Am 18. Juni 2026 leitete der US-Handelsbeauftragte nach Section 301 des Trade Act von 1974 eine Untersuchung ein, die sich gegen die deutsche Arzneimittelpolitik richtet. Die Untersuchung könnte letztlich zur Verhängung von Zöllen gegen Deutschland führen. Erstmals nutzt die US-Regierung diese rechtlichen Befugnisse, um die Preisgestaltung für Arzneimittel in anderen Ländern in Frage zu stellen. Zwar fällt die Regulierung von Arzneimittelkosten in die nationale Zuständigkeit; Abwehrmaßnahmen gegen Zölle, die die USA erheben, fallen jedoch in die ausschließliche Zuständigkeit der EU und könnten den Einsatz ihres Anti-Zwang-Instruments rechtfertigen. Die Bundesregierung sollte gemeinsam mit der EU und anderen Mitgliedstaaten auf den Versuch, von außen in die nationale Arzneimittelpreisgestaltung einzugreifen, reagieren. Weitere Partnerschaften mit Drittländern könnten dazu beitragen, das transnationale Problem der Arzneimittelpreisgestaltung anzugehen.
Une nouvelle étape vers l’intégration professionnelle et administrative vient de franchir les portes du Palais Bourbon. Déposée le 6 octobre 2026 par la députée Céline […]
L’article Régularisation en France : un titre de séjour de 4 ans bientôt possible par le travail ? est apparu en premier sur .
Les Forces armées de la République démocratique du Congo (FARDC) appellent les miliciens Mobondo encore actifs dans le territoire de Kwamouth, dans la province du Maï-Ndombe, à déposer volontairement les armes. Mardi 13 octobre, l’armée a mis en garde ceux qui continuent d’imposer des taxes illégales aux agriculteurs, malgré les avancées du processus de désarmement.
Knowledge Politics and Policies Standing Group at the 2026 ECPR General Conference in Krakow
The 2026 edition of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) General Conference took place at Jagiellonian University in Krakow (Poland), 8-11 September. Over four conference days more than 2000 participants presented in over 500 panels discussing some of the most important topics of our times including democratic backsliding and resilience, radicalisation, climate change, and technological transformation.
This is a special year for our ECPR Standing Group Knowledge Politics and Policies, as we celebrate the 10th anniversary of our Standing Group and the 15th time of organizing our section at the ECPR General Conference. Our Standing Group (initially under the name ‘Politics of Higher Education, Research and Innovation’) was established in 2016 following earlier successful sections at the ECPR General Conference and the previous UACES collaborative research network ‘European Research Area’ (2013-2016). Our section and Standing Group has evolved into an active research network with currently more than 200 members having initiated and supported a range of collaborations leading to joint projects, special issues, and edited volumes.
This year our section had 10 excellent panels on topics such as politics and policies of Artificial Intelligence, academic freedom, science diplomacy, research security and more. To learn more about the questions discussed, please see below panel summaries prepared by the panel chairs.
Artificial IntelligenceInga Ulnicane
The panel on politics and policies of Artificial intelligence has become a traditional element of our section, taking place the 7th year in a row. If in 2020 our first panel on this topic seemed to be the only one in the General Conference dedicated to AI, then over the years the number of panels discussing AI across various sections has grown considerably. It is good to see that our AI panel keeps attracting a lot of interest and continues to be a place where field shaping publications and next steps are discussed. This year again speakers included authors of some of the most cited publications on AI governance and policy.
Based on her recent World Bank working paper, Roxana Radu discussed the global landscape of national AI strategies. Tero Erkkilä presented his joint work with Konstantinos Kostas comparing various global governance indices on AI readiness. Inga Ulnicane talked about her research on limitations and alternatives to offering AI as a quick technological fix to complex societal challenges. Meng-Hsuan Chou provided findings from her study on how platform workers are portrayed on legacy and social media in Singapore. Finally, Susan Robertson’s talk was based on her recent article co-authored with Michele Martini on the use of AI in education.
The panel was followed by an informal meet-up of AI politics researchers bringing together participants from the ECPR General Conference with attendees of the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST) conference that took place at the same time just across the road. Enthusiastic response and interest to the informal meet-up invitation exceeded expectations and led to vibrant interdisciplinary conversations. The meet-up confirmed high demand for more activities of high-quality research focusing on AI politics . If you are interested in upcoming activities, please get in touch!
