Agrégateur de flux

In one of her most forceful criticisms yet of the Russian leader, the Commission president called on “all of Europe” to step up its military readiness

Democratic unity may determine military survival.

The French egg sector warns of "a significant health risk for consumers", as supermarkets minimise the issue

The plan builds on proven global strategies, but rare disease experts say full implementation will be critical, and EU leadership is needed

The move follows the French prime minister's surprise gamble to hold a confidence vote on 8 September

Monitoring Iran and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Credit: IAEA
 
The IAEA applies safeguards to verify states are honouring their international legal obligations to use nuclear material for peaceful purposes only.

By Kelsey Davenport
WASHINGTON DC, Aug 29 2025 (IPS)

The decision early this week by the E3 (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom) to initiate the process to snap back UN sanctions on Iran that were modified as part of the 2015 nuclear deal must be paired with an effective diplomatic strategy that restarts talks between the United States and Iran.

If the E3 and the United States fail to prioritize pragmatic diplomacy in the coming weeks and provide assurance that there will be no further military attacks while bilateral talks proceed, they risk pushing Tehran closer to nuclear weapons and putting the region back on a path to war.

Under the so-called snapback process outlined in Resolution 2231, which endorsed the 2015 nuclear deal, the Security Council now has 30 days to pass a resolution continuing the UN sanctions relief.

If such a resolution does not pass, there will be an automatic reimposition of the UN sanctions and nuclear restrictions—including a prohibition on uranium enrichment—contained in resolutions passed by the Security Council between 2006 and 2010 as part of the global pressure campaign that contributed to the negotiation of the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Iran has threatened to respond to the snapping back of UN measures, including by withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)—a step that would put the United States and Iran back on a path to conflict.

To avert this crisis, the Trump administration must take advantage of the 30-day window before snapback is finalized to reach an interim agreement with Iran that stabilizes the current crisis and extends the option to snapback UN sanctions.

Such an arrangement would reduce the risk of further conflict and create the time and space for the complex negotiations that will be necessary to negotiate a comprehensive nuclear deal.

In any interim agreement, the Trump administration must prioritize the return of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to Iran. IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi’s announcement that inspectors returned to Iran and Tehran’s decision to allow inspectors access to the Bushehr site is a positive step, but it is imperative that Iran meets its legal obligations by allowing the full resumption of IAEA safeguards inspections at all sites and cooperating with IAEA efforts to account for Iran’s stockpiles of nuclear materials, particularly the uranium enriched to 60 percent.

An interim deal should also take into account Iran’s legitimate concerns about further illegal attacks on its nuclear facilities and scientists by solidifying the ceasefire that ended the 12-day war between Israel, Iran, and the United States and recognizing Iran’s NPT right to a peaceful nuclear program under IAEA safeguards.

An agreement along these lines would be insufficient to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis, but it would be a positive step that de-escalates tensions and creates time for further diplomacy to reduce Iran’s proliferation risk in the long term.

Failure to use the 30-day window to reach an agreement that staves off snapback risks putting the United States, Israel, and Iran back on the path to conflict and could drive Tehran to follow through on its threat to withdraw from the NPT, a step that increases the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran and weakens the treaty.

Despite President Donald Trump’s claims that the U.S. and Israeli military strikes set Iran’s program back by years, military action is incapable of addressing Iran’s proliferation threat. Iran’s nuclear knowledge cannot be bombed away, and Tehran still possesses nuclear capabilities and material that pose an urgent proliferation threat.

And now some of those materials, including Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to near-weapons grade levels, remain accounted for and unmonitored. It is highly likely that Iran retains the capabilities and materials to quickly return to the threshold of nuclear weapons or weaponize if the decision were made to do so.

If Trump fails to seize this moment, he risks dragging the United States back into a military conflict with Iran, weakening the NPT, and driving Tehran closer to the bomb. It is in neither the interest of Tehran nor Washington to miss this window of opportunity to pursue a lasting diplomatic solution that verifiably blocks Iran’s pathways to nuclear weapons and provides Iran with benefits in return.

The Arms Control Association is an independent, nongovernmental, nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to the providing authoritative information and practical solutions to eliminate the threats posed by the world’s most dangerous weapons.

Kelsey Davenport is the Director for Nonproliferation Policy, and is a leading expert on nuclear and missile programs in Iran and North Korea and on international efforts to prevent proliferation and nuclear terrorism.

