CIVICUS discusses Bolivia’s upcoming presidential election with Juan Carlos Uribe and Lucas Illanes from ChequeaBolivia, an initiative that monitors and verifies social media content.

Juan Carlos Uribe and Lucas Illanes

On 17 August, 10 candidates will compete for the presidency in a context of deep political and social polarisation following the disqualification of former president Evo Morales. Polls suggest the conservative opposition could win more votes than the left for the first time in 20 years. Morales’ political heir is currently polling in third place, while the ruling party’s candidate is a distant eighth. With disinformation about possible fraud and electoral violence circulating on social media, civil society is working to preserve the integrity of the election.

What are the main challenges of the upcoming election?

The main challenge is for the electoral process to take place peacefully and for voters to be able to freely elect their next government. To this end, all politicians and groups must respect the rules of the game and not interfere in the process.

We need transparent and credible elections to avoid repeating crises such as that of 2019, when Morales won a fourth term amid fraud allegations, triggering mass protests that led to his resignation. Strengthening democracy is not just about guaranteeing the vote and the results: there’s also a need to protect the ecosystem from the spread of disinformation, hate speech and digital violence. Only then will it be possible to guarantee free, informed and conscious participation.

Who are the main candidates?

The election comes at a particularly complex time, marked by a deep economic crisis and strong political polarisation. The Movement for Socialism (MAS), which dominated the political scene for almost 20 years with Morales at the helm, is going through a period of internal division.

It has least three factions: that of Morales, who remains an important figure despite his 2019 resignation, that of the current president, Luis Arce, who came to power backed by the MAS but has a tense relationship with Morales, and that of Senate President Andrónico Rodríguez, previously seen as Morales’s natural successor.

Morales retains a strong base in Cochabamba, where he mobilises his supporters by presenting himself as the only person capable of reversing Bolivia’s economic crisis. Although the Constitutional Court disqualified his candidacy, he remains a central figure who sets the campaign’s tone. In recent months, his supporters have staged protests and blockades in several regions, causing fuel and food shortages and at least six deaths. Morales insists there can be no election without him and denounces the alleged exclusion of voters in rural areas, his main stronghold.

The opposition is also divided. Opposition candidates such as Samuel Doria Medina, Jorge Tuto Quiroga and Manfred Reyes Villa have not managed to form a common front. Other names being mentioned include Eva Copa, Eduardo del Castillo, Jhonny Fernández and Andrónico Rodríguez.

What do polls say?

The polls registered with the Supreme Electoral Tribunal place Doria Medina in the lead with around 19 per cent support. He is followed by Quiroga with 18 per cent and Rodríguez with 12 per cent. The difference between the top two is so small that there is talk of a technical tie. Reyes Villa and Paz Pereira are further down, accounting for just over 11 per cent combined.

A key fact is that around 20 per cent of the electorate is undecided or plans to cast blank votes. This, added to the fact that no candidate has support over 20 per cent, makes a second round highly likely, something unprecedented in Bolivia.

Turnout is usually high in Bolivia: in 2020, 90 per cent of registered voters cast their ballots. This is largely due to the fact that voting is compulsory and failure to vote results in a fine. However, this election presents a new factor: the majority of voters will be young people who are going to vote for the first time and know little about the candidates. In addition, rumours are circulating, particularly from groups close to Morales, that if he is not allowed to run there will be no election and violence will increase. This could create fear and affect turnout.

What role is social media playing in the campaign?

Social media is playing a key role, with the campaign taking place almost entirely in the digital sphere. Unlike previous elections, there is no longer as much activity on the streets: now the focus is mainly on TikTok, and additionally on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter/X. Doria Medina is the candidate who has invested most heavily in these platforms, collaborating with content creators to share his proposals.

But the shift to digital has also facilitated the spread of disinformation, both to promote candidates and attack rivals. We have identified three main narratives. First, there’s a narrative that takes advantage of the climate of crisis to share images and videos of clashes out of context with the aim of creating fear. Second, fake or manipulated polls are circulating, often spread by candidates to give the impression they have more support than they do. And third, there is a campaign seeking to create confusion about the eligibility of some candidates, particularly Morales, who publicly stated he was eligible.

