro-terror’, and blocking all access to financial institutions in the USA. The mechanism used by the USA to sanction humanitarian activists was recently deemed illegal by a federal judge when applied to Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It criminalises support for Palestine and conflates it with support for terrorism.

What lies ahead for activism for Palestinian rights?

Our detention and torture were intended as a deterrent, but they failed. In practice, they had the opposite effect. Frontline work exacts a real human cost and people need time to recharge. But activism will continue because Palestinians in Gaza are still facing genocide.

What this moment teaches is that rights exist because we enact them. When everyday people learn from Palestinian courage how to stand up, call atrocities atrocities, and demand basic decency and access to life itself, movements spread across borders. People will continue to pursue humanitarian work, join future flotillas and resist authoritarian restrictions on civic space. Tactics will adapt, new symbols will emerge – as when the watermelon was adopted because Palestinians couldn’t display their flag – but the work won’t stop.

Credit: D.V. Bakke

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

GET IN TOUCH
Global Sumud Flotilla/Instagram
Humans of the Global Sumud Flotilla/Instagram
Musa Roshdy/Instagram

SEE ALSO
USA: sanctions weaponised against human rights CIVICUS Lens 01.Jun.2026
Gaza: ceasefire an illusion CIVICUS Lens 16.Mar.2026
Palestine: ‘The EU cannot position itself as a defender of human rights while being one of Israel’s primary arms markets’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with 7amleh 26.Mar.2026

 

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

  

 

Picture alliance/Anadolu/Selcuk Acar. Annalena Baerbock, President of the UN General Assembly and former German Foreign Minister.
 
Germany’s humiliating defeat in the race for a UN Security Council seat reveals the price of a foreign policy increasingly seen as hypocritical abroad.
 
The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday elected Austria, Kyrgyzstan, Portugal, Trinidad and Tobago and Zimbabwe to the 15-member U.N. Security Council for two-year terms starting on January 1, 2027.
 
Germany, which had lobbied hard for a seat, came third for the two places contested by the Western European and Others Group, with 104 votes, against 134 for Portugal and 131 for Austria.-- Reuters

By Marcus Schneider
BEIRUT, Lebanon, Jun 8 2026 (IPS)

This is the downfall of a diplomatic superstar. Germany’s defeat in the election to the UN Security Council is the consequence of a foreign policy that has proven disastrous in recent times, failing to uphold either the values or the interests of the Federal Republic.

The fact that the second-largest contributor to the UN has been punished so severely by Portugal and Austria highlights a global loss of trust that had not yet been fully realised in political Berlin.

‘We are seen as someone who defends the rules-based order; as an advocate of international law’, Foreign Minister Johann Wampold lectured just hours before the election. And in doing so, he revealed the gulf between Germany’s self-perception and the way it is perceived internationally. It is quite clear that on this very issue – the extent to which the Federal Republic actually stands up for binding rules and international law – there has been massive damage to its reputation, which is now, for the first time, resulting in political consequences.

International law à la carte

Germany’s global alienation can be traced very precisely to the Israeli war in Gaza, which stirred up international passions like hardly any other conflict. The problem here is not merely the stance perceived as highly one-sided in large parts of the world.

It is the palpable discrepancy with Germany’s conduct in Ukraine and with the general self-image of a country that likes to parade through the world with a particularly raised moral finger.

If in one instance – quite rightly – one loudly condemns war crimes and calls on the whole world even more loudly to do the same, yet in the other case remains silent, grants the perpetrators diplomatic and political cover, and even supplies them with weapons (even though the crimes are far more serious by all objective standards), it is hardly surprising to be accused of double standards and hypocrisy.

The damage to Germany’s reputation is all the more severe because the country was regarded for decades as a safe bet in foreign policy. Like hardly any other state, the Federal Republic stood for strengthening multilateral institutions.

First, the former capital of West Germany, Bonn, then Berlin, supported the development of an international judiciary. Precisely as a lesson from its own history and in its own well-understood interest as a country at the heart of a continent once ravaged by war, Germany committed itself with vigour and generosity to peace and the balancing of interests.

It is only in recent times that the ‘reason of state’, now invoked like a mantra, has emerged, towering above all else as a foreign-policy creed imbued with an almost sacred significance.

For a long time, incidentally, it was possible to adopt a stance on the Middle East conflict that did justice both to Germany’s historical responsibility towards Israel and to the legitimate concerns of the Palestinians and Arabs. It is only in recent times that the ‘reason of state’, now invoked like a mantra, has emerged, towering above all else as a foreign-policy creed imbued with an almost sacred significance.

Foreign countries in particular, which do indeed take note of the largely self-referential German discourse, may well ask: does this raison d’état actually have any moral limits? Or does it also cover up war crimes, ethnic cleansing and what even highly reputable experts and institutions describe – to put it mildly – as genocidal conditions?

For the raison d’état is, after all, not a product of realpolitik interests, but is proclaimed as a kind of higher morality, and thus as a lesson from German history that other countries should, please, understand. Many there see rather a German failure to draw universal lessons from its own history, possibly even a kind of unwelcome historical continuity.

The self-portrayal as a ‘champion of international law’ – which was, after all, the main argument put forward for the now-failed German campaign for a seat on the UN Security Council – also seems rather odd in light of a series of statements made by the Chancellor. For instance, Friedrich Merz thanked Israel for doing the ‘dirty work’ with regard to the war of aggression against Iran — which, according to the overwhelming majority of legal opinion, is illegal under international law.

He described the legal assessment of the kidnapping of the Venezuelan head of state as ‘complex’, whilst explicitly refraining from offering lectures on international law regarding the recent Israeli-American war of aggression against Iran. As opposition leader, he had expressed outrage over the arrest warrant for the alleged Israeli war criminal Netanyahu, who is accused of serious crimes against humanity. After all, he claimed, the International Criminal Court had supposedly been established solely to ‘hold despots and authoritarian leaders to account’.

One gets the impression of a Chancellor who – speaking for a significant portion of the country’s political and media elites – seeks to replace the rule of law with a kind of higher moral order. Under this system, the supposedly ‘good’ – that is, ourselves and our democratic allies – are effectively permitted to do anything. They are no longer bound by any rules.

It is international law, if it exists at all, à la carte. Above all, it marks a departure from Germany’s decades-long belief in the civilising of international relations through their codification. From the perspective of many states that have withheld their vote from Berlin, the Federal Republic is now too unreliable a partner for the highest body of the global legal order.

Time for a reassessment

The election defeat is not merely a humiliation; it is accompanied by a real loss of influence and prestige for what is, after all, the largest and economically strongest country in the European Union. In future international crises, Berlin will now find itself at the back of the room. For Germany, this should be a moment of self-reflection at best.

What values and interests should guide our policy? In a phase of extreme geopolitical upheaval, the rise of the Global South and the US distancing itself from the world order it once imposed, Germany is dependent not on less, but on more and on resilient international cooperation.

Clearly, the international legal order is not perfect. The institutions of collective security are frequently paralysed, and, as in the past, there will be dilemmas where interests and values make it necessary to strike a balance between politics and law.

However, a complete descent into a dog-eat-dog world – where military might is the only thing that counts, where wars of aggression are launched at will, where warfare is becoming increasingly brutal, and where the international community is sinking into global cultural conflicts – cannot be in Germany’s interests.

Such a world would, sooner or later, also threaten the enduring peace within the EU. As a country with few natural resources, highly integrated economically and dependent on global trade flows, the Federal Republic is reliant on a reasonably functioning world order in which fundamental principles apply even across the boundaries of political regimes.

It is disconcerting to see how much the German government, particularly its conservative wing, celebrates its friendship with an Israeli government in which war criminals and right-wing extremists call the shots.

The restoration of Germany’s lost soft power will also necessitate a reassessment of German Middle East policy. Hardly anyone expects a triumphant switch to the camp of Palestine’s supporters. But a more measured and balanced approach would certainly be appropriate. It is disconcerting to see how much the German government, particularly its conservative wing, celebrates its friendship with an Israeli government in which war criminals and right-wing extremists call the shots.

The fact that, in the global perception, one aligns oneself so closely with a group that is knowingly threatening to turn its own country into an international pariah state defies any rational explanation. The costs of this stance are very real, and they are damaging to Germany.

The embarrassing defeat at the UN may not be a one-off blunder in this matter. In a few years’ time, the International Court of Justice will rule on the case of genocide in Gaza. Further trouble looms here. For those who, for ethical reasons, cannot bring themselves to resolve the completely untenable conditions in the occupied territories through a solution acceptable to the international community, Germany’s well-understood self-interest should tip the balance by then at the latest.

For unlike so many conflicts where Berlin’s contribution is limited to expressing deep concern, the Federal Republic would actually have influence here. So far, this influence has been used very successfully to block any European pressure on a government that wants a great deal, but certainly not a sustainable peace. As soon as that changes, two things would be on the rise again: peace — and Germany’s tarnished reputation.

Marcus Schneider heads the FES regional project for peace and security in the Middle East, based in Beirut, Lebanon. Previously, he worked for the FES as head of the offices in Botswana and Madagascar, among others.

Source: International Politics and Society, Brussels

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

  

 

Report say illegal logging, hidden ownership structures, and weak transparency laws are depriving governments of badly needed climate and biodiversity financing. Credit: Financial Transparency Coalition

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINAGAR, India, Jun 8 2026 (IPS)

A new report has found that billions of dollars linked to illegal deforestation are flowing through global supply chains, with secrecy around land ownership and company records helping timber, soy, and beef products enter international markets unchecked.

The report, Financial Secrets of the Forests: How Secrecy Fuels Deforestation in Brazil and Cameroon, was released by the Financial Transparency Coalition in partnership with the Center for Economics and Finance for Latin American Development (CEFILAT) on May 26, this year, examined forest loss and illicit financial flows in Brazil and Cameroon, two countries that hold some of the world’s largest tropical forests.