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');  

Russia considers multilateralism to be an instrument for promoting and managing multipolarity. It regards the UN as an important component of the international system and would like to see it reflect a multipolar world order, which in Russia’s rhetoric is marked by the dominance of principles of sovereignty and non-interference. This shapes Russia’s approach to the UN development pillar, where it seeks to advance its geopolitical interests, including countering Western influence.
Financially, Russia remains a marginal player in the UN development pillar. Between 2018 and 2022, it was the smallest contributor to UN development activities among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5) and ranked 23rd among all UN member states. In terms of international professional staff, the share of Russian nationals in the UN system has remained below 1 per cent over the past five years, with the majority concentrated in the UN Secretariat. However, its diplomatic missions – particularly in New York and Geneva – are relatively well-staffed and are recognised for their diplomatic skills and expertise.
Lacking prominent material weight, Russia leverages diplomatic and rhetorical tools to project its power. It portrays itself as an “anti-colonial leader” and champion of the Global South. Russia positions itself as an advocate of an alternative approach to development cooperation, affirming in its rhetoric that developing countries have the right to independently choose their model of socio-economic development without external influence or pressure. In line with this, it rejects the imposition of what it argues are Western liberal values on developing states – which it equates with conditionality in development assistance and infringement on sovereignty – and presents itself as a defender of what in Russian discourse are referred to as “traditional values”, which are usually in opposition to individualism and progressivism.
Although Russia’s arguments resonate among Global South states – because they tap into legitimate grievances – there are cases in which its rhetoric appears instrumental and does not match its practices.
While Russia’s material capacity to project its power and position itself as an alternative development partner is limited, its diplomatic efforts, rhetoric and ability to capitalise on the grievances of the Global South as well as Western double standards amid global power shifts position it as a noticeable actor in UN development work, suggesting it should not be prematurely disregarded based on its modest role as a donor.
Main takeaways:
• Strategic use of UN development pillar: Russia engages in UN development work as a platform to advance its broader geopolitical objectives and its view of the international system, including positioning itself rhetorically as a counterweight to Western influence. While already politicised to some extent, this further reinforces the role of UN development work as a stage for power politics.
• Diplomatic leverage: Although Russia’s material weight in UN development pillar is modest, it uses diplomatic channels and discursive engagement in decision-making processes across UN entities and fora to pursue its interests.
• Anti-colonial narratives and normative contestation: Russia rhetorically appeals to the grievances of the Global South and challenges Western-driven norms and approaches to development. It promotes the vision of a multipolar world order with Moscow as one of the poles of power.

Russia considers multilateralism to be an instrument for promoting and managing multipolarity. It regards the UN as an important component of the international system and would like to see it reflect a multipolar world order, which in Russia’s rhetoric is marked by the dominance of principles of sovereignty and non-interference. This shapes Russia’s approach to the UN development pillar, where it seeks to advance its geopolitical interests, including countering Western influence.
Financially, Russia remains a marginal player in the UN development pillar. Between 2018 and 2022, it was the smallest contributor to UN development activities among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5) and ranked 23rd among all UN member states. In terms of international professional staff, the share of Russian nationals in the UN system has remained below 1 per cent over the past five years, with the majority concentrated in the UN Secretariat. However, its diplomatic missions – particularly in New York and Geneva – are relatively well-staffed and are recognised for their diplomatic skills and expertise.
Lacking prominent material weight, Russia leverages diplomatic and rhetorical tools to project its power. It portrays itself as an “anti-colonial leader” and champion of the Global South. Russia positions itself as an advocate of an alternative approach to development cooperation, affirming in its rhetoric that developing countries have the right to independently choose their model of socio-economic development without external influence or pressure. In line with this, it rejects the imposition of what it argues are Western liberal values on developing states – which it equates with conditionality in development assistance and infringement on sovereignty – and presents itself as a defender of what in Russian discourse are referred to as “traditional values”, which are usually in opposition to individualism and progressivism.
Although Russia’s arguments resonate among Global South states – because they tap into legitimate grievances – there are cases in which its rhetoric appears instrumental and does not match its practices.
While Russia’s material capacity to project its power and position itself as an alternative development partner is limited, its diplomatic efforts, rhetoric and ability to capitalise on the grievances of the Global South as well as Western double standards amid global power shifts position it as a noticeable actor in UN development work, suggesting it should not be prematurely disregarded based on its modest role as a donor.
Main takeaways:
• Strategic use of UN development pillar: Russia engages in UN development work as a platform to advance its broader geopolitical objectives and its view of the international system, including positioning itself rhetorically as a counterweight to Western influence. While already politicised to some extent, this further reinforces the role of UN development work as a stage for power politics.
• Diplomatic leverage: Although Russia’s material weight in UN development pillar is modest, it uses diplomatic channels and discursive engagement in decision-making processes across UN entities and fora to pursue its interests.
• Anti-colonial narratives and normative contestation: Russia rhetorically appeals to the grievances of the Global South and challenges Western-driven norms and approaches to development. It promotes the vision of a multipolar world order with Moscow as one of the poles of power.