Most of the accounts spreading this content are anonymous, but some systematically promote some candidates and attack others. All parties are involved in this dynamic to some degree, but the candidates most attacked in the last month have been Doria Medina and Rodríguez, followed by Copa, Fernández and Quiroga.

Some media outlets unwittingly contribute to spreading disinformation by prioritising immediacy over verification. They publish viral content without checking it, and if it is later proven to be false, they simply delete it without explanation. This undermines trust in journalism and fuels the cycle of disinformation.

How have digital platforms responded to disinformation?

Unfortunately, the response has been quite limited. As Bolivia is a small country, we do not have fluid channels of communication with big tech companies. In general, platforms only act in specific cases. For example, Meta intervened and deleted fake accounts impersonating the president of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and temporarily suspended the account of Radio Kawsachun Coca, linked to Morales, for spreading disinformation. But these were isolated and inconsistent measures: the account was reactivated shortly afterwards.

Furthermore, Meta has stopped working with human fact-checkers and now relies almost exclusively on user reports to identify false content, a model we know does not work well. TikTok has also failed to implement effective measures. Although in some cases it labels videos generated with AI, there are no specific policies or efforts tailored to the Bolivian context. This inaction leaves a gap civil society has had to begin to fill.

How does ChequeaBolivia work against disinformation?

ChequeaBolivia takes a comprehensive approach that combines fact-checking, media literacy and collaborative work with different groups.

We know that debunking false or misleading news is not always enough: its reach is often much greater than that of our fact-checks. That’s why, in addition to verifying content every day, we develop strategies to give people, particularly young and Indigenous people, the tools they need to identify and stop disinformation on their own.

We launched a school for young fact-checkers and created campaigns such as Chequeatuvoto (‘check your vote’) that offers tools to promote critical thinking among first-time voters. We also work with Aymara Indigenous communities, using methodologies such as ‘rumour tracking’ to help them identify patterns of disinformation and respond with verified information in their languages.

At the same time, we are animating a coalition of over 15 civil society organisations to strengthen information integrity during the election. Although many of these organisations don’t directly work on disinformation, they recognise its cross-cutting impact on issues such as human rights, digital violence and hate speech.

We are committed to technological innovation: we are developing a chatbot to help answer questions about the electoral process and suspicious content. We also run audiovisual campaigns using clear and accessible language to help people better understand what is at stake.

Ultimately, we believe that the response cannot come from platforms or the media alone. We need the whole of civil society to get involved in building healthier digital environments where reliable information plays a leading role.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter

SEE ALSO
‘The closure of Meta’s US fact-checking programme is a major setback in the fight against disinformation’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Olivia Sohr 24.Jun.2025
‘It’s easier and cheaper than ever to spread disinformation on a massive scale’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Imran Ahmed 21.Sep.2024
UK: ‘Social media platforms have become breeding grounds for far-right ideologies’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Kulvinder Nagre 19.Aug.2024

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
??

Technological change is unleashing a new era in productivity and creativity with far-reaching implications for global development and security. But, beyond adopting new, non-binding normative frameworks, all UN member states must come together to improve the management of new and emerging technologies to better leverage their many benefits, while mitigating multiple risks. Credit: istock

By Mubarak Al-Kuwari, Richard Ponzio, and Mohamed Ali Chihi
DOHA / WASHINGTON, DC, Aug 6 2025 (IPS)

Technological progress and the course of human history have moved forward together; more recent technological innovations have emerged with unprecedented speed and reach, deeply influencing many areas of human activity.

Advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning (consisting of neural networks), for instance, enable machines to process new information in real-time. As federated learning becomes more widespread, machine learning models can collaborate without the need to share sensitive data, thereby enhancing privacy and security.

