Africa

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

India’s aviation regulator has asked airline operators to “strictly avoid" volcanic ash affected areas.

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

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

M. Zakir Hossain Khan

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

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

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

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

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

The Rights Gap: The Key Failure between Rio and Belém

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

The Sleepiness Menace Came to Rio and Detonated by COP30

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

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

The Amazon: The Ultimate Test of Rio on Prognosis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the World Must Do Now

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

In den Tiefen des Pazifiks hat ein Team erstmals eine Steinkorallenart entdeckt, die auf Manganknollen wächst. Das sind jene mineralreichen Gesteinsbrocken, die weltweit zunehmendes Interesse am Tiefseebergbau wecken.

17 Goals for People, for Planet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This loss of momentum reflects more than technical shortcomings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What will be next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Without local ownership, global frameworks remain abstract and ineffective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can the goals be strengthened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

Everton's Idrissa Gueye is sent off for striking team-mate Michael Keane during their Premier League victory at Manchester United.

Le Professeur James Robinson, co-lauréat du Prix Nobel d'économie 2024, est déjà à Cotonou dans le cadre des Journées Scientifiques de l'Economie Béninoise (JSEB) 2025.

Sous le thème « Institutions et Prospérité des Nations », les JSEB 2025 se tiendront à l'hôtel Golden Tulip-Le Diplomate les 27 et 28 novembre et offriront un espace unique de dialogue entre chercheurs, étudiants, décideurs et partenaires techniques.
L'événement bénéficie du soutien du PNUD, partenaire officiel avec la participation du Professeur James Robinson, co-lauréat du Prix Nobel d'économie 2024.

Économiste et politologue de renom, James Robinson dirige l'Institut Pearson à l'Université de Chicago et occupe la chaire Richard L. Pearson. Ses travaux, en collaboration avec Daron Acemoglu, ont révolutionné la compréhension des liens entre institutions politiques et prospérité des sociétés, notamment à travers le succès international de Why Nations Fail (Pourquoi les nations échouent).

Récompensé en 2024 par le Prix Nobel pour ses recherches sur le rôle des institutions dans le développement économique, le Professeur Robinson apportera à Cotonou une perspective unique sur les mécanismes qui façonnent le succès ou l'échec des nations. Sa présence à Cotonou illustre l'importance des JSEB comme plateforme incontournable pour penser et construire l'avenir économique du Bénin et de l'Afrique.

Le Tribunal de commerce de Cotonou a condamné, le 20 novembre 2025, la Société de Gestion des Marchés Autonomes (SOGEMA), en liquidation, à verser 2,7 millions de francs CFA à un informaticien.

Un prestataire informatique de la Société de Gestion des Marchés Autonomes (SOGEMA) lui réclamait 3.737.288 FCFA, correspondant au solde des prestations des années 2020 à 2024.
Au cœur du litige se trouve un contrat de prestation signé le 8 avril 2011, portant sur la maintenance d'un logiciel budgétaire et comptable développé pour la SOGEMA. Le contrat prévoyait une redevance annuelle de 900.000 FCFA hors taxes, payable par avance et renouvelée chaque année.

La SOGEMA aurait cessé de payer ses redevances depuis 2019, tout en continuant d'utiliser le logiciel et de solliciter des interventions techniques.

Le prestataire affirmait que « toutes les démarches amiables… sont restées vaines » malgré plusieurs correspondances adressées à la structure publique.

En défense, la SOGEMA assurait ne plus avoir bénéficié de prestations depuis longtemps et soutenait que la créance était prescrite. Elle affirmait que l'informaticien cherchait à « profiter de sa mise en liquidation et du remplacement de ses responsables » pour réclamer des sommes non fondées.

La SOGEMA ne reconnaissait qu'une dette de 1.150.169 FCFA, retrouvée dans ses archives. Elle conteste également l'absence de factures et de preuves de service fait pour les années litigieuses.

Pour le Tribunal de commerce de Cotonou, les créances issues d'un contrat de prestation de services entre commerçants se prescrivent par cinq ans, selon l'Acte uniforme de l'OHADA.

Le juge a relevé que plusieurs correspondances avaient été adressées à la SOGEMA entre 2022 et 2024. Ces diverses correspondances « opèrent une interruption du délai de prescription de sorte que l'action du demandeur demeure encore recevable ».

Le Tribunal a fixé les redevances dues à 2.700.000 FCFA, soit trois années de maintenance à 900.000 FCFA chacune. Il condamne la SOGEMA à verser cette somme à l'informaticien et rappelle que « la décision est de plein droit exécutoire par provision et sur minute », conformément aux règles applicables aux petites créances.

L'établissement public, en liquidation, est également condamné aux dépens, selon le jugement N°132/2025/CJ2-PC/S1/TCC du 20 novembre 2025.

M. M.

The authorities are trying to rescue more than 250 schoolchildren who were abducted by raiders on motorbikes.

The authorities are trying to rescue more than 250 schoolchildren who were abducted by raiders on motorbikes.

The authorities are trying to rescue more than 250 schoolchildren who were abducted by raiders on motorbikes.

Die Berner Kantonspolizei hat in der Nacht auf Montag einen mutmasslichen Einbrecher an der Berner Aarestrasse dingfest gemacht. Ein Diensthund biss den Mann. Er wurde im Spital versorgt und dann festgenommen.

Monday 24 November 2025

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Police are investigating allegations that Jacob Zuma's daughter, Duduzile, lured men into fighting in Ukraine.

The Gambian government says it is hosting Tchiroma Bakary on humanitarian grounds.

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

In today's edition: SEP withdrawal fight, Shein scandal, Data-for-AI training

Bienvenue dans l’édition de lundi de Rapporteur. Je suis Eddy Wax à Bruxelles, et Nicoletta Ionta est en route pour Strasbourg, si les grèves le permettent. Vous avez une information à nous communiquer ? Écrivez-nous à eddy.wax@euractiv.com et nicoletta.ionta@euractiv.com À savoir : L’Europe s’engage dans un nouveau plan de paix Appels à la diversification du […]

The post L’Europe ajoute des notes à la paix en Ukraine appeared first on Euractiv FR.

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

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

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

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

Africa’s debt crisis is deepening

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

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

The G20 has failed

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

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

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

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

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

The failure of the Common Framework

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

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

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

A better path exists: The United Nations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

BBC Africa Eye uncovers two so-called "juju" practitioners, who offer to obtain body parts for ritual purposes.