Russia considers multilateralism to be an instrument for promoting and managing multipolarity. It regards the UN as an important component of the international system and would like to see it reflect a multipolar world order, which in Russia’s rhetoric is marked by the dominance of principles of sovereignty and non-interference. This shapes Russia’s approach to the UN development pillar, where it seeks to advance its geopolitical interests, including countering Western influence.
Financially, Russia remains a marginal player in the UN development pillar. Between 2018 and 2022, it was the smallest contributor to UN development activities among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5) and ranked 23rd among all UN member states. In terms of international professional staff, the share of Russian nationals in the UN system has remained below 1 per cent over the past five years, with the majority concentrated in the UN Secretariat. However, its diplomatic missions – particularly in New York and Geneva – are relatively well-staffed and are recognised for their diplomatic skills and expertise.
Lacking prominent material weight, Russia leverages diplomatic and rhetorical tools to project its power. It portrays itself as an “anti-colonial leader” and champion of the Global South. Russia positions itself as an advocate of an alternative approach to development cooperation, affirming in its rhetoric that developing countries have the right to independently choose their model of socio-economic development without external influence or pressure. In line with this, it rejects the imposition of what it argues are Western liberal values on developing states – which it equates with conditionality in development assistance and infringement on sovereignty – and presents itself as a defender of what in Russian discourse are referred to as “traditional values”, which are usually in opposition to individualism and progressivism.
Although Russia’s arguments resonate among Global South states – because they tap into legitimate grievances – there are cases in which its rhetoric appears instrumental and does not match its practices.
While Russia’s material capacity to project its power and position itself as an alternative development partner is limited, its diplomatic efforts, rhetoric and ability to capitalise on the grievances of the Global South as well as Western double standards amid global power shifts position it as a noticeable actor in UN development work, suggesting it should not be prematurely disregarded based on its modest role as a donor.
Main takeaways:
• Strategic use of UN development pillar: Russia engages in UN development work as a platform to advance its broader geopolitical objectives and its view of the international system, including positioning itself rhetorically as a counterweight to Western influence. While already politicised to some extent, this further reinforces the role of UN development work as a stage for power politics.
• Diplomatic leverage: Although Russia’s material weight in UN development pillar is modest, it uses diplomatic channels and discursive engagement in decision-making processes across UN entities and fora to pursue its interests.
• Anti-colonial narratives and normative contestation: Russia rhetorically appeals to the grievances of the Global South and challenges Western-driven norms and approaches to development. It promotes the vision of a multipolar world order with Moscow as one of the poles of power.

1. Nature-based Solutions (NbS) have been gaining prominence across the Rio Conventions primarily as a means of addressing climate change with co-benefits for nature and humans. However, they have also faced significant criticism for enabling greenwashing, encouraging market-driven approaches and not addressing the root causes of environmental degradation. Some critics argue that NbS divert attention from urgent transformative actions such as decarbonisation and systemic economic reforms.

2. We present the case for a broader framework, centred around the concept of Integrated Nature-Climate Action (INCA), which extends beyond NbS to drive the structural changes essential for tackling climate change, biodiversity loss and desertification, while delivering positive outcomes such as supporting livelihoods, addressing inequities and upholding the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. We provide examples of INCAs with significant, tractable benefits for people and nature, including the removal of environmentally harmful subsidies, land rights recognition and circular economic transitions.

3. We argue that the wide range of actors mobilised by INCAs would increase the finance available to fill the deficit for climate and biodiversity action. While tracking the impact of these actions could be challenging, existing United Nations (UN) initiatives could provide models for ensuring the integrity of INCA. A clear definition and set of standards must also be agreed upon to avoid the pitfalls that plague NbS. Careful oversight from stakeholders and rightsholders is vital to ensure legitimacy and that the uptake of INCA does not favour one outcome over others.