Researchers behind the report say illegal logging, hidden ownership structures, and weak transparency laws are depriving governments of badly needed climate and biodiversity financing. They argue that while countries have passed anti-deforestation laws, the lack of public access to company ownership records allows those benefiting from environmental destruction to remain hidden.

The report estimates that trade mispricing linked to timber exports cost Cameroon an average of US$289 million every year between 2013 and 2023. In Brazil, unexplained discrepancies in timber exports amounted to around US$214 million over a similar period.

When asked whether the report argues that financial secrecy is central to illegal deforestation and what the biggest obstacles were faced while trying to identify the real beneficiaries behind timber, soy, and cattle businesses in Brazil and Cameroon, one of the report’s lead authors, Matti Kohonen, Executive Director of the Financial Transparency Coalition, told Inter Press Service (IPS) in an exclusive interview that they weren’t able to identify the beneficial owners of these businesses despite using the best available data, including satellite GIS data.

“For the state of Mato Grosso in Brazil, which represents a fifth of the country’s total deforestation, we identified hundreds of thousands of plots of land which had been illicitly deforested from 2010 to produce soy and cattle but could only find the ID of the plots and, in some cases, companies behind them, but not their beneficial owners. When we asked the local authority for this information for the top plots of land, they replied this could not be provided due to privacy concerns despite this being a clear example of a public interest request,” he said.

“For Cameroon, on the other hand, we focused on timber and were able to map the main timber concessions (Forest Management Units (FMUs) and Sales of Standing Volume (SSVs), described in the report) and the companies that had these concessions were mostly identifiable in the datasets, but we could not find out using the best data whether these were shell companies owned by foreign firms and also could not identify their beneficial owners.”

According to him, Cameroon does have a BO database, but this is not publicly accessible.  Matti said that there is some data on mining and fossil fuel companies through the EITI (extractive industries transparency initiative), but forestry is not in their scope.

“When we asked for this information from the Cameroonian government, we didn’t get any reply, not even about the updated list of sanctioned timber companies, which we actually found were still being given concessions as late as July 2025.  Some of these sanctioned timber companies were available online, but not for the most recent years and there was no historical data that we found through earlier reporting by Pulitzer.”

The findings suggest that existing international regulations are failing to stop products linked to deforestation from entering global markets. Matti said that the biggest enforcement gaps in producer countries or importing countries are the inability to identify the companies and their beneficial owners responsible for deforestation and the lack of transparency in the supply chains which prevent tracing products to the source.

“This is a good study by WRI highlighting these issues. Another key problem is the lack of political will to tackle these issues. This is reflected in our report in the case of Cameroon, whose authorities didn’t provide us with any data, as well as the state of Mato Grosso, which refused to reveal the beneficial owners of the top plots of land linked to illicit deforestation despite the freedom of information legislation in Brazil.”

Matti added that the lack of publicly available beneficial ownership registries is a key problem as well, preventing NGOs and journalists from finding out those benefitting from the illicit clearing of forests.

“From the importing countries, the lack of political will to stop products from deforested land from entering global markets is also a major problem, especially now in major importing countries like China and Vietnam, which keep importing these products from companies that have been denounced and sanctioned in the past, as we see in Cameroon. That’s why we’re saying that without financial ownership and supply chain transparency it’s largely impossible for initiatives such as EUDR to succeed.”

The report argues that forests are not only being destroyed by chainsaws and fires, but also by opaque financial systems that make it difficult to identify who profits from deforestation.

“Financial and land ownership secrecy is a key driver behind illicit deforestation,” the report states.

In Brazil, investigators focused heavily on Mato Grosso, a state known as one of the world’s largest hubs for soy and cattle production. Satellite data showed that from 2010 to 2023, vast stretches of land were cleared without proper permits. Researchers found that 48 percent of soy production areas and 15 percent of intensive grazing pasture overlapped with plots lacking deforestation permits.

The environmental impact has been severe. Illegal cattle grazing linked to deforestation in Mato Grosso produced an estimated 502 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions between 2001 and 2023. Soy cultivation linked to illegal forest clearing generated another 250 million tonnes of emissions during the same period.

Researchers say tracing responsibility is extremely difficult because ownership information is often hidden or inaccessible.

Brazil maintains land and environmental registries, but public access to the real individuals behind companies and land holdings remains restricted. Investigators said even official requests under Brazil’s transparency laws failed to reveal the identities of people linked to illegally cleared land.

One case study highlighted a massive ranch in Mato Grosso called Fazenda Santa Silvia, where more than 3,000 hectares were allegedly cleared illegally between 2022 and 2023. Investigators connected the property to companies involved in soy and cattle production and traced supply chain links to meatpacking giants including JBS and Marfrig.

“We only analysed Mato Grosso but this state we strongly believe reflects the reality across Brazil, so the fact that such a large percentage of land for soy and beef has been illicitly deforested is really concerning. Afterwards, some of these plots get permission to grow soy/pasture but the literature suggests they’re the minority and doesn’t replace the fact that they were illicitly deforested in the first place,” Alfonso Daniels, lead author, said.

“Our data appears to reflect global research done by NGOs, such as a report from the NGO Forest Trends a few years ago that found that at least 69% of tropical forests cleared for agricultural activities such as ranching and farmland between 2013 and 2019 was done in violation of national laws and regulations, with other research showing similar percentages,” he added.

The report says such investigations currently depend on time-consuming fieldwork by journalists and environmental groups because public databases do not reveal beneficial ownership details.

The Congo Basin rainforest, where Cameroon is located, is the second largest rainforest system in the world after the Amazon. Cameroon lost more than 100,000 hectares of forest in 2025 alone, producing an estimated 130 million tonnes of carbon emissions.

Researchers found large discrepancies between the value of timber exports reported by Cameroon and the import figures recorded by trading partners such as China, Vietnam, and European Union countries. Between 2013 and 2023, the trade gap reached US$1.2 billion with China and US$760 million with Vietnam.

The report says this may point to underreporting of exports to evade customs duties and taxes.

Cameroon has introduced reforms requiring companies to disclose beneficial ownership information to tax authorities. However, the registry is not public, making it difficult for watchdog groups and journalists to track who ultimately controls logging companies and forest concessions.

Investigators also found that some companies sanctioned for illegal logging continued receiving logging permits years later. One table in the report lists several firms that were granted new concessions even after being penalized by authorities.

Environmental groups say weak enforcement in importing countries is adding to the problem.

Although the European Union, United Kingdom, and United States have laws banning illegal timber imports, the report argues that companies linked to deforestation continue accessing major markets because ownership structures remain hidden.

The European Union’s new Deforestation Regulation, expected to take effect in late 2026, will ban products linked to recently deforested land. But researchers warn that enforcement will remain difficult unless governments make ownership records fully public.

The report has pitched for public beneficial ownership registries, stronger supply chain transparency, public databases on environmental crimes, and a global asset registry that would reveal who owns forests, farmland, and logging concessions worldwide.

Researchers argue that tackling climate change and biodiversity loss will require more than promises to protect forests. They say governments must also confront the financial secrecy systems that allow environmental crimes to remain profitable.

The report estimates that money lost through illegal logging, tax evasion, and hidden financial flows could help close major global funding gaps for forests, biodiversity, and climate action.

When asked why Cameroon and Brazil both have beneficial ownership registries, yet public access remains limited and why governments continue to resist transparency around land and company ownership despite the environmental stakes, Daniels said that the laws that established these beneficial ownership registries are narrow in their scope concerning the use of the data, often such registries are made in compliance with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recent changes in its recommendations 24 and 22 that now require government-run and centralised beneficial ownership registries for anti-money laundering purposes.

“In the case of Cameroon, they are on the FATF grey list and establishing a high-quality and centralised government-run registry gets them off that list, and that’s one of the motivations to establish a BO registry, but there is no requirement to make it public under existing frameworks.

“Only in the case of extractive industries defined as mining and oil/gas do we have the requirement, as Cameroon is a signatory to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and they should comply with its requirement for public access, and some data on these is publicly accessible, but forestry is not considered an extractive industry and is outside of its scope,” said Daniels, adding that also, public pressure thus far from inside the country has not made this data fully public for any other reason.

“In the case of Brazil, the federal tax authority runs the beneficial ownership registry established before the FATF rule to comply with the OECD information exchange provisions from 2016 onwards, largely for tax collection reasons,” Daniels said.

According to him, the data is shared also with anti-corruption authorities to comply with later FATF rules.  However, Daniels said that this data is not made public.  “As Brazil is not a member of the EITI, it also does not make this data public even in the scope of mining, oil and gas companies.  There isn’t enough internal pressure from any section of society to make BO registries public, even if this could tackle illicit logging that is a major political concern for the current presidency.”

According to Kohonen, illicit financial flows linked to illicit deforestation can arise at different stages.  “If logging takes place without the proper licences, it is considered illegal, and the whole value of timber is therefore illicit.  It is important to ensure that sanctions and fines are promptly administered to deter anyone from illegal logging, but currently it is still far too commonplace that land is illegally logged, as up to 30% of all timber comes from land that was illegally logged.  This is an enforcement gap, where you can automatically issue sanctions and fines to companies that, based on satellite data, have deforested without adequate licences,” said Kohonen.

“Another stage is at the point of exporting (some 10-15% of all timber in Brazil is exported; the domestic consumption is quite high, while in Cameroon, most of the timber is exported), so at this point, the customs authorities could be checking if the timber is correctly valued at the point of export and if there are irregularities in customs declarations that may then lead to trade mispricing (unexplained value gaps between the export at the source and import prices at the destination country).”

He added that finally, there are also issues with tax authorities, where mispriced timber is often also a case of tax evasion, if this leads to paying less in VAT, royalties or export taxes.  Also, according to Kohonen,  companies may misdeclare their corporate taxes if they don’t report adequate sales of timber or wood products or if they don’t declare their products grown on deforested land correctly (e.g., soy/beef).