These and other recent technological developments will find applications in sectors such as healthcare, where advanced algorithms can support personalized diagnosis and treatment. New and emerging technologies, including nanotechnology and human enhancement technology, have implications for international peace and security too.

Amidst the highest number of armed conflicts since 1946, military technologies are evolving rapidly in both damage potential and distribution.

Artificial intelligence and other technologies are fast expanding the autonomous capabilities of weapons and accelerating the spread of digital dis- and misinformation. At the same time, if present trends persist, only a few countries may dominate this space, in terms of both technological innovation and “setting-the-rules” for their governance.

Against the backdrop of disruptive global forces that create new challenges, risks, and opportunities for development, security, and the global order itself, the need for effective “tech-governance” – including the engagement of all countries, big and small, through existing global institutions – has never been more urgent.

In short, effective tech-governance helps countries to employ common principles (including safety and transparency), codes of practice, and regulation to implement shared values and protect basic human rights.

Successful governance of new and emerging technologies at the global level will require the UN’s 193 member states to not only adopt new, non-binding normative frameworks (such as the recently endorsed Global Digital Compact), but also to build upon them by pursuing targeted innovations in global governance.

In the Future of International Cooperation Report 2024, produced by the Doha Forum, the Stimson Center, and the Global Institute for Strategic Research, we call for assembling an International Scientific Panel on AI (ISPAI) that extends beyond the Global Digital Compact’s limited description focused on promoting “scientific understanding through evidence-based impact, risk and opportunity assessments.”

Feeding into current intergovernmental deliberations in New York co-facilitated by the Governments of Spain and Costa Rica, we believe the ISPAI should be tasked with producing knowledge products and increasing awareness of AI risk, principles, and regulations for policy-makers.

Modeled on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the ISPAI’s ultimate objective could be to understand and address the impact of emerging digital information technologies on the world’s social, economic, political, and natural systems.

The extraordinary pace of AI innovation requires an agile and fast-paced approach to scientific assessment by continually evaluating the technology’s evolving capabilities and ramifications.

A community of practice through an AI Frontier Collaborative would further assist the ISPAI with a new international public-private partnership for expanding access to – as well as investing in – AI technology from leading private sector AI developers, where much of the innovation happens outside the public realm.

Such an initiative would build upon public-private conversations at the recent AI Action Summit in Paris and complement the Global Digital Compact’s commitment to stand-up a Global Dialogue on AI Governance, designed to engage the 118 UN Member States (primarily from the Global South) that do not belong to any of the current seven major international AI governance initiatives.

Additionally, the International Scientific Panel on AI could function as a subsidiary of, and with direct administrative support from, an International Artificial Intelligence Agency (IA2), as elaborated in this forum.

Advising the UN General Assembly and Security Council, the IA2 would boost visibility, advocacy, and resource-mobilization for global AI regulation, while monitoring, evaluation, and reporting on AI industry safeguards. It could further help countries to combat AI-enabled disinformation and the resulting misinformation that can fuel violence and aid terrorist and criminal organizations.

Critically, a scientific panel (like the ISPAI) requires an agile policy platform (like the IA2), as a chief beneficiary of ISPAI’s analysis and recommendations. This will help to ensure its policy relevance and impact, as well as to serve as a central coordination mechanism for AI and related cybertech expertise across the UN system.

Artificial intelligence and other new and emerging technologies make possible powerful new tools for problem-solving. But they also raise serious governance challenges, including in the spheres of global development and security. Effective regulation to maximize their benefits and minimize risks requires the astute combination of advanced knowledge, multistakeholder approaches, and an agile policy interface.

To prevent unbridled competition – dominated by only a select few large companies backed-up by equally large and powerful countries – from leaving everyone worse off, let alone precipitating a serious lose-lose confrontation, we must continuously update global governance tools and mechanisms to keep pace with technological advances.

Improving their effective global management will continue to usher in benefits for potentially billions of people worldwide while, simultaneously, mitigating technological risks.