4. Policy implications: Moving beyond NbS to pursue an inclusive INCA concept can help address the systemic drivers of the global polycrisis. With synergies between the Rio Conventions expected to be a key focus of the upcoming Conference of the Parties for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP30), there is a clear policy window to broaden the scope of interventions relevant to all three conventions and engage a more diverse array of actors to support enhanced coordination. This is essential for transitioning towards a regenerative economic system that works for people and the planet.

1. Nature-based Solutions (NbS) have been gaining prominence across the Rio Conventions primarily as a means of addressing climate change with co-benefits for nature and humans. However, they have also faced significant criticism for enabling greenwashing, encouraging market-driven approaches and not addressing the root causes of environmental degradation. Some critics argue that NbS divert attention from urgent transformative actions such as decarbonisation and systemic economic reforms.

2. We present the case for a broader framework, centred around the concept of Integrated Nature-Climate Action (INCA), which extends beyond NbS to drive the structural changes essential for tackling climate change, biodiversity loss and desertification, while delivering positive outcomes such as supporting livelihoods, addressing inequities and upholding the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. We provide examples of INCAs with significant, tractable benefits for people and nature, including the removal of environmentally harmful subsidies, land rights recognition and circular economic transitions.

3. We argue that the wide range of actors mobilised by INCAs would increase the finance available to fill the deficit for climate and biodiversity action. While tracking the impact of these actions could be challenging, existing United Nations (UN) initiatives could provide models for ensuring the integrity of INCA. A clear definition and set of standards must also be agreed upon to avoid the pitfalls that plague NbS. Careful oversight from stakeholders and rightsholders is vital to ensure legitimacy and that the uptake of INCA does not favour one outcome over others.

4. Policy implications: Moving beyond NbS to pursue an inclusive INCA concept can help address the systemic drivers of the global polycrisis. With synergies between the Rio Conventions expected to be a key focus of the upcoming Conference of the Parties for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP30), there is a clear policy window to broaden the scope of interventions relevant to all three conventions and engage a more diverse array of actors to support enhanced coordination. This is essential for transitioning towards a regenerative economic system that works for people and the planet.

1. Nature-based Solutions (NbS) have been gaining prominence across the Rio Conventions primarily as a means of addressing climate change with co-benefits for nature and humans. However, they have also faced significant criticism for enabling greenwashing, encouraging market-driven approaches and not addressing the root causes of environmental degradation. Some critics argue that NbS divert attention from urgent transformative actions such as decarbonisation and systemic economic reforms.

2. We present the case for a broader framework, centred around the concept of Integrated Nature-Climate Action (INCA), which extends beyond NbS to drive the structural changes essential for tackling climate change, biodiversity loss and desertification, while delivering positive outcomes such as supporting livelihoods, addressing inequities and upholding the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. We provide examples of INCAs with significant, tractable benefits for people and nature, including the removal of environmentally harmful subsidies, land rights recognition and circular economic transitions.

3. We argue that the wide range of actors mobilised by INCAs would increase the finance available to fill the deficit for climate and biodiversity action. While tracking the impact of these actions could be challenging, existing United Nations (UN) initiatives could provide models for ensuring the integrity of INCA. A clear definition and set of standards must also be agreed upon to avoid the pitfalls that plague NbS. Careful oversight from stakeholders and rightsholders is vital to ensure legitimacy and that the uptake of INCA does not favour one outcome over others.

4. Policy implications: Moving beyond NbS to pursue an inclusive INCA concept can help address the systemic drivers of the global polycrisis. With synergies between the Rio Conventions expected to be a key focus of the upcoming Conference of the Parties for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP30), there is a clear policy window to broaden the scope of interventions relevant to all three conventions and engage a more diverse array of actors to support enhanced coordination. This is essential for transitioning towards a regenerative economic system that works for people and the planet.

Committee and political group meetings

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

The Italian technocrat re-emerged as the EU’s saviour once again this week. But is he a false prophet?

The United Nations Staff Union is the labor union representing New York Secretariat Staff, Locally Recruited Staff in the field, and Staff Members of UN Information Centers. Credit: United Nations

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 29 2025 (IPS)

The 193-member General Assembly, the UN’s highest policy-making body, will make the ultimate decision on the proposed UN restructuring, which will include staff cutbacks, merging or eliminating of departments and relocating UN agencies from high-cost to low-cost locations.