“Finally, companies may engage in profit-shifting activities, where they move taxable profits to offshore tax havens where they are taxed at a lower rate or may attract tax exemptions, or profits could be moved to tax havens through intra-firm transfers that are mispriced (e.g., mispriced internal financing or internal use of brand or IP).  These all contribute to making deforestation and deforestation-linked commodities more profitable and less likely to be detected.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

 

Claude Gascon, interim CEO of the GEF and Aziz Abduhakimov, Minister of Environment of the Republic of Uzbekistan, at the closing ceremony of the Eighth GEF Assembly in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. Gascon was presented with a traditional Uzbek outfit. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Cecilia Russell
SAMARKAND, Uzbekistan, Jun 5 2026 (IPS)

“While pressures on public budgets are growing and geopolitical tensions rising, it can be tempting to see environmental finance as optional. It is not,” GEF Interim CEO and Chair Claude Gascon told the closing plenary of the Eighth GEF Assembly in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, today.

For developing countries, least developed countries, small island developing states and fragile and vulnerable countries, overseas development aid is the cornerstone.

“Because what is at stake is not only a set of international targets. What is at stake is the future quality of life on this planet. What is at stake is whether children inherit rivers that still run clean, forests that still stand tall, coastlines that still protect communities, and economies that can thrive without destroying the natural systems on which all prosperity depends.”

Assembly chair Aziz Abdukhakimov, Advisor to the President of Uzbekistan on Environment and Chairman, the National Committee on Ecology and Climate Change, noted the event had been highly productive with over 50 side events, bilateral meetings, and informal exchanges.

“The GEF council reviewed and improved key decisions, including the GEF-9 programming directions and (the last) GEF-8 work program,” he said, while welcoming a strong focus on integrated programming, innovative financing, and inclusive participation, including the aim to direct at least 20 percent of GEF-9 resources to Indigenous peoples and local communities.

He said that Uzbekistan’s President Shavkat Mirziyoyev’s message that Uzbekistan would become a donor country reflected the country’s “commitment to environmental sustainability.

“This shows our readiness not only to benefit from cooperation but also to contribute to global environmental relations,” Abdukhakimov said.

Earlier in a high-level panel discussion, Dr Rosina Bierbaum, Chair of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) of the GEF, reminded the Assembly that while half of the global GDP depends on nature, there is a “USD 700 billion annual biodiversity financing gap”.

However, she said, an analysis by management consulting firm McKinsey confirms that implementing the 30 by 30 biodiversity goals, aimed at effectively conserving at least 30% of the Earth’s land and oceans by 2030, will generate significant conservation and socioeconomic goals and lift people out of poverty.

While the discussion about funding was coming at a difficult time, Kenneth Lay, Senior Managing Director at RockCreek and former Treasurer of the World Bank, said the good news was that the private sector could help tackle the problems.

Detailing how the global savings pool has grown dramatically “driven by 15 years of exceptional markets”, he said there were trillions of dollars available in pension and sovereign wealth funds, insurance sector reserves, and others, and these funds could become available to invest in nature, but “asset owners were not in the room”.

Lay suggested that the GEF convene the players who run central banks, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and securities regulators among others and ensure that “investing in nature is as natural as investing in infrastructure.” Ensure that investing in nature is as natural as investing in infrastructure.

Valerie Hickey, Director, Environment, World Bank Group, said the GEF had a role to play in building enabling regulations and policy predictability to help the private sector manage risk – with a focus on what she called the ‘Goldilocks’ blend of concessional and commercial finance to cushion investment failures while ensuring the investment has commercial returns and is financially solid enough to unlock private capital that has “measurable environmental outcomes.”

There were warnings too.

Rachel Kyte, Special Representative for Climate, United Kingdom, warned that a study showed her country was “highly vulnerable to ecosystem collapse.

“What does that mean? It means that for a British family, their ability to fill their supermarket trolley with the things they need to keep their children healthy is entirely linked to the integrity of the Congo Basin. And that if anything were to further threaten it, there would be security and defence implications.”

Getting local communities and Indigenous people involved through people-centred, inclusive, and economically viable solutions was key, Joyelle Clarke, Minister of Sustainable Development and Environment, Climate Action and Constituency Empowerment, Saint Kitts and Nevis, said. She explained how the blue carbon market was underappreciated and often hard to grasp.

Clarke gave an example of a UNESCO world heritage site that conserves turtles – in an area where the fishing community’s diet included turtles. By offering alternative job opportunities in the tourist industry, they were able to garner the community’s support for the site.

Leaders and delegates from the Uzbek government and the GEF pose for a group photo at the conclusion of the Eighth GEF Assembly in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Gascon reminded the plenary that the environment was not a “side issue”.

“First, we must defend and strengthen continued public development assistance for countries… Continued public ODA is therefore not only a moral commitment. It is an investment in global stability, in human security, and in the shared future of all nations.”

Then, he said “countries need to align national policies with the environmental outcomes they seek. We cannot say we are committed to sustainability while still rewarding the destruction of ecosystems, the overuse of natural resources, or the pollution of air, land, and water.”

Third, the GEF should unlock the full power of private capital and ensure that the private sector becomes “not just a source of finance but a true partner in governance and delivery of global environmental outcomes”.

And finally, “cabinet-wide commitment and society-wide participation” were needed for the environment goals to be achieved.

“We need national leadership, but we also need local ownership. That means listening to and working with communities, Indigenous Peoples, women, youth, civil society, scientists, local authorities, farmers, workers, and entrepreneurs. It means recognising that durable solutions are not imposed – they are built together.”

Finally, Gascon said the final push to 2030 “must be more than a countdown. It must be a turning point.”

Note: The Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly held its final plenary today, June 6, 2026, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.

This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!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

• GEF Pushes Innovation, Blended Finance Ahead of the Eighth Assembly
• GEF Approves Adaptation Funds Strengthening Resilience in Vulnerable Countries
• ‘Do More With Less’: GEF CEO Claude Gascon on Speed, Scale and Reform

Monika Stankiewicz, Executive Secretary of the Minamata Convention on Mercury, learns how to pan for gold in a free-mercury mine in Baguio, the Philippines, in 2024. Credit: Minamata Convention on Mercury

By Kizito Makoye
SAMARKAND, Uzbekistan, Jun 5 2026 (IPS)

Ask any woman miner in the Katoro goldfield in Tanzania’s northern Geita region, and she will tell you that she touches toxic mercury with her bare hands when extracting gold from crushed ore.

Many also say they carry the mercury-gold amalgam home and burn it in kitchens, exposing themselves and their families to toxic fumes that waft into the air.

For many women in Tanzania’s artisanal mining communities, the use of mercury is deeply embedded in their survival.

Globally, mercury used in artisanal gold mining contaminates rivers, enters fish and travels through Indigenous food systems – affecting distant communities.

Monika Stankiewicz, the United Nations’ Executive Secretary of the Minamata Convention on Mercury, warned this week that mercury pollution linked to artisanal gold mining continues to wreak havoc globally, with some women so fearful of the toxic metal’s effects that they are delaying motherhood.

During visits to mining communities in different countries, Stankiewicz said she heard stories that exposed the hidden human cost behind the global gold rush – where poverty often leaves families choosing between earning a living and protecting their health.

“I’ve heard women saying they are afraid to get pregnant because they are afraid their children will be affected by mercury,” Stankiewicz tells IPS on the sidelines of the Eighth GEF Assembly. “So it was really heartbreaking.”

Her account paints a grim picture of women and children exposed to hazardous mercury in domestic settings as the human toll of the global gold rush continues to grow, from Geita to Brazil’s Amazon despite visible risks to human health and ecosystems.

For Stankiewicz, the challenge extends beyond environmental regulation to the harsh reality facing millions of low-income miners worldwide, whose families struggle to survive today while carrying health risks that may last for generations.

“It is always a different context,” Stankiewicz said, recalling her years of interactions with artisanal miners.

“In different countries where I met with miners, the situation was quite specific. So it’s difficult to have one story that represents the entire informal sector,” she said.

Mercury pollution linked to artisanal and small-scale gold mining remains one of the world’s largest sources of human-generated mercury emissions.

In Tanzania, where roughly 1.2 million artisanal miners depend on gold for income, mercury is still widely used because it is cheap, accessible and effective at recovering gold.

Mercury is a toxic substance that attacks the central nervous system. According to Stankiewicz, exposure to the liquid metal may cause neurological damage, including memory loss and tremors, respiratory illness from inhaling mercury vapour, reproductive health impacts and harm to children’s developing nervous systems.

Children are particularly vulnerable.

Monika Stankiewicz, Executive Secretary, Minamata Convention on Mercury at the Eighth GEF Assembly in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

“Even low levels can affect brain development, learning and memory, and motor skills,” she said.

The consequences can be lifelong.

“We know from past experiences, such as the Minamata disease in Japan, that high levels of mercury exposure, particularly during pregnancy, can lead to severe and permanent neurological damage in children.”

In many artisanal mining communities, women process ore, store mercury and supervise the burning of amalgam to prevent theft.

“If they are not processing directly, they are often most trusted to either store the mercury or watch over the amalgam as it gets burnt to ensure it is not stolen,” Stankiewicz explains.

“They also face compounded risks during pregnancy, as mercury can affect the developing foetus they carry.”

The unsafe disposal of mercury in Tanzania has created a toxic mix in the country’s river system, exposing people downstream to serious health risks due to water and fish contamination, she added.

Mercury enters rivers, fish and agricultural systems, exposing communities who may never set foot inside a mine.

“For families and communities relying on fishing or farming, the impact can mean reduced food safety and food security, loss of income from contaminated natural resources and long-term degradation of ecosystems they depend on,” Stankiewicz says.

She notes that Indigenous communities in the Arctic continue to experience mercury contamination, even though they do not engage in mercury-intensive artisanal mining, because mercury circulates globally through the atmosphere before accumulating in colder ecosystems.

In Brazil, the crisis carries another dimension.

“Despite their distance and very different contexts, both regions reflect a similar underlying reality: artisanal and small-scale gold mining exists at the intersection of livelihoods, informality, and, in some cases, illegality,” she says.