Mubarak Al-Kuwari is Executive Director of the Doha Forum; Richard Ponzio is Director of the Global Governance, Justice, and Security Program and a senior fellow at the Stimson Center;

Mohamed Ali Chihi is Executive Director of the Global Institute for Strategic Research.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
??

The home of Oksana Serhienko, Merefa village, near Kharkiv, Ukraine. Credit: Akos Stiller

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Aug 6 2025 (IPS)

As Russian forces continue to lay waste to civilian areas of towns and cities across Ukraine, Roma in the country are struggling to access compensation to help them rebuild their damaged homes.

Russia’s relentless bombing has, according to the World Bank, left 13 percent of Ukraine’s housing damaged or destroyed, affecting over 2.5 million households.

Despite this, many Ukrainians, including Roma, have refused to leave their homes in the face of relentless bombing and instead are determined to carry on living in sometimes severely damaged homes to keep their communities alive.

But a new report has shown that many Roma—one of the most vulnerable communities in Ukraine—have been unable to access state property damage compensation: only 4 percent of Roma households surveyed successfully secured compensation for war damage, despite suffering widespread destruction.

This is because requirements for applicants mean the Roma population, whose lives were already precarious long before the war began, are being disproportionately excluded from the scheme, according to the Roma Foundation for Europe (RFE), which was behind the report.

“Many of the issues we identify [in our report] affect non-Roma applicants too—particularly in occupied or frontline areas… [but] what makes the situation more severe for Roma is the combination of these factors with long-standing exclusion and economic precarity,” Neda Korunovska, Vice President for Analytics and Results at RFE, told IPS.

As in many countries in Europe, the Roma community in Ukraine has long faced social exclusion and, many claim, systemic discrimination at societal and institutional levels.

But like the rest of Ukrainian society, they have felt the full effects of Russia’s brutal full-scale invasion over the last three and half years and many have seen their homes damaged or even destroyed.

State compensation for property damage caused by the fighting is available, but experts say there are significant barriers for claimants, some of which are specifically greater for Roma people.

These include requirements such as possession of official property documents and proof of ownership—both sometimes difficult for Roma from communities where informal housing and disputed property rights are not uncommon—as well as a need for a level of digital literacy, which can be a problem for communities where levels of digital exclusion are high, according to RFE.

The group’s analysis, based on?cases across four Ukrainian regions, including?Zaporizhzhia, Kryvyi Rih, Odessa and Kharkiv, shows that deeply entrenched legal, administrative, and digital hurdles are blocking Roma communities from accessing aid intended for rebuilding homes and lives, the group claims.

Zeljko Jovanovic, RFE president, said that current compensation systems, although designed for order and efficiency, often overlook those with fewer resources but no less damage, and that they lack “…the required flexibility for the complex realities of pre-war informality of homes, displacement, and occupation.”

“Many affected families cannot afford the property registration fees or the costs associated with inheritance procedures. The average damage of 2,816 Euros represents several months of pre-war salary,” he added.

RFE points out that in regions like Odesa, more than half (54 percent) of Roma families lack formal property registration, while in Kryvyi Rih, not a single claim from the surveyed households has been submitted to the state registry due to legal limbo over inheritance, missing paperwork, and lack of resources to navigate the system. Even in Zaporizhzhia, where property records are strongest, low application rates point to deep mistrust in institutions, amplified by experiences of discrimination.

Some Roma contacted for the survey said they had not even bothered to apply for compensation for fear that the government might later come and demand the money back from them.

“This is a reflection of deep institutional mistrust,” said Korunovska. “This mistrust isn’t unfounded—it’s rooted in long-standing patterns of discrimination. In previous research we have undertaken, many Roma respondents have described negative treatment by public officials when seeking housing or services. Surveys consistently show high levels of social distance between Roma and the broader population in Ukraine, which reinforces these feelings of exclusion.”

RFE points out that nationally, around 61% of submitted claims have been approved, but that among Roma, the figure was only 28%—and the vast majority (86%) of people surveyed for its report never submitted claims at all due to systemic barriers.