Knowledge, Politics and the Changing Academic ProfessionPanel chairs and presenters
What happens to the academic profession when both its mission to contribute to the public good and its authority over the production of knowledge are increasingly contested? This was the question at the heart of the panel Changing Profession, Changing Times. Chaired by Meng-Hsuan Chou (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore) and Eva Hartmann (University of Cambridge, UK), the panel zoomed in on four areas to examine this question, with contributions from Yiran Zhou (University of St Andrews), Premysl Rosulek (University of West Bohemia), Christopher Pokarier (Waseda University), and Eva Hartmann. The four contributions demonstrate that the challenges facing the academic profession cannot be reduced to questions of working conditions or institutional management. They concern the societal role of academia itself.
The increasing securitisation of research raises questions about academic autonomy and the purposes of science. Using Australia mainly as a case study, Christopher Pokarier explores how nationalist pressures challenge the cosmopolitan orientation of higher education. The rise of “pseudoscience” – knowledge presented as scientific despite lacking a scientific foundation – adds a new dimension to the politicisation of academic knowledge, further pressuring the authority of scientific expertise, as Premysl Rosulek pointed out for the Czech Republic. In addition, the acceleration of academic work underpinned by a publish-or-perish culture raises questions about the conditions necessary for producing reliable and meaningful knowledge, as Yiran Zhou demonstrated in her study of Chinese academics. Reflecting on these developments therefore means asking not only how universities are changing, but also what kind of profession academia is becoming—and what role it can play in increasingly polarised societies.
Data and International PoliticsThe panel on data and knowledge interdependencies in international relations featured four presentations. Ivan Josipovic started his talk with a vignette around a German platform that traces knifing incidents in Germany, which, he argued, was difficult to comprehend using established conceptions of data activism. He proposed a more differentiated typology of civic data activism in migration governance along two dimensions: degree of epistemic alignment with state institutions and degree of centralized control over data infrastructures. Martin Albrecht Haenig presented a mixed methods research proposal on the landscape of European think tanks and their knowledge production about China. His research features a large-scale analysis of discourses derived from policy documents as well as process tracing to establish an understanding of how discourses translate into political decision-making.
Yamini Yogya presented research on the circulation and mediation of knowledge in the context of the Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Yamini showed structurally divergent national knowledge flow networks and discussed how such structures affect the implementation of effectiveness of such science-policy-initiatives. Paul Dunshirn presented an interdisciplinary research paper on data interdependencies in global biodiversity monitoring, for which he systematically extracted data sources used in biodiversity research using a machine learning approach. His findings indicate strong global dependencies on publicly-funded U.S. American data sources, highlighting the vulnerability of biodiversity monitoring to ongoing funding cuts. Overall the panel highlighted emerging political questions affecting global flows of knowledge and data across policy contexts and different methods for capturing the interdependent relationships between involved actors. It provided a vantage point for further research on both the factors shaping such interdependencies and the effects they have on political decision-making and policy.
Knowledge, Power, and CitizenshipThe panel Epistemic Governance in Higher Education: Knowledge, Power, and Citizenship, chaired by Hila Zahavi, brought together three papers exploring how institutions shape knowledge, education, and their political and administrative consequences. Yuan Zhou presented joint work with Duancheng Yang on how China’s National Social Science Fund reshapes political science through research funding and disciplinary priorities. Tao Zou presented joint research with Tatiana Fumasoli examining the unequal effects of Erasmus Without Paper digital infrastructure across European higher education institutions. Finally, Martin Dybdahl examined the political returns to higher education in Germany and the UK, distinguishing the effects of university education from selection into higher education.
European Higher Education GovernanceThe panel European Higher Education Governance in Practice and Context, chaired by Lise Moawad (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin), explored the practical dynamics of European higher education governance through a variety of case studies, revealing how the deployment of academic infrastructures (university alliances, doctoral reforms, quality standards, and scholarly communities) produce differing effects depending on national and disciplinary contexts. The presentations highlighted the tensions between European coordination, local adaptations and structural inequalities, and questioned the validity of certain commonly held notions in higher education studies.
David Joshua Schröder (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) began by outlining the different modes of engagement found in publicly funded university alliances, and the relationships these maintain with their member universities and external stakeholders, against the backdrop of the question of agency. Next, Jacek Lewicki (SGH Warsaw School of Economics) presented a pilot study on the implementation of a political programme for developing doctoral studies in Poland. He focused in particular on the 2018 shift in the structuration of doctoral education and what this entailed in terms of quality assurance.