“In the Brazilian Amazon, we are seeing a growing presence of organised criminal networks linked to illegal gold mining, including money laundering, gold laundering, illegal mercury supply chains, and operations in protected and Indigenous areas.”

“In East Africa, including Tanzania, the situation is different in scale and structure, but the sector is still affected by widespread informality and illicit trade, such as smuggling and unregulated cross-border flows, which limit oversight and undermine efforts to control mercury use.”

For Stankiewicz, criminalising poverty does not solve the mercury problem.

She recalls meeting miners who had already stopped using mercury but remained trapped outside formal markets.

“They still struggled to formalise their activities and to have access to formal markets, to have a fair price for their gold and also to protect themselves from illegal activities.”

The lesson, she said, is that governments must avoid pushing miners deeper underground.

“It’s important to work directly with miners and not push them underground so that activity becomes fully illegal, because then it’s difficult to reach out with capacity building and awareness raising.”

Her message to a miner in Geita or the Brazilian Amazon is grounded in empathy rather than judgement.

“First of all, I would say that this is a very difficult choice for any family member or parent to either think of earning money or then also put at risk their own health.”

“So I do not wish anyone to be in a situation to make such a choice.”

Still, she urges immediate protective action.

“The most immediate and practical advice is really for miners to protect themselves from mercury exposure and to avoid certain practices that really may affect their health.”

“This is like burning amalgam in residential areas and also open burning.”

She believes the long-term answer lies elsewhere.

“Formalisation is the way to go.”

The Minamata Convention, which entered into force nearly a decade ago, has increasingly focused on helping countries move in that direction. Between 1 July 2022 and 30 June 2025 the GEF committed USD 174.0 million for programming to support the implementation of the Convention under its eighth replenishment.

Earlier this week, the 71st Council of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) also acknowledged USD 200 million for smaller projects, including support for countries’ national implementation plans under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and work to address mercury in artisanal and small-scale gold mining under the Minamata Convention on Mercury.

Under Article 7 and National Action Plans, governments are encouraged to eliminate the most dangerous practices, strengthen public health responses, formalise mining operations and introduce mercury-free technologies.

Progress, Stankiewicz says, is visible.

More countries have adopted action plans, more governments have recognised ASGM as a significant sector, and communities are becoming increasingly aware of mercury’s risks.

“On the ground, this is translating into concrete measures: the introduction of mercury-free technologies in some mining areas, stronger regulatory frameworks, efforts to formalise parts of the sector, and increasing integration of health considerations into national responses.”

But she warns against celebrating too early.

“The next phase, and the real test, is ensuring that these efforts are aligned with realities on the ground, sustained, scaled, and translated into lasting improvements in the lives of mining and downstream communities.”

For communities in Tanzania and Brazil that depend on gold, the challenge remains unresolved.

Gold still brings income.

Mercury still brings risk.

And between the two lies a difficult question millions of families continue to confront every day: how to survive today without sacrificing tomorrow.

Note: The Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly is underway until June 6, 2026, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.

This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!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

• At GEF’s Eighth Assembly, Uzbekistan Signals New Role as Donor
• GEF Pushes Innovation, Blended Finance Ahead of the Eighth Assembly
• GEF Approves Adaptation Funds Strengthening Resilience in Vulnerable Countries

Credit: UN News

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Jun 5 2026 (IPS)

Ahead of World Environment Day, the UN General Assembly made a vital commitment to protect people from climate impacts, adopting a resolution on the climate change obligations of states. The resolution follows up on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion issued last year, which found that states have a legal duty to prevent activities that cause environmental harm. Most states voted for the resolution despite a concerted campaign by the Trump administration to block it.

From ruling to resolution

The ICJ ruling was a landmark moment. It made clear that climate change is a human rights issue, because the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for human rights as a whole. Its ruling means that if states breach their climate obligations, it’s an intentionally wrongful act, opening them up to legal challenges.

The ICJ case was brought by the government of Vanuatu, but it was a victory for civil society, because the campaign to seek a ruling was started by law students who formed an organisation, Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, to pressure their governments to go to the court.

ICJ advisory opinions aren’t legally binding, but their reasoning often plays a part in litigation efforts, strengthening the climate lawsuits civil society is increasingly bringing against states and corporations. It’s already being referenced in court hearings. Last year, a Brazilian judge cited it when he ordered a coalmine and thermoelectric plant to cease operations, although his ruling is currently on hold pending an appeal.

However, at the latest global climate summit, COP30, the Saudi Arabian government vetoed any reference to the ICJ ruling. Vanuatu therefore pushed for the General Assembly resolution to recognise the international legal standing of the judgment and encourage greater implementation.

Approval was far from unanimous. The Trump administration urged its allies to pressure Vanuatu to withdraw the resolution, part of its extensive campaign to defend the interests of fossil fuel corporations. It has also renounced the Paris Agreement and UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, withdrawn from an array of international climate and environmental bodies and blocked an agreement on global shipping emissions. It was one of eight states that voted against, alongside Belarus, Iran, Israel, Liberia, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, a roll call of petrostates, countries that routinely ignore international rules and their close allies. The Trump administration continues to dispute the resolution, having issued a statement questioning its legality.

Momentum and resistance

States that backed the resolution have made clear that action on the climate crisis isn’t a question of political convenience, but a matter of respecting international law.

The resolution further contributes to the growing momentum behind climate action, despite attempts by a handful of powerful states to drag the world backwards. Renewables now provide around 30 per cent of global electricity, and renewable energy investments in 2025 were more than double those in fossil fuels. The First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, held in April, brought together 57 states to commit to developing national roadmaps to phase out fossil fuel production and consumption. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil supplies flow, has brought further recognition of the reality that fossil fuel dependence benefits only a handful of petrostates and leaves everyone else vulnerable.

These shifts are having an impact. In May, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change dropped its worst-case scenario for the possible effects of climate change, under which global temperatures could have risen to 4.5 degrees above preindustrial levels, because emissions cuts are making a difference.

Activists in the crosshairs

The ICJ case offers just one example of how civil society is making a crucial difference in pushing for climate action. Activists are urging ambition and resisting new fossil fuel projects. But they’re paying a heavy price. The Business and Human Rights Centre found that in 2025, three quarters of almost 800 attacks it documented against people who spoke out against businesses targeted those who mobilised on climate, environmental and land rights issues.

Ten activists from the Mother Nature Cambodia environmental group remain in jail, having been handed heavy sentences in 2024 in retaliation for their work to raise public awareness about the impacts of extractive and infrastructure projects. In Mexico, Kenia Hernandez, leader of the Zapata Vive peasant movement that protects land rights, is serving a ten-and-a-half year sentence on fabricated charges.

In Uganda, last year authorities arrested 11 activists for protesting against the construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline. In January, police raided the home of Harjeet Singh, one of India’s most prominent environmental activists and a vocal campaigner for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. In Chile, where the government has weakened environmental laws, Indigenous women activists are experiencing intimidation, judicial harassment and violent attacks for opposing large-scale projects.

Last year the German government launched an inquiry into public funding of environmental groups, the Dutch parliament adopted a motion declaring Extinction Rebellion an ‘unlawful, society-disrupting and vandalistic organisation’ and the Portuguese government listed environmental groups in a section on terrorism of its annual security report. Authorities in Australia and New Zealand have arrested numerous people at climate and environmental protests, including in opposition to coal mining.

The UN resolution makes clear that criminalisation and violence are incompatible with states’ obligations, and everyone has a part to play in climate action. It calls on states to ‘ensure the full, meaningful and equal participation of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, people of African descent, women and girls, children and youth, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations in decision-making on climate action’.

States that backed the resolution are attacking the people it demands they work with. They can’t meet their climate obligations unless they stop repressing civil society. The resolution should give fresh impetus to civil society’s calls to replace repression with partnership.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

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

 

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

  

 

By Neven Mimica
ZAGREB, Croatia, Jun 5 2026 (IPS)

In the hard-to-reach rural community of West Pokot, Kenya, 156 young women crossed a threshold that once seemed out of reach. Their graduation from HER Lab, a workforce skills programme for marginalized rural young women, was more than a ceremony. It demonstrated the power of targeted investment, trusted local partnerships and women’s economic empowerment.

Neven Mimica

All graduates are the first in their families to complete post-secondary education and training. They are now equipped to earn, lead and build dignified futures in communities where opportunity has long been scarce. Yet even as we celebrate this success, grassroots progress like this is increasingly at risk — not because the model is flawed, but because European and global policy is drifting away from the approaches that make such outcomes possible.

The EU’s budget crossroads

The European Union faces a critical moment as it negotiates its post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). While the European Commission has described the draft as its “most ambitious ever”, rising debt repayments and interest costs mean that, in real terms, funding for external action and development is stagnating or declining.

The new MFF prioritises competitiveness, industrial policy and defence. These priorities are understandable in a volatile geopolitical context, but they risk coming at the expense of development cooperation, Official Development Assistance (ODA), and gender-focused programmes — particularly those supporting Africa.

This is not abstract. Cohesion and Common Agricultural Policy budgets are shrinking, while development funding is increasingly consolidated into broader external action instruments. Member states have warned that any real increase is marginal and that adjustment costs will fall on the most vulnerable, within and beyond Europe.

Strategic partnerships: promise and pitfall

The Global Gateway Initiative, launched to mobilise up to €300 billion by 2027, with half for Africa, was presented as a new partnership model. Yet it has generated concern among civil society and parliamentarians.

Its focus on “bankable” projects and private sector-led delivery risks sidelining the actors best placed to deliver inclusive development: local communities, women’s organisations and grassroots NGOs. Civil society engagement remains inconsistent, funding flows lack transparency, and safeguards to ensure gender equality as a core objective are weak.

Strategic partnerships may therefore displace direct support for proven grassroots models, undermining the local capacity and social trust Europe claims to champion.

A global aid crisis

This policy drift comes at a dangerous moment. In 2025, global aid fell by a record margin following a 9% decline in 2024. France cut ODA by 11%, Germany by 17%, the UK reduced bilateral aid to Africa by 12%, and the United States slashed overseas aid contracts by more than 90%.