Liubov Serhienko, 69, has lived in her home in Merefa, near Kharkiv, for the last forty years. But it has suffered severe damage from bombings by Russian forces—during one attack the roof and some ceilings collapsed and one room is now entirely uninhabitable. During a short evacuation from the house, thieves stole her boiler, fridge, and furniture.

Her daughter, Oksana, describes how the family—three generations all living under the same roof, including Oksana and her children—is forced to use blankets to try to retain whatever heat they can in rooms now largely completely exposed to the outside because walls are no longer standing. In winter, snow blows straight into the home, she says.

While neighbors have helped with some repairs, resources are limited and the building remains in disrepair. Relying solely on her pension of 3,000 UAH (around €70) to support the household—the war has taken away all job opportunities for her and members of her family—she says all she wants is the state to help fix the roof and ceiling, as she no longer has the physical strength or finances to do it herself.

In testimony to RFE, which was passed on to IPS, Serhienko said, “What I want most right now is for my family to have a roof over their heads.”

Oksana criticizes the lack of help from the state for them and other Roma in similar situations.

“The government doesn’t care. They’ve done nothing,” she said.

Her mother goes even further, explicitly linking her experience to deliberate discrimination by authorities.

“[Just] Gypsies, they say. As if we’re not people. Maybe they don’t see us as people.”

Andriy Poliakov has stayed in his home in Andriivka in the Kharkiv region since the start of the full-scale invasion, despite the severe damage the dwelling has suffered in Russian attacks.

Windows are broken and there are cracks in the walls, as he has suffered several damages to their house, windows were broken, and there are cracks in the walls, as his house has shifted structurally due to bomb blasts. Poliakov, 45, refuses to leave his home, as he is a sole caregiver for some members of his family, even though he is disabled himself, but he says life is difficult, as they have no gas or other reliable heating source and rely on a makeshift stove he built from stone and bricks.

As with almost all of those surveyed in the RFE report, Poliakov has had no help from the state with any of the damage to his home. One of the reasons so many Roma choose not to even attempt to apply for compensation is the distrust of authorities that is widespread among communities—a distrust Poliakov shares.

“They don’t care. Even though I’m disabled and it’s on paper that I’m disabled… It doesn’t matter to them,” he said.

In the wake of its findings, RFE is calling on the Ukrainian government to integrate urgent reforms into reconstruction planning, including accepting alternative proof of ownership such as utility bills or community testimony, waiving registration fees for war-affected families, and introducing temporary ownership certificates to ensure displaced or undocumented Roma?have access to compensation.

RFE says it is hoping to present its findings to government representatives in the coming weeks.

“We hope this data will serve as a constructive basis for reform, especially in light of Ukraine’s broader efforts to align with European values of fairness and accountability,” said Korunovska.

Jovanovic added that “even if full compensation isn’t possible now, temporary support is essential. Roma living in damaged homes are part of Ukraine’s strength and its resistance.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
??

Volunteers at the Third United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs). Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

By Kizito Makoye
AWAZA, Turkmenistan , Aug 6 2025 (IPS)

In the glass-panelled hallway straddling Buildings 2 and 3 at the Awaza Congress Centre, two smartly dressed young Turkmens stood behind an ornate national pavilion—anxious, alert, and surprisingly eloquent.

Their broad smiles visibly grabbed wide-eyed delegates attending the Third United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs). With a confidence far beyond their age, the volunteers clearly explained to visitors the kernel of Turkmenistan’s national identity—entangled by culture as politics.

“This is a dutar,” said one, gesturing toward a glass-encased replica of a traditional two-stringed musical instrument. “It is played during weddings and celebrations. It carries the stories of our people.”

His colleague pointed to a smaller display nearby, where a miniature replica of the monumental Neutrality Monument stood—the golden effigy of Saparmurat Niyazov, the country’s founding president, glinting under gallery lights. “This represents our neutrality,” she said proudly. “We are a peaceful nation. We do not choose sides.”

As visitors flocked to the pavilion, the two young guides continued their patient explanations—this time describing a replica of Akhal-Teke horses, symbols of