Teresa Teixeira Lopo (Universidade Lusófona), for her part, examined the standardised roll-out of the Bologna Process from a critical perspective, using a case study of Paris-Saclay. She explored the various meanings of ‘pedagogical innovation’, a term that is often positively connoted and value-laden. Finally, Stanisław Krawczyk (University of Wrocław), Tessa DeLaquil (Norwegian University of Science and Technology) and Rasmus Harsbo (Adam Mickiewicz University) examined what the regionalisation of scholarly communication might reveal. To do so, they compared Polish history, where regionalisation is experienced as a constraint, and Danish game studies, where regionalisation is naturalised.
Governing Grand Challenges Through Transnational Strategic PartnershipsAgata Lambrechts
The Panel on Governing Grand Challenges Through Transnational Strategic Partnerships chaired by Agata Lambrechts and Alina Felder-Stindt, focused on the emergence of these partnerships as flagship instruments in European and global governance. Setting the macro-level context, Agata Lambrechts examined how grand societal challenges themselves function as distinct ‘governance means’ in European policymaking within the education and training field. Through an analysis of the European Universities initiative and Centres of Vocational Excellence, her work demonstrated how challenges orient collective action, mobilise diverse stakeholders, and enable EU steering toward broader societal goals beyond mere economic competitiveness. Complementing this, Alina Jasmin Felder-Stindt introduced a joint conceptual framework with Linda Wanklin to systematically categorise transnational skills initiatives. By mapping configurations like cross-border education clusters and higher education alliances, she illustrated the diverse governance logics at play.
Moving from macro-policy to institutional realities, the panel also looked into the organisational design and everyday tensions of implementing these partnerships. Kim Waechtler addressed the structural friction within European Universities initiative alliances, introducing the concepts of Temporary and Permanent Meta-Organisations to capture how institutions navigate the clash between long-term strategic ambitions and strict, project-based deadlines. Her analysis suggested that these alliances actively sustain this temporal tension, resulting in a distinctive hybrid governance model. Building on this institutional focus, Lukas Fuchs explored how universities use these novel transnational channels to renegotiate their core purpose. He argued that as external pressures mount to address practical societal needs, alliances serve as crucial networks for moral reflexivity, allowing institutions to self-confidently re-imagine their material relationship with society beyond traditional appeals to academic freedom.
Governing the Politics of Research and Knowledge SecurityResearch and knowledge security have become prominent concerns for governments, funders and universities. Decisions about international partnerships, access to data, researcher mobility and emerging technologies are increasingly framed in terms of risk and strategic competition. Yet the meanings of research and knowledge security remain contested, as do their implications for academic openness and cooperation. This panel examined how these concepts are constructed, translated into policy and put into practice across different institutional and regional settings.
Chaired by Cristina Pinna (University of Groningen), Governing the Politics of Research and Knowledge Security: Rethinking Knowledge, Power, and Global Academic Cooperation brought together five papers. Gabriele Manca examined how references to China shape definitions of risk and justifications for research security measures in European academic and policy debates. Cristina Pinna and Annina Lattu compared how the EU and China govern open science alongside research security, identifying different approaches to openness and protection and their implications for EU–China academic cooperation.
Moving from policy debates to institutional responses, Mitchell Young, Zuzana Krulichová and Tomas Nigrin compared the Czech Republic and the Netherlands. They examined how relationships between states and universities shape responses to higher education interference. Monika Szkarłat studied the securitization of scientific cooperation in the European Arctic, focusing on Svalbard and the roles of states, EU institutions and scientific organisations amid geopolitical tensions.
Building on her experience in France, Valérie Zwilling shared a practical perspective on the shift from openness towards greater awareness of security concerns. Her paper brought the panel back to the practical challenge researchers face in sustaining collaboration while recognising the vulnerabilities that openness can create. Together, the papers showed how research security is defined and put into practice across different contexts. They raised questions about how institutions can address security concerns while maintaining the conditions for international scientific cooperation.