The consequences are immediate. Programmes supporting girls’ education, health services and women’s economic empowerment across Africa are being scaled back or closed.

The EU, long a champion of gender equality and development, cannot afford to follow this path. Grassroots gains are under threat. Since 2013, the Global Give Back Circle’s HER Lab programme alone has transitioned more than 800 rural young women in Kenya, into employment, entrepreneurship or further education. These are not isolated successes, but foundations of resilient societies and credible European engagement.

This is not an isolated case. The Women Action Foundation (WAF) has enabled women’s economic participation by addressing a critical but often overlooked barrier in Kenya: childcare. By establishing community-run childcare hubs alongside skills training and livelihood support, WAF has enabled women in low-income communities to enter work, launch micro-enterprises and sustain economic independence — demonstrating again that locally designed solutions can deliver high impact with modest resources.

Responsibility and opportunity

Europe’s global credibility rests on aligning values with action. As negotiations on the post-2027 MFF intensify, the EU must decide whether to uphold its commitment to development cooperation and gender equality or allow them to be diluted within broader strategic priorities.

HER Lab shows what works. Graduates are launching businesses, saving collectively, and mentoring others, with 74 per cent moving into employment, entrepreneurship or further education and unemployment falling sharply after programme completion. These are not abstract gains, but measurable outcomes.

The Global Gateway can still play a vital role if it moves beyond large scale infrastructure and meaningfully integrates grassroots, locally led and gender-focused partnerships. To remain credible, the EU must ring-fence funding for development cooperation and gender equality, make civil society co-designers of programmes, and insist on transparent impact reporting.

Beyond its own budget, it should also use its diplomatic influence to help reverse the global aid decline and mobilise private and impact investment behind women’s empowerment.

A beacon worth protecting

The graduation ceremony in West Pokot shows what is possible when civil society and local partners work directly with communities. Locally led, women-centred programmes deliver lasting impact, often with modest resources but deep social trust.

Europe’s promise to marginalised women is not made in communiqués, but in the funding and partnership decisions taken now. Investing in African women through proven, grassroots-led models strengthens communities, builds resilience from the ground up, and underpins the credibility the European Union seeks to project as a global actor.

If Europe is serious about matching its values with action, it must choose to support and scale what works. That means protecting funding for development cooperation and gender equality, and ensuring that grassroots organisations are partners of choice, not afterthoughts, in EU external action.

Neven Mimica is a Croatian politician and diplomat who served as European Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development from 2014 to 2019. He previously was Deputy Prime Minister of Croatia.

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

  

 

In the opulent conference halls of Samarkand, far from the drought-hit fields of East Africa, Tanzanian delegates have warned that unless global climate finance is directed to rural communities, environmental destruction will only accelerate, deepening the vulnerability of those least responsible for the crisis. For generations, farmers and pastoralists across Tanzania have relied on predictable […]

By CIVICUS
Jun 4 2026 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses the outlook ahead of Peru’s runoff presidential election with David Hidalgo, journalist and executive director of OjoPúblico, a Peruvian digital investigative journalism outlet.

David Hidalgo

In the first round of voting on 12 April, Keiko Fujimori, daughter of former president Alberto Fujimori and fourth-time presidential candidate, secured around 17 per cent of the vote, while Roberto Sánchez received around 12 per cent. They face each other in the 7 June runoff. This is a critical election in a country that has had eight presidents since 2016, with three removed from office by Congress. It’s being held in a context of growing civic space restrictions. The campaign has been marked by disinformation, attacks on civil society and journalists, and the imposition of new legal restrictions against them.

What were the first round results?

The Peruvian electoral system requires a candidate to secure over 50 per cent of the vote to win. The first round, held on 12 April, produced no clear winner, as none of the parties took over 20 per cent. Consequently, on 7 June there will be a runoff between two candidates who did not secure strong support but have merely cleared the minimum threshold to reach the runoff.

The contest between Fujimori of Fuerza Popular and Sánchez of Juntos por el Perú promises a difficult and polarised election. Meanwhile, Rafael López Aliaga of Renovación Popular, who came third trailing by some 20,000 votes, has persisted with an intense campaign alleging fraud.

It was an unusual election, as over 30 presidential candidates stood and, for the first time in over 20 years, voters also elected a bicameral parliament. The recent constitutional changes that reintroduced the Senate granted it considerable power, including the final say on whether to vacate a president by removing them via a parliamentary mechanism. In a country that has had eight presidents in 10 years, the composition of the new Senate will be just as decisive as the result of the presidential runoff.

Who are the candidates?

Keiko Fujimori is the daughter of Alberto Fujimori, who came to power in Peru in the 1990s and, two years after taking office, staged a coup and ruled autocratically throughout the decade. Fujimori left a legacy of corruption and serious human rights violations, for which he was sentenced to prison. His daughter defends his government and has built her campaign on the promise of a return to order, a message that may resonate with an electorate affected by historic levels of public insecurity.

However, she carries political baggage. She was the subject of a judicial investigation into the alleged illegal financing of her 2021 campaign, a process that made significant progress but was ultimately quashed. She is surrounded by figures who uncritically defend and recycle a hardline rhetoric that includes the passing of laws to grant amnesty for past human rights violations.

Sánchez built his campaign around the figure of ex-president Pedro Castillo, a former schoolteacher who channelled popular frustration and won the 2021 election, but lacked political preparation and ended up attempting a coup. Castillo is now in prison. Sánchez, who served as minister of trade in his government, has indicated that should he come to power, he could use presidential powers to pardon him.

His candidacy also raises concerns due to his closeness to Antauro Humala, a former military officer who spent almost 18 years in prison for leading a revolt in which four police officers were killed, and who holds radical views on various issues.

López Aliaga, a business leader and former mayor of Lima, has an equally controversial profile. Following a contentious tenure as mayor, he ran on a far-right platform that polarised the presidential campaign. He called for an insurgency when the results went against him and suggested the murder of a critical journalist. He constantly invokes conspiracy theories about an alleged state takeover by a supposed left-wing mafia and dismisses anyone who doesn’t share his views, from human rights organisations to Keiko Fujimori.

Was the first round election free and fair?

Although it was a turbulent electoral process, with incidents relating to the distribution of electoral materials and the opening of polling stations, the election was conducted within parameters that have been validated by various observation missions. There’s no evidence of a concerted effort to commit electoral fraud.

The irregularities that occurred are under investigation. The problem is that these gave rise to allegations of fraud put forward by López Aliaga and his party. Distorted versions of events were circulated to give the impression of significant impacts. For example, in some polling stations in southern Lima, electoral materials didn’t arrive on time, which led to false claims that, for this reason, a million people had been unable to vote. False information also circulated that electoral tally sheets were allegedly tampered with. It’s true there were incidents and irregularities, but there’s no evidence of fraud. This was acknowledged by the European Union’s observation mission.

The narrative of fraud is not new. Since the 2021 election, Keiko Fujimori’s party has maintained that she lost due to fraud, and has repeated this in every election since. López Aliaga adopted the same strategy this time and called for the election to be annulled.

What role have civil society and independent media played?

Disinformation and polarisation have reached historic levels, and the media have had to contend with them in situations of hostility and inequality. The landscape has been marked by constant attacks on independent media from the usual political figures and also parts of the press aligned with powerful corporate structures and others within the ecosystem of content creation for social media, which has emerged as the new arena for public debate.

At the same time, an authoritarian political alliance currently controlling the government and the main public institutions has consolidated a sort of legal stranglehold on independent media, which operate as non-profit organisations. The law on the Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation extends state control over civil society organisations working with international funding and requires their projects to be registered in advance with the state and subjected to coercive oversight, with disproportionate and unconstitutional sanctions. This law undermines editorial independence for independent media and creates risks incompatible with international press freedom standards.

On top of this, there’s a practice where some political groups accuse those who denounce state abuses, corruption and anti-rights practices of terrorism. This was particularly brutal following the social unrest that erupted after Castillo’s downfall in December 2022, when state repression of protests left around 50 people dead in southern Peru. The attacks targeted organisations supporting victims.

To tackle disinformation, used as a political tool in the electoral context, OjoPúblico, with the support of CIVICUS and in partnership with 26 organisations, launched an election coverage initiative using verification methods, in partnership with digital media outlets, radio stations and organised groups from different regions of Peru. The aim was to give the public verified information and show how disinformation undermines democracy. In six months, we generated almost three million views and over 180,000 social media interactions.

What’s the cause of instability in recent years?

The current crisis began in 2016, when Keiko Fujimori rejected the election results and pursued a sustained strategy to weaken the elected government, which culminated in it being removed from office by Congress. Since then, polarisation has deepened and Congress has taken on an increasingly destabilising role.

In this context, an unusual dynamic took hold, when parties at opposite ends of the political spectrum began acting in unison to benefit one another, halt investigations against them and advance their control over key state institutions such as the Constitutional Court, the Ombudsman’s Office and the Public Prosecutor’s Office. By appointing like-minded officials, they weakened the mechanisms of democratic control.

Added to this is the infiltration of illegal economies into politics. One example is that, according to revelations by independent journalists, 28 parties included people linked to illegal mining on their lists. This is an activity with an economic weight comparable to that of drug trafficking in past decades.

The combination of polarisation, institutional capture and the infiltration of criminal interests has sustained a system that reproduces itself election after election. Forces change and adapt, but they don’t disappear and instability persists.

What’s at stake in the runoff?

What’s at stake is democratic stability. This is regardless of who wins. Neither of the two candidates has provided sufficient guarantees that they will respect democratic principles and the rule of law. For 20 years, Peruvian voters have had to choose the lesser of two evils.

If Fujimori wins, she will seek to revive her father’s heavy-handed approach under the banner of law and order, one very much in line with the hard-right wave sweeping through Latin America. If Sánchez wins, his alliances with left-wing groups with a history of violence will open up an equally uncertain scenario.