Perhaps one of the biggest single fears is that thousands of UN staffers, who are neither permanent residents nor US citizens, along with their families, will have to return to their home countries after living here for years– or for decades– because they lose their UN visa status.

UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters on August 25 the Secretary-General will present a revised budget to the Fifth Committee in the coming weeks.

But he described the proposed cutbacks as “some painful staff reductions”.

Those that have been proposed, and will be proposed, to the General Assembly, and it will be Member States who will have to take those decisions, he pointed out.

Stephanie Hodge, a former staffer at UNDP (1994-1996 & 1999- 2004) and UNICEF (2008-2014), told IPS UN “reform” seems to mean chopping 20 percent across the board, as if leadership could be measured with a lawnmower.

“What really happens, of course, is that the bullies, sycophants, and kick-up, kiss-down survivors cling to their posts, while the technical staff — the ones who actually deliver — are the first out the door”.

The humiliation for staff is real, she pointed out.

Many spend months walking past the same UN offices where they once worked, waiting for a promised callback that never comes. And now, thousands in New York who aren’t U.S. citizens or permanent residents face an even harsher fate: pink slips, deportation papers, and decades of service dismissed in the name of “efficiency,” said Hodge.

“The irony is brutal: an institution founded to protect rights is now poised to trample on the rights of its own. Families uprooted, livelihoods erased, duty of care abandoned. This isn’t reform — it’s institutional hypocrisy, and it hollows out the very values the UN claims to stand for,” she argued.

The UN preaches “leave no one behind.” Apparently, that excludes its own, declared Hodge, an international evaluator and former UN advisor who has worked across 140 countries, and who writes on governance, multilateral reform, and climate equity.

A former UN staffer told IPS: “I know it would be almost inhumane to abruptly disrupt peoples’ lives midway in their careers and their children’s education, unless adequate compensation is provided to those affected. Well, we still don’t know what the UN is planning to do”.

Meanwhile, a new report from the World Health Organization says it anticipates losing 600 staff members at its headquarters in Geneva due to reductions in its budget for 2026-2027, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wrote in a letter sent to staff, according to the media platform Devex.

“With a 21% reduction in the 2026–2027 budget, we are now realigning our structures with our core mandate,” Tedros wrote, outlining WHO’s ongoing restructuring in response to donor funding cuts.

“Some activities are being sunset, others are being scaled down, and those most directly linked to our mission are being maintained. At headquarters, based on the final approved structures, we anticipate approximately 600 separations,” he said.

Asked for her comments, Dr Purnima Mane, ex- President and CEO of Pathfinder International, and former Deputy Executive Director (Programme) and UN Assistant-Secretary-General (ASG) at the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), told IPS UN reform has generally been seen as a welcome process to streamline its functioning and achieve its objectives more efficiently.

However, she pointed out, recognizing that UN reform needs to be aimed at serving the organization to meet its goals and achieve what is good for all its beneficiaries including its staff, the reform process becomes open to question when it occurs against the background of mainly financial constraints.

“Proposed organizational restructuring which is driven largely by the likelihood of reduced funding, runs the risk of sacrificing human considerations and those of impact on the broader goals of the UN”.

While the ultimate decision on the proposed restructuring lies with the General Assembly, she said, what we know so far, is that the proposed restructuring will include staff cutbacks
merging or elimination of some departments and relocation of agencies from high-cost to low-cost destinations.

Through its discussions, it has become apparent that the UN is considering the likelihood of early separation programs (voluntary separation by mutual agreement) which may appeal to some especially those close to retirement.

But the more drastic option is the merging or elimination of some departments (and perhaps even agencies) and potential relocation of agencies.

The last two options will pose major logistical challenges but in considering this decision, attention also needs to be paid to the problems which staff will face as a result.

Staff located in the US for example, who are neither citizens nor permanent residents and their families will find these changes difficult to navigate.

Not only would it interfere with the lives of the families of UN staff – some of whom have been located for years in the US – but it would also deny them major benefits in the years to come, including those most essential like health insurance and retirement packages which may often be insensitive to the increase in the cost of living in those countries over time, she said.

“Finding alternative employment with their immigration status will be even more difficult for the ex-employees especially in a generally tough job market. While severely handicapping the welfare of the staff and their families, these steps would also deprive the agency/ies of the skill sets which enable the UN to perform judiciously and expeditiously and meet its ultimate aims – all this at the cost potentially of the gains made and those to come.”