Academic FreedomKrakow marks the second time for a panel on academic freedom at the Knowledge Politics and Policies section, coinciding with a still growing scholarly and policy interest in the theme. Anna Gall presented a paper titled “Unpacking Performances of Science Politicisation” where she explored the process through which science becomes politicized as the “rightful place” for science is being negotiated. Drawing on perspectives from STS and political science, the paper built on cases from sustainability science and security-related research as vignettes. Mari Elken and Peter Maassen presented the paper titled “Academic Freedom and Political Polarization in Europe”. Exploring particularly the role of illiberal regimes, the paper analysed the different versions of the illiberal playbook in Hungary, Italy and Poland, to explore the various ways in which such regimes have tried to take control over higher education, comparing this to experiences in countries where such regimes have not obtained a strong position. The presentations were followed by a rich discussion on the issue of academic freedom and how securitization of science, increased political polarization and politization of science shape the conditions for research in Europe.
Science DiplomacyThe panel Science Diplomacy’s Competitive Orientation included three contributions and was chaired by Mitchell Young of Charles University. The panel was influenced by the recent turn towards research security, which has become a key pillar in science diplomacy. Two of the papers related to this. Rachel Fishberg from Aarhus University presented her co-authored paper “Critical research as classificatory work from within”, which examined how the category of “critical research,” as it appears in policy discussions around critical materials and technologies, is translated from EU and state policy levels into institutional research governance.
Adam McCarthy from University of Manchester presented a comparative study, titled “Science Diplomacy and the Making of AI Governance: A Comparative Study of UNESCO’s Ethics of AI and the EU AI Act View Paper Details”. As the lead author of a team working on these topics, he provided insights into this broad ranging examination of two different AI governance processes, comparing four aspects: definitional work, expertise legitimisation, authority building, and governance tools. Finally, Wojciech Szczerbowicz from University of Wrocław presented “Small states, knowledge hubs and the Arctic: science diplomacy in the foreign policy of the Nordic states” which was drawn from parts of the newly published book Science Diplomacy and Foreign Policy in Northern Europe (Szkarłat et al, 2026). He talked about the intersection of foreign policy and science diplomacy, which were addressed in tandem in each country case studied in the book.
European University AlliancesPanel chairs and speakers
The panel The External Dimension of European University Alliances: Universities as Transnational Actors, co-chaired by Marina Cino Pagliarello and Andrew Gunn, examined how European University Alliances are increasingly moving beyond their original role in internal European integration and developing a more visible external dimension. Bringing together work on academic diplomacy, expert knowledge, policy transfer and institutional change, the panel explored how universities and alliances operate across the boundaries of higher education, transnational governance and European external action. Contributions included research on the European Commission’s role and influence in Indonesian higher education, the policy effects of the European Universities Initiative in Serbia, and European University Alliances as infrastructures of higher education diplomacy, including the case of CIVICA for Ukraine as well as examples of alliance engagement in Africa and Asia through academic partnerships, capacity-building and wider transnational cooperation.
A central theme emerging from the discussion was the need to look beyond conventional accounts of EU influence based solely on normative power and to consider more closely the role of knowledge power: the capacity to shape institutional practices, policy agendas and transnational relationships through expertise, research, education and sustained cooperation. At the same time, the panel stressed that universities and alliances should not be treated as formal foreign-policy actors. Their significance lies precisely in the hybrid space they occupy, where institutional autonomy, national priorities, EU-level strategies and local adaptation intersect. The discussion therefore highlighted both the growing diplomatic relevance of higher education cooperation and the importance of examining how knowledge travels, is translated and becomes influence beyond the EU.
Standing Group Business MeetingAt our Standing Group Business meeting, we discussed our recent successes and future plans. Former include an international workshop on AI politics research that took place at the ECPR Harbour House earlier this year and was supported by the ECPR Research Development Grant awarded to our Standing group. As in every Business meeting, we celebrated our most recent winner of the excellent paper award from an emerging scholar, Synne Lysberg from University of Bergen (Norway). We also took our traditional group photo that together with similar photos from previous years allows us to trace continuities and changes in our Standing Group and section. Our future plans include preparing the section for the next ECPR General Conference that will take place at the Pompea Fabra University in Barcelona, 7-10 September 2027. If the topics discussed in our section are of interest to you, watch out for the next call for applications for our excellent paper award and join us for our future activities!
The post ECPR Knowledge Politics and Policies 2026 appeared first on Ideas on Europe.
This study examines the relationship between artificial intelligence and income and wealth inequality, combining theoretical analysis with empirical investigation. It focuses on skill demand, wage polarization, capital and market concentration, the digital divide and financial applications. The findings show that AI accelerates existing inequality when its adoption combines with unequal distributions of skills and economic power. This relationship depends on the institutional framework. Digital inclusion, social protection, skill development and economic policy interventions can help distribute the benefits of technological change more broadly and fairly.