Neither has presented a solid and convincing programme for the next five years. Their proposals rely more on slogans and spending pledges than on structural solutions to urgent problems such as record levels of insecurity, out-of-control illicit economies, and a fiscal situation undermined by disproportionate tax breaks.

But it’s also true that, given this complex scenario, this is not a choice between two equivalent risks. The dilemma facing Peruvian voters lies in understanding which candidate, if elected, will have greater power to pursue their authoritarian impulses without checks from the institutions that should restrain them.

In recent years, various international analyses have ceased to classify Peru as a democracy and now regard it as a hybrid regime. Depending on who wins, this trend will continue or intensify.

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

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
TikTok
Twitter
YouTube

SEE ALSO
Peru: ‘If authorities once again ignore the popular will, accumulated discontent could trigger a new outbreak’ CIVICUS Lens | Anonymous interview 26.May.2026
Peru: ‘The adult public and the mainstream press ridiculed our protests’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Jackelinne Ponce Paredes 07.May.2026
Peru: ‘Young people have lost their fear and realised change requires constant participation’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Wildalr Lozano 21.Oct.2025

 

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

  

 

In a significant policy shift symbolising rising environmental ambition, Uzbekistan on Thursday announced that it will become a donor of international environmental funding to the Global Environment Facility (GEF), as the Eighth GEF Assembly opened in the historic city of Samarkand. The announcement was delivered by H.E. Saida Mirziyoyeva, Head of the Presidential Administration, on […]

Picture alliance/abaca. Even the world’s strongest fleet is reaching its limits. Source: International Politics and Society, Brussels
 
The US failure in Iran exposes the limits of power. But it also shows a deeper loss of moral and leadership capital that may be harder to recover

By Dan Smith
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Jun 4 2026 (IPS)

The outcome of the current Iran war is still in doubt, but one consequence is already becoming clear: it has weakened America’s capacity to project power. Many are asking who won. The more important question may be what the war has cost.

The Gulf’s geo-economic position means that this war, short and small by historic standards, will have long-lasting global effects. One of the most important concerns the future US capacity to project power. A quick look at the balance sheet helps identify how that may play out.

Gains and losses

The losses, of course, include the impact on nature, on the people of Iran and on the Gulf states. The poor in other regions will suffer as food insecurity rises. On the sidelines, Putin’s Russia has benefitted by being able to sell more oil, but its support for Iran will cost it friends and investment capital from the Gulf. Meanwhile, Ukraine has also benefitted because several Gulf states want its drones and technical support.

Of the main combatants, Israel gained some freedom of action in Gaza and Lebanon. But it is piling up problems for the future, just as it did when it escalated in Lebanon in the early 1980s. Iran has gained a kind of win by not losing while, conversely, the US loses by not winning. And this will have a serious impact on its capacity to project power in the coming years.

There are two aspects to this. One is material and concerns the ability to coerce; the other is non-material and concerns influence. The material aspect would be significant even if the war had been more successful.

The US struck over 13 000 targets in Iran in 39 days of fighting. It used up more than half its stealth cruise missiles. At current rates of production, replacing them will take five to six years. It used as many Tomahawk cruise missiles as it produced in 10 years and about two years’ worth of Patriot interceptor missiles.

The US still has huge capacity to use force, though it may have to use it differently.

Not surprisingly, some anxiety has been expressed that the US military capacity to respond to another crisis has been reduced. Equally unsurprisingly, top-level military leaders and civilian officials assure allies and adversaries alike that the US can still handle all contingencies and project its power at will.

The amount of weaponry used is emphasised by critics because they see that the US has gained nothing by it. But even if the victory the President has frequently proclaimed were real, the weapons would still have been used. If reduced weapon stockpiles cause a problem, it is a problem regardless of the war’s outcome.

Both the concern and the complacency are overstated. The US still has huge capacity to use force, though it may have to use it differently if the President sees a new need or opportunity for military action. It remains a military superpower, but one with thinner margins, more difficult trade-offs and less freedom to respond simultaneously to crises in different regions.

The non-material aspect is even more significant. Influence takes many forms — political, economic and cultural. One source of political influence is military superiority. States that are seen as overwhelmingly powerful often gain friends and persuade adversaries to give way. The Gulf war, however, has exposed the limits of that logic.

President Trump is not wrong when he praises US military prowess. But his boasts during the Iran War have only drawn attention to the tightly limited utility of all that force. Iran’s military capacity has been damaged, and the economy is in terrible condition, but the regime is still in power, with a harder line and tighter control. When the ceasefire started, it still had 70 per cent of its pre-war stock of missiles and has doubtless produced more by now.

The US is no closer than it was the day before the war to getting Iran’s enriched uranium out of the country. It can only do that with Iranian agreement, which will take time and require US concessions over sanctions. And whereas shipping moved freely through the Strait of Hormuz before the war, now it does not, and Iran has turned that into a bargaining chip.

Trapped again

The lesson is that superior force can knock things down and kill people, but does not necessarily give its holder the power to achieve objectives. The same lesson is unfolding in another theatre of operations: in the American campaign against drug traffickers, there have been over 60 attacks on small boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, killing more than 200 people. According to the latest studies, this has had no effect on the street price and availability of cocaine in US cities.

The problem in the Gulf is that Trump has taken his government into a hole from which it is hard to see a way out. We have encountered this before. It is a characteristic dilemma of a great power facing a resilient foe. Think not just Iran, but Ukraine. Think Vietnam.

In March 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War, as American opinion began turning decisively against it, Theodore Sorensen, President Kennedy’s former speechwriter, depicted the US predicament as being trapped in a six-sided box, which he described with three simple sentences: America’s military primacy could not produce victory, while its political primacy made withdrawal humiliating.

It could not impose its will on South Vietnam or break the will of North Vietnam. Escalation risked Chinese or Soviet intervention, while serious negotiation meant accepting the possibility of a Communist South Vietnam.

It is not hard to apply the underlying analysis to the US against Iran. Some translation is needed: the war is unwinnable but withdrawal is humiliating; no ally is giving meaningful help and the enemy is too stubborn; all-out escalation is unthinkable, while good-faith negotiation means acknowledging that the war was wrong from the outset.

Hedging against US unreliability will be part of Europe’s and other US allies’ long-term policies for years to come

The US never managed to break out of that box in Vietnam and will probably be unable to do so in the Gulf. This failure – there is no other word for it – is draining the US capacity for strategic leadership. Allies are faced with reckless behaviour, frequent disregard and contempt, demands to back actions on which they were not consulted and which they oppose, inconsistent and misleading statements, and a war without strategy, legality or ethics.

It is hard to see how the US will regain the moral capital and leadership capacity it has lost this year. More bluster will not do it. Nor will resuming the war or coming to an agreement that makes major concessions to Iran. And it is currently impossible to see why Iran would make concessions to the US.

The United States remains the most powerful military actor in the world. But even the world’s strongest military cannot automatically translate force into political success. The danger is that future leaders continue to believe otherwise.

A strategically astute president who does not casually abuse and threaten allies may emerge in the future. But if the US electorate can do it twice, it can do it a third time — if not with Trump, due to age and the constitution, then with Vance, Rubio, Hegseth or someone else.

Accordingly, hedging against US unreliability will be part of Europe’s and other US allies’ long-term policies for years to come, maybe forever. As they become less dependent on the US, they will also be less compliant. In a few years, the US can restore much of its material power. Its non-material power will grow back only slowly, if at all.

Therein lies the most serious risk: that Trump, or a future leader, continues to believe against all the evidence that force equates to power, and uses it destructively, desperately and pointlessly.

Dan Smith is a Senior Fellow at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) and conducts research on issues relating to peace, security and international politics, with a focus on the Middle East and North-East Asia.

Source: International Politics and Society, Brussels

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

  

 

For three decades, Iffat Rachid Edriss walked Lebanon’s coastline with a clear purpose: protecting the sea she loves. She organised cleanups, conducted research, and helped rescue marine species, including turtles, seals, and dolphins. Through wars, economic crises, and environmental challenges, her work continued largely through community effort. “We worked very hard and kept our land […]

Credit: Dmitriy Prayzel / shutterstock.com

By Jordan Ryan
Jun 3 2026 (IPS)

 
The joint declaration issued by Russia and China on 20 May, Joint Declaration of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on the Establishment of a Multipolar World and a New Type of International Relations, has been read in sharply different ways. Some welcome its language of sovereign equality, multilateralism and a UN-centred international order. Others dismiss it as legal rhetoric deployed in bad faith. Both responses miss the more important point.

The declaration matters less for what it promises than for what it reveals. It shows how the language of the United Nations Charter has become a field of political struggle. Russia and China are challenging parts of the existing order in different ways. They are competing to shape the meaning of that order and to present themselves as its more authentic defenders.

That is why the declaration should be read closely. Its appeal to sovereign equality, indivisible security and the democratisation of international relations is not incidental. It is a claim to normative authority. The text seeks to occupy the language of legitimacy at a moment when the authority of the United Nations itself has weakened.

The gap between that language and the conduct of its authors is striking, though the two cases are not identical. Russia is waging a war in Ukraine in open violation of the principles it invokes. China presents a more complicated challenge. It should be criticised for internal repression, coercive pressure on Taiwan, its rejection of the 2016 arbitral ruling on the South China Sea, and its continuing support for Russia despite Moscow’s aggression. Yet China has also shown a degree of strategic restraint and continues to frame its global role in terms of sovereignty, non-interference and a state-based international order. That distinction does not absolve Beijing. It does suggest that any serious strategy for UN renewal should test China’s stated commitment to non-aggression and multilateral restraint against its actual conduct, especially in the South China Sea. None of this removes the hypocrisy. It makes the diplomacy more important.

Still, the erosion of the United Nations system cannot be laid only at the feet of Moscow and Beijing. Western governments have also weakened the authority of the rules they claim to defend. Broad unilateral sanctions on Venezuela were criticised by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures for their severe humanitarian impact and for undermining the principles they purported to uphold. In February 2026, the Secretary-General condemned the use of force by the United States and Israel against Iran, and the subsequent retaliation by Iran across the region, as a military escalation that undermined international peace and security. When major powers treat Charter constraints as optional, they invite others to do the same.