While the cutbacks are undoubtedly painful for the UN as a whole, they are the most painful directly to the staff and their families. However, often there is a sense that UN employees are “privileged” both financially and in other ways.

Against this background, some might not see employee welfare as even a minor consideration. Hopefully the members of the General Assembly will weigh the options carefully, bearing in mind both the human cost and the impact of these cutbacks on what the UN aims to achieve, she cautioned

“Getting the UN to focus on major structural changes and reduction of staff at the cost of staff morale particularly at a time when a uniting, well-functioning body is most needed by a volatile world could severely jeopardize what the UN has so far achieved and of course endanger what it aims to offer us in the years to come,” declared Dr Mane.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

The deals with the Chinese tech giant have put the spotlight on the unusually close relations between Madrid and Beijing

Dans le nord du Ghana, des centaines de femmes accusées de sorcellerie, chassées par leur famille et leur communauté, vivent dans des prisons à ciel ouvert, des "camps de sorcières". Les conditions de vie y sont extrêmement difficiles. Associations et acteurs politiques œuvrent désormais à fermer ces camps inhumains et à criminaliser les accusations de sorcellerie. Reportage de Julia Guggenheim et Damien Koffi pour Pool Africa. 

A nongovernmental organization is trying to reforest areas once deforested due to displacement in the DRC. Credit: Prosper Heri Ngorora/IPS

By Prosper Heri Ngorora
GOMA, Democratic Republic of Congo, Aug 29 2025 (IPS)

The Youth Circle for Nature Conservation and Community Development is working toward the reforestation of sites where displaced people lived near the town of Goma.

The platform wants to reforest all the sites deforested by war-displaced people around the town of Goma.

Most of these areas were wooded before the M23 war began in late 2021.

When the wave of displaced people began to sweep through the capital of North Kivu, these areas were cleared for a variety of purposes, including the construction of makeshift shelters and the use of firewood.

“We see reforestation as a practical way of combating global warming and soil degradation and restoring biodiversity,” says Gloire Mbusa, programme manager at Youth Circle for Nature Conservation and Community Development.

He says that his organization has already planted trees on more than 13 hectares at the Kanyaruchinya site, north of the city of Goma.

Many environmentalists have criticized the current political and security crisis in eastern DRC for its “disastrous consequences” for the environment and called for action to fix it.

Virunga National Park is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Credit
Yvette Kaboza/Wikipedia

“We deplore the fact that since the outbreak of the current crisis in the east of the country, protected areas, including parks, have been destroyed. The parties involved in the conflict should know that these areas have non-belligerent status,” says Olivier Ndoole Bahemuke, an environmental activist.

He refers in particular to the Virunga National Park, one of the oldest parks in Africa, which is facing what he describes as an ‘existential threat.’

The Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature, the Congolese state body responsible for managing and conserving biodiversity in the DRC, has revealed that weapon activism, despoiling and carbonization are among the threats to the Virunga Park.

Congo-Youth Circle for Nature Conservation and Community Development says it wants to help revive an already ‘fragile’ biodiversity by planting trees.

“We are considering reforesting other sites, such as the concessions of the primary and secondary schools that used to house displaced people,” says Gloire Mbusa.

John Tsongo, an environmental activist in Goma, encourages such initiatives, which he believes will green up the outskirts of the capital of North Kivu.

“There were more than 10 camps for displaced people around Goma, and these camps were no longer covered in vegetation. To say that we are starting to replant trees again is a truly commendable initiative. It will play a very important role in regulating the province’s climate. This initiative needs to be carried out right in the heart of the city of Goma,” he says.

He suggests that the authorities and other stakeholders raise awareness among the population so that everyone plants at least one tree in Goma, which could go some way to solving the problem of restoring green spaces in and around Goma.

“We can, for example, tell the population to plant trees along the main roads in the city of Goma and in each plot. Thereafter, we can tell the residents to monitor the trees to ensure that they last. There have been many projects along these lines, but to no avail,” he warns.

The Democratic Republic of Congo is one of the world’s forest-rich countries. Deforestation on both a small and large scale is putting its forests at risk, jeopardizing the merits of the country as a ‘solution country’ to climate change, as its authorities have always claimed.

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({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

• Should King Baudouin, DRC’s Last Sovereign, Be Beatified?
• Soaring Demand for Electric Vehicles, Lithium-Ion Batteries Creates Environmental Crisis in DRC
• African Leaders Challenged To Unite Against Energy Transition Mineral Oppressors