Read here (in Greek) the Working paper by Manthos Delis, Professor; Audencia Business School; Sofia Anyfantaki, Senior Economist, European Central Bank; Maria Iosifidi, Associate Professor, Montpellier Business School and Nikolaos Mylonidis, Professor, University of Ioannina.
Le trafic est paralysé depuis lundi 12 octobre sur la route Bunia-Kasenyi, en Ituri, où les transporteurs de marchandises en provenance de l’Ouganda observent une grève pour dénoncer le délabrement de cet axe routier d’environ 60 kilomètres, longeant le lac Albert. Plus de 200 véhicules sont immobilisés de part et d’autre du poste de péage de Dele, selon des témoignages concordants.
Plus de 10 000 cas de violences basées sur le genre (VBG) ont été recensés en Ituri depuis le début de l’année 2026, après plus de 20 000 cas enregistrés en 2025.
A new report on deforestation reflects the persistent gap between global ambitions to conserve and restore forests and enduring practices that continue to destroy them. Credit: UN Climate Change/Diego Herculano
By Umar Manzoor Shah
BERLIN, Germany/WASHINGTON, D.C., USA , Oct 14 2026 (IPS)
The world lost more than 7 million hectares of forest to deforestation in 2025, a modest improvement on recent years but still far from what is needed to meet global forest protection targets by 2030, according to a new assessment of international conservation efforts.
The Forest Declaration Assessment 2026, prepared by a coalition of civil society organisations and researchers and released worldwide on October 14, says deforestation remains stubbornly high despite international commitments to halt and reverse forest loss. The average annual area cleared since 2021 has exceeded 8 million hectares, highlighting the gap between government promises and progress on the ground.
Ivan Palmegiani, senior consultant at Climate Focus and one of the key report authors, told Inter Press Service in an exclusive interview that a key reason deforestation remains so high is that commitments have not been matched by the scale of action needed, and where action has been taken, it has not always been sufficient to deliver lasting impact.
“We have seen what is possible under dedicated political leadership, such as the Lula administration in Brazil, where targeted policies, enforcement, and political will reduced deforestation within a single term. However, these successes remain the exception rather than the norm, and they can be quickly reversed when priorities change.”
He added that at a deeper level, forest commitments have not been translated into the structural transformation in how natural resources are governed and used. Forests, Palmegiani said, continue to face strong economic pressures from agriculture, infrastructure, extraction, and other land uses, while decision-making systems and incentives still frequently favour the powerful few, who are physically and emotionally disconnected from forests, rather than the many who depend on them for their livelihoods, well-being, and cultural identity. “Until our societies, political and economic systems change how decisions about forests and other ecosystems are made, forest loss is likely to remain high despite global pledges.”
Ivan Palmegiani, senior consultant at Climate Focus and one of the authors of the Forest Declaration Assessment 2026. Credit: Supplied
The report also found that at least 65.4 million hectares of forest worldwide lost ecological integrity in 2024 because of human activities. The figure highlights a problem that extends beyond the complete removal of trees. Forests can remain standing while losing biodiversity, carbon storage capacity and their ability to sustain wildlife and local communities.
“Both figures reflect a persistent gap between global ambitions to conserve and restore forests and enduring practices that keep destroying them,” the report says.
The assessment examines progress on forest protection, sustainable production, finance and governance. It finds that some initiatives are moving forward, including efforts to improve forest monitoring and recognise Indigenous land rights. But these developments have not yet produced the scale of change required to reverse forest destruction.
More than 140 countries pledged under the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use, announced at the 2021 United Nations climate conference, to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030.
Five years later, the latest assessment suggests that the world remains far from achieving that objective.
Tropical forests face particular pressure from agricultural expansion, infrastructure development and commercial activities. The report says these pressures are reinforced by weak enforcement of environmental laws and economic incentives that continue to favour activities associated with forest destruction.
‘We No Longer Look at Country-Level Figures’
Tropical Latin America recorded the largest absolute area of deforestation among the regions assessed but also made the most significant progress compared with the 2018-20 baseline. Deforestation there fell by 33 percent in 2025.
Tropical Africa, however, experienced a continued rise in forest loss. Annual deforestation in the region reached about 2.4 million hectares in 2025, comparable to the 2.5 million hectares recorded in tropical Latin America.