This matters because hypocrisy alone does not explain the moment. Great powers have always said one thing about rules and done another in practice. The deeper problem is that the authority to define legitimate state conduct has weakened. The Charter remains the best available foundation for international order, but the institutional machinery built around it no longer commands the same confidence or compliance.

That is what gives the Sino-Russian message traction beyond its authors. Its critique of Western hegemony resonates across much of the Global South because it draws on real grievances. Many states remain underrepresented in global decision-making, face conditionality in external partnerships and see an international economic order that has not delivered equitable development. Moscow and Beijing are exploiting those frustrations, though not always in the same way and not with identical records under the Charter.

At the same time, many governments are watching carefully what Sino-Russian partnership actually offers in practice. Some Belt and Road projects have generated concerns about debt sustainability and strategic dependency, with Sri Lanka’s Hambantota port frequently cited, even if interpretations of that case differ. In parts of Africa, Russia’s growing security footprint through Wagner’s legacy structures and successor arrangements has reinforced authoritarian partners while securing access to strategic resources. The language of emancipation can easily mask new forms of dependency.

For the United Nations, this is not just a messaging problem. It is a structural one. The Security Council veto produces paralysis in the crises where collective action is most needed. Financing depends on obligations that major powers treat as politically negotiable. The relationship between the United Nations and regional organisations remains uneven and vulnerable to manipulation. A system designed in 1945 for 51 member states has not adapted adequately to a far more plural and contested world.

That is why the next Secretary-General will need more than administrative skill. The task is not simply to defend the Charter against selective or cynical misuse. It is to rebuild political confidence that the institution can apply its principles with greater consistency, broader legitimacy and stronger operational capacity. That will require coalition-building across regions, especially with states that want reform, without abandoning multilateral restraint.

The Sino-Russian declaration therefore sets a test that extends well beyond Russia and China. The question is not whether its authors believe in the Charter in the same way or violate it in identical forms. They do not. The real question is whether the United Nations still has the political authority and institutional capacity to make the Charter matter.

Related articles from this author:
Governing the Ungovernable
The Secretary-General This Moment Demands
From Reform to Reinvention: Reimagining the United Nations for the 21st Century
The UN’s Withering Vine: A US Retreat from Global Governance

Jordan Ryan is a member of the Toda International Research Advisory Council (TIRAC) at the Toda Peace Institute, a Senior Consultant at the Folke Bernadotte Academy and former UN Assistant Secretary-General with extensive experience in international peacebuilding, human rights, and development policy. His work focuses on strengthening democratic institutions and international cooperation for peace and security. Ryan has led numerous initiatives to support civil society organisations and promote sustainable development across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. He regularly advises international organisations and governments on crisis prevention and democratic governance.

This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

  

 

By Oxfam
BRUSSELS, Belgium, Jun 3 2026 (IPS)

Governments are falling 90 percent short of adaptation finance targets and leaving people in climate-vulnerable communities drastically under-equipped to cope with the devastating impacts of climate change, Oxfam warns ahead of Bonn climate talks (8-18 June).

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), as of 2024, governments mobilized $31 billion in adaptation finance – around 90 percent short of the $310 billion to $365 billion projected needs for developing countries by 2035. To bridge this gap, rich countries would have to increase their adaptation financing tenfold.

The total climate finance of $137 billion reached in 2024 is also just a fraction of what countries need to transition away from fossil fuels. This shortfall highlights a stark global inequality, that those who have done the least to cause the climate crisis are being hit by the heaviest damage and short-changed from the funding promised to help them deal with it.

People living across the Global South, women, girls and Indigenous groups are overwhelmingly bearing the costs of environmental devastation.

Meanwhile, super-rich corporations and individuals — largely based in the Global North — have seen their wealth skyrocket. The profits of the six biggest fossil fuel corporations are projected to hit $94 billion in 2026, continuing to attract mega-investors. Almost 60 percent of billionaire investments are classified as being in high climate impact sectors, such as mining or oil and gas corporations.

“For too long, governments have coddled a super-rich elite whose huge emissions and dirty investments in polluting industries are throttling climate action. At Bonn, leaders must tackle this unequal concentration of wealth and power. It’s time to make rich polluters pay, and channel that wealth into accessible, participatory climate finance in a way that reaches the communities who need it most,” said Mariana Paoli, Oxfam International’s Climate Lead. 

Recent polling commissioned by Oxfam across seven countries found that approximately two-thirds (68 percent) of the public support increasing taxes on the profits of large oil and gas corporations to help fund a fair transition to renewable energy.  

Oxfam urges governments to: 

• Slash the emissions of the super-rich and make the richest polluters pay, through taxation on extreme wealth, excess profits taxes on fossil fuel corporations, and a carbon capital levy on investments in polluting sectors. 
• Remove the financial barriers blocking a Just Transition by cancelling debt, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and overhauling a financial architecture systemically skewed against Global South countries. 
• Substantially increase climate finance to support communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis. This means fulfilling the $300 billion annual target agreed at COP29, including tripling funding flows specifically for adaptation, and substantially increasing resources to address loss and damage. 

Footnote
According to the OECD, in 2024, wealthy countries mobilized $137 billion in total climate finance to support climate action in low- and middle-income countries. Of this, $102 billion came in the form of public finance, mostly as loans. Public finance for adaptation amounted to $32 billion.

The UNEP Adaptation Gap Report 2025 calculates that the cost of adaptation finance needed in low- and middle-income countries is $310 billion per year in 2035, when based on modelled costs. When based on extrapolated needs expressed in Nationally Determined Contributions and National Adaptation Plans, this figure rises to $365 billion a year.

Oxfam research finds that six of the biggest fossil fuel companies (Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Exxon and TotalEnergies) are projected to earn $2,967 a second in profits in 2026. Download the methodology note.

“Climate Plunder: How a powerful few are locking the world into disaster”, the executive summary and the methodology note. The report is also available in Spanish, French and Portuguese.

The global poll, conducted by market research company Norstat in April 2026, gathered responses from people in seven countries (UK, France, Brazil, Turkey, Australia, the Netherlands and Colombia).

The polling also showed that support for taxing oil and gas corporations to fund the renewable energy transition crossed party lines. In six of the countries, there were more far-right respondents who supported such a tax, than those who opposed it.

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

  

 

Alexandre Pinheiro facilitates a GEF press conference at the conclusion of 71st GEF Council in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. The conference was addressed by Fred Boltz, Manager, Programming, Claude Gascon, Interim CEO and Chizuru Aoki, Manager, MEAs and Funds Division. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul and Kizito Makoye
SAMARKAND, Uzbekistan, Jun 3 2026 (IPS)

As the Global Environment Facility (GEF) steps into the starting blocks of its next financial cycle, the Interim CEO Claude Gascon reflects on what he termed a “moment of transition and delivery”.

He was speaking at a press briefing on the eve of the Eighth GEF Assembly, which is scheduled to begin tomorrow (June 4).

“We are looking towards the past successes of GEF-8 with very strong results as well as looking forward to the next four years launching GEF-9 with a “sharper focus on impact, speed and scale.”

The GEF-9 replenishment, which was approved in Council, will be presented in the Assembly tomorrow and sends a strong signal: “Multilateral collaboration still matters in the world,” Gascon said as the 71st Council of the GEF concluded in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.

Donor countries pledged an initial USD 3.9 billion to help developing countries accelerate their progress towards 2030 environmental goals.

“The USD 3.9 billion represents the initial set of pledges,” he said, adding that despite fiscal pressures globally, “In this climate, it is a very, very strong signal.”

Gascon emphasised that discussions with donor countries are still ongoing.

“We are confident that over the next six to 12 months, we will get significantly higher pledges,” he said, noting that these could be integrated into the GEF‑9 financial framework as they materialise.

Chizuru Aoki, Manager of the Multilateral Environmental Agreements and Funds Division, pointed to upcoming global environment meetings as likely venues for new commitments.

“We are expecting to hold pledging sessions on the occasion of CBD COP17 (the biodiversity COP), as well as other COPs (climate change and desertification),” she said. “The COPs tend to be a very good occasion for a new announcement to be made.”

With public finance under pressure, the GEF is placing greater emphasis on blended finance and other innovative mechanisms to stretch limited resources.

Fred Boltz, head of the Programming Division, said such instruments are “very much in demand” and increasingly central to GEF operations, though not a substitute for core funding.

Gascon clarified how blended finance is structured within GEF operations.

“The blended finance that the GEF puts in is, in fact, grants that we give to countries to develop blended finance projects,” he said. “The GEF portion… is not expected to be paid back by the country.”

He added that even if projects fail, “the GEF money basically is lost”, underscoring the institution’s role in absorbing risk.

This ability to take on risk is designed to attract private capital.

“GEF money can come in and decrease the interest rate or allow the technology to be adopted,” Gascon said, explaining that such support helps make projects commercially viable and encourages private sector participation.

Examples of innovative financing include biodiversity-linked instruments such as species bonds. These allow private investors to fund conservation efforts, with returns tied to measurable outcomes such as increases in wildlife populations. Such models avoid adding to public debt while expanding conservation funding.

The GEF-9 replenishment package introduces structural reforms to make the GEF faster, simpler, and more accountable, ensuring resources reach countries more efficiently, with key strategic priorities including:

• Integrated Programs targeting systemic transformations across nature, food, urban, energy, and health systems to integrate the value of nature in production and consumption systems.
• Blended finance at scale, with an aspirational target of programming 25 percent of resources to mobilize private capital.
• Whole-of-government and whole-of-society engagement, deepening participation of civil society, youth, women, and the private sector.
• Strengthened support for vulnerable countries, with 35 percent of resources directed to support LDCs and SIDS, and 20 percent to support Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

GEF-9 will also allocate USD 100 million to an Indigenous Peoples and local communities Conservation Initiative, four times more than in the previous GEF investment cycle. The initiative provides dedicated and direct funding to Indigenous-led organisations and contributes to their strengthening to enable their participation in GEF projects as executing agencies and funding intermediaries to enhance access.

Aoki highlighted that diversified funding approaches will complement, not replace, traditional sources. At the same time, she reiterated the importance of continued donor engagement.

“Please be on the lookout,” she said, referring to potential pledge announcements linked to upcoming COPs.

The stage is all set for the Eighth Assembly of the Global Environment Facility, which is scheduled to begin on June 4 at the Congress Center in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Eighth Assembly – a ‘Forward-Looking’ Forum

The financing discussion comes as the GEF prepares for its Assembly, which Gascon described as a “forward-looking” forum distinct from the Council’s administrative role.

“The assembly is much more to look forward – trying to bring new ideas and new thoughts,” he said.

Gascon stressed that the Assembly’s main task will be to consolidate emerging ideas into practical directions. “We want to distil those messages into a few key messages that the assembly can adopt,” he said, adding that these will guide implementation during the GEF‑9 cycle.

He also reiterated the GEF’s mandate within the broader global environmental governance system. “We are not here to decide what the COPs should do,” Gascon said. “We are here to implement the guidance that they give us.”

He added that COPs also review GEF performance and provide further direction.

Country Funding

Whatever funding was available, Gascon stressed that the GEF model ensures that recipient countries have 100 percent of the decision-making power in the use of their resources.

“And so, if you go to a restaurant, you have the choice of choosing different dishes on the menu. The same applies to countries; they have GEF programming directions, which serve as a menu for how they can spend their dollars,” said Gascon.

On country eligibility, Aoki confirmed that countries graduating from Least Developed Country (LDC) status will continue to receive support during a transition period.

They will have two more rounds of funding,” she said, describing the approach as a “soft landing”.

These countries include Vanuatu, which graduated from LDC to Developing Countries during the GEF-7 and Bhutan, which just graduated. She added that countries like Bangladesh that chose not to graduate despite being qualified remain unchanged in status.

“If they have not graduated, they have not graduated… nothing changes.”

Addressing suggestions raised informally during Council discussions, which included removing China from the list of GEF’s funding recipients and moving the Cali Fund from the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) to the GEF , Gascon made clear that the GEF does not independently consider proposals outside established governance processes.

“Our guidance comes from the COPs,” he said.

Looking ahead, Gascon identified adoption of the GEF‑9 package as the primary benchmark for Assembly success. “The most important [outcome] is for the Assembly to adopt the GEF‑9 package,” he said, calling it a key signal to the institution’s 186 member countries.

The overall message from GEF leadership is a recalibration rather than a shift: continued reliance on public pledges, expected to grow over the coming months, combined with a stronger push to use grant capital to unlock private and philanthropic investment.

“We are looking towards the past successes of GEF-8 with very strong results as well as looking forward to the next four years, launching the GEF-9 with a sharper focus on impact, speed and scale,” Gascon said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Note: The Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly is underway until June 6, 2026, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.

This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

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

 

In 2026, the U.S. population is estimated by the Census Bureau at nearly 343 million, about 135 times larger than the population in 1776. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jun 3 2026 (IPS)

In 2026, the population of the United States is significantly larger, older, and more diverse than it was 250 years ago when the country declared its independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain on July 4, 1776.

The population of the thirteen British colonies in North America in 1776 is estimated to have been approximately 2.5 million people, or 0.7% of the current size of the United States.

The 1776 estimate included both free inhabitants and enslaved individuals, with around 20% of the population – about half a million people – being enslaved. However, these estimates did not include the indigenous population.

Before the 1770s, the indigenous populations residing in the thirteen colonies of Great Britain had already suffered significant population declines over previous centuries. These declines were the result of diseases brought by Europeans, massacres, displacement from their lands, and continuing conflicts with the colonists over land, water, and natural resources.

Since no census enumerated the indigenous peoples, no official population figures exist for them in 1776. However, modern historical estimates suggest that more than a quarter million indigenous people lived east of the Mississippi River, organized into more than 80 distinct nations and speaking dozens of languages.

Among these indigenous nations were the Wampanoag, Narragansett, Lenni Lenape, Powhatan, Pequot, Mohegan, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca, Tuscarora, Susquehannock, Abenaki, Cherokee, Catawba, Muscogee, Yamasee, Lenni, and Chickasaw.

The first population census of the expanded United States, mandated by the Constitution and conducted in 1790, counted nearly 4 million residents, of whom close to 18% were enslaved.

Indigenous people living in the United States were not included in the 1790 census. Historical estimates, however, indicate that the indigenous population within the newly established nation was approximately 600,000.

By 1861, at the start of the country’s civil war, the U.S. population had grown to approximately 31.4 million, of which 13% were enslaved, according to the eighth decennial census, which included 33 states and 10 organized territories.

In 1890, the country’s census attempted to enumerate indigenous people living in the United States. Their population was reported to number around 250,000, which is believed to be a significant undercount of the actual size of the indigenous population. The current estimate for the indigenous population in the United States is between 6.8 million and 9.1 million people, making up approximately 2% to 3% of the total U.S. population.

In 1976, two hundred years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the population of the United States had grown to approximately 218 million. Looking ahead to 2026, the mid-year estimate for the U.S. population, according to the Census Bureau, is nearly 343 million, which is about 135 times larger than the population in 1776.

According to the Census Bureau’s main series population projections, the U.S. population is expected to reach a peak of nearly 370 million in 2080 before gradually declining to 366 million by 2100 (Figure 1).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

International migration played a significant role in the growth of the U.S. population. Without international migration since 1776, the estimated hypothetical population of the United States in 2026 would be approximately 153 million. This figure is roughly 190 million fewer than the actual U.S. population, highlighting the enormous impact migration has had on the country’s demographic development.

While the population of the U.S. is expected to continue growing, it is expected to do so at a slower rate than in recent years. The nation’s growth rate has decreased over the past two decades, going from about 10% growth between 2000 and 2010 to 7.4% between 2010 and 2020 and is predicted to further decline to around 5.5% between 2020 and 2030.

Due to immigration, the U.S. population is expected to continue growing, reaching nearly 370 million by 2080, then slightly declining to 366 million by the end of the century. Without future immigration, the U.S. population is estimated to be 117 million smaller, at 226 million by the end of the 21st century

In the coming decades of the 21st century, the U.S. population will continue to undergo changes due to the three main demographic drivers: births, deaths and migration.

Currently births outnumber deaths, resulting in a positive natural population increase. However, the U.S. fertility rate, which reached lows of 1.63 births per woman in 2024 and 1.57 births per woman in 2025, has been generally below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman since 1971 and consistently below the replacement level since 2007.

Due to the country’s low fertility rates, deaths in the U.S. are expected to outnumber births by 2040 and are projected to continue doing so throughout the rest of the 21st century. By 2080, the Census Bureau expects that the number of deaths will exceed the number of births by approximately one million.

Immigration to the U.S. is still occurring, but at a slower pace compared to recent years, resulting in a decreased rate of population growth.

The Census Bureau’s main series population projection assumes that net international migration will remain close to one million per year for the rest of the 21st century.

Due to immigration, the U.S. population is expected to continue growing, reaching nearly 370 million by 2080, then slightly declining to 366 million by the end of the century. Without future immigration, the U.S. population is estimated to be 117 million smaller, at 226 million by the end of the 21st century.

Another significant change in the U.S. population is demographic ageing.

In 1776, a notable demographic characteristic of the 13 colonies was their young age structure. For example, the median age of this population was estimated to be approximately 16 years.

In the early years of the United States, individuals over 70 years old were relatively uncommon. In the New England colonies, almost one-third of the population was under 21. Life expectancy at birth was low, approximately 35 to 40 years, mainly due to high rates of infant and child mortality. More than two hundred years later, life expectancy at birth in the U.S. is estimated to be approximately 79 years.

In the first U.S. census in 1790, the median age had changed little, remaining at approximately 16 years.

By 1820, the median age had increased to about 16.7 years. By 1860, the estimated median age of the U.S. population had increased to approximately 19 years, reflecting relatively high fertility levels and short life expectancies.

At the start of the 20th century, the median age of the U.S. population had increased slightly to approximately 23 years and reached 35 years at the end of the 20th century. By 2026, the median age is estimated to have reached about 39 years and it is projected to increase to 41 years by 2050 (Figure 2).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

In addition to population growth and demographic ageing, the ethnic composition of the U.S. population has also undergone significant changes. As the country’s composition changes, the major ethnic categories of the U.S. population compiled by the government have also changed.

Since the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the population of the United States has significantly increased from several million to 343 million, largely due to immigration.

The proportion of foreign-born individuals in the U.S. has varied considerably over the past several centuries. During the second half of the 19th century, the proportion hit a high of 14.8% in 1890. Throughout the 20th century, the proportion declined to a low of 4.7% in 1970. More recently, the foreign-born proportion reached a historic high in 2024 at 15.6% (Figure 3).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Approximately half of all U.S. immigrants (52%, or 26.7 million people) were born in Latin America, while around a quarter (27%, or 14 million) were born in Asia.

By 2023, the estimated numbers of immigrants from the top five countries, which make up nearly half of the entire foreign-born population, are: Mexico (11.4 million), India (3.2 million), China (3.0 million), the Philippines (2.1 million), and Cuba (1.7 million).

Additionally, the indigenous population in the United States is estimated to be between 7 and 9 million people, including those who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native, either alone or in combination with other races. This accounts for approximately 2% to 3% of the total U.S. population.

In summary, since declaring its independence from Great Britain 250 years ago, the population of the United States has grown significantly larger, older, and more diverse.

Much of this population growth is credited to the country’s open door immigration policy, as symbolized by the famous lines at the base of the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

With ongoing immigration to the United States, the current population of about 343 million is projected to continue growing and reach a peak of 370 million by 2080. However, without immigration, the U.S. population is expected to start declining in about twelve years and drop to 226 million by the end of the 21st century.

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