Tropical Asia lost approximately 1.6 million hectares of forest in 2025. That represented a 12 percent reduction compared with the 2018-20 baseline, although the report cautions that the underlying causes of deforestation remain largely unchanged.
The assessment describes tropical Asia’s progress as ambiguous. Two consecutive years of modest declines may indicate that the worst recent peaks have passed, but they do not establish that the region is on a sustained path towards forest recovery.
Tropical Oceania was the only tropical region assessed as being on track to meet its 2030 forest goals. Its relatively small share of global tropical forest area and lower current pressure on forests partly explain this difference.
The findings underline how national policies, commodity production and enforcement capacity can produce sharply different outcomes across regions.
When asked which countries have contributed most to this progress and what challenges continue to prevent deeper reductions in terms of deforestation, Palmegiani said, “We no longer look at country-level figures because the global datasets used for our calculations can sometimes misrepresent national trends. In fact, to avoid overstating the precision of the data, we only publish regional and global aggregates for our indicators.”
He added, ”That said, independent analyses and regional initiatives suggest that Indonesia and Malaysia have been important contributors to the decline in deforestation observed across tropical Asia. Despite this progress, the region continues to face significant economic pressures. These include growing demand for critical minerals, particularly nickel, of which Indonesia is the world’s leading exporter, as well as broader economic uncertainty linked to geopolitical conflicts and disruptions in global markets. When these pressures intensify, short-term economic priorities can outweigh environmental considerations, and forests often bear the cost.”
Agricultural Expansion and Commercial Interests
Agriculture remains a major driver of forest loss, with commercial production and growing demand for food, animal feed and bioenergy putting pressure on natural ecosystems.
The report says between 61 and 94% of tropical deforestation linked to commercial agriculture may be illegal. It estimates that environmental crime, including illegal deforestation and timber and wildlife trafficking, generates as much as US$281 billion annually.
Such activities often overlap with other criminal enterprises.
A 2025 study by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, cited in the assessment, found links between environmental offences and crimes including drug trafficking, illegal mining and human trafficking.
The scale of these activities presents a major challenge for governments seeking to protect forests while regulating international commodity supply chains.
The assessment also points to gaps in corporate accountability. Companies in sectors linked to forest loss have increasingly adopted sustainability commitments and reporting systems, but disclosure and implementation remain uneven.
Financial institutions have begun to recognise deforestation as an environmental and financial risk. Yet the report says many regulatory frameworks lack detailed guidance on how banks should assess and manage those risks.
More than 60 percent of the countries assessed had yet to establish disclosure requirements covering deforestation-related risks for banks or insurance companies.
The report’s findings suggest that voluntary commitments and corporate reporting need to be accompanied by stronger enforcement and clearer requirements if they are to produce measurable changes in production and investment.
Forest Finance Remains a Major Challenge
The assessment identifies the scale and distribution of finance as another obstacle to forest protection.
Although international funding commitments have increased, financial support for conservation remains difficult to reconcile with the economic incentives that encourage activities harmful to forests.
The report estimates that subsidies linked to the production and use of fossil fuels reached $921 billion in 2024. Emergency measures introduced in 2026 to ease high energy prices could push the global total above $1 trillion this year.
The assessment warns that such subsidies can undermine efforts to shift to less harmful energy sources.
It also highlights the potential benefits of redirecting public support to activities that restore nature.
“Every dollar of agricultural support that is repurposed to support farming practices that restore nature, such as agroforestry, silvopasture, and low-carbon agriculture, can generate up to USD 30 in economic benefits, especially for rural communities,” the report says.
The findings point to an opportunity for governments to reform existing spending rather than rely entirely on new funding.
However, the report notes that international forest finance does not consistently reach the Indigenous peoples and local communities who manage and protect forest territories.
Community-led funding mechanisms can help direct resources towards local priorities, but they remain secondary recipients of direct funding from governments and multilateral institutions.
Indigenous Rights and Participation
The assessment identifies recognition of Indigenous land rights as an important part of effective forest governance.
At the 2025 United Nations climate conference, known as COP30, an intergovernmental commitment involving 16 countries and one subnational jurisdiction pledged to recognise or strengthen rights over an additional 160 million hectares of Indigenous lands and territories.
The launch of the Tropical Forests Forever Facility also created a provision reserving 20 percent of country-level payouts for direct transfers to Indigenous and local community organisations.
These developments represent progress, but the report says participation in international policymaking does not necessarily translate into decision-making power.
Indigenous coalitions have stressed that their increased presence at COP30 remained largely consultative. Indigenous peoples still lack formal standing in the United Nations climate negotiations, such as COP 31, which will take place in Antalya, Türkiye, from November 9 to 20.
National climate plans also frequently mention Indigenous peoples and local communities without specifying how they will participate in designing or implementing policies.
A 2026 review of 84 national climate plans found that 61 referred to under-represented groups, including Indigenous peoples and local communities. However, the assessment says most references were descriptive rather than linked to concrete measures.
The report argues that meaningful participation requires more than recognition in policy documents. It requires secure land rights, opportunities to influence decisions and access to the financial resources needed to manage territories.
Environmental Defenders Face Continuing Threats
Forest protection also carries serious risks for people who challenge illegal activities and defend community land.
The assessment cites Global Witness data showing that at least 124 land and environmental defenders were killed in 2025. More than half of the documented killings were linked to land disputes, and nearly three-quarters of the victims were Indigenous people, small-scale farmers or people of African descent.
Front Line Defenders separately reported that at least 358 human rights defenders were killed in 28 countries in 2025. Those working on land, environmental and peasant rights, as well as Indigenous rights, were among the groups that were frequently targeted.
Erin Matson, a lead consultant of Climate Focus and report author, told IPS in an interview that the statistics from Global Witness that we cite each year are always humbling. It’s important to remember that that figure is likely a significant underestimate, as many killings and disappearances go unreported.
Erin Matson, a lead consultant of Climate Focus and one of the authors of the Forest Declaration Assessment 2026. Credit: Supplied
“There are many factors at play, most of which are rooted in governance. The vast majority of environmental defenders are killed over land disputes, for example, when a mining operation encroaches on Indigenous territories. If those Indigenous communities do not have secure, recognised tenure rights to their territories, it makes it that much harder for them to resist operators who are acting illegally.”
She added that, therefore, securing tenure rights is a major step that governments need to enable. Next, Matson added that an environment of corruption and impunity allows actors to literally get away with murder. “In locations where government actors and law enforcement are under the sway and on the payroll of special interests, they will look the other way when people are harmed. Rooting out corruption, therefore, and instituting reforms to corrupted systems is essential. It must be ensured that public officials are paid well for their services so that they won’t be susceptible to corruption in the first place.”
The report identifies weak enforcement, limited government capacity and impunity for powerful actors as major obstacles to effective forest governance.
It also warns that environmental defenders face forms of intimidation beyond lethal violence, including criminalisation, threats and harassment.
Improved technology is helping authorities detect illegal forest clearance. Satellite monitoring, traceability systems and new investigative tools can help identify offences and strengthen cooperation across borders.
In Guatemala’s Maya Biosphere Reserve, for example, researchers are testing artificial intelligence-powered acoustic sensors designed to recognise chainsaws, gunshots and engines. The technology can alert rangers to potential illegal logging in remote areas that are difficult to patrol regularly.
But the report stresses that improved detection must be matched by fair and effective enforcement. Otherwise, small-scale producers and local communities may carry a disproportionate share of the burden while more powerful actors escape accountability.
The report reveals further that deforestation in 2025 was lower than in much of the preceding decade, and forest finance has increased. Monitoring systems have also improved, while several countries have taken steps towards recognising Indigenous land rights.
But the report cautions against interpreting these gains as evidence of a lasting turnaround.
It says the reduction in deforestation may partly reflect temporary factors, including stronger enforcement in some jurisdictions, changing commodity prices and economic conditions that slowed land conversion.
“These wins should not be mistaken for the transformation still needed,” reads the report.
IPS UN Bureau Report
Related Articles
Évente kétszer elemeznek-értékelnek, a piacot három szereplő uralja, aktuálpolitikai érvként használják döntéseiket, és a szakma története a vasútépítés hőskorában startolt el. A hitelminősítőkről, magáról a folyamatról beszéltünk a Tetőteraszon Székely Imrével a BBTE Közgazdasági-és Gazdálkodástudományi Magyar Intézetének távoktatási igazgatójával. Házigazda: Rostás-Péter István
Articolul Pillanatfelvétel és trendsaccolás apare prima dată în Kolozsvári Rádió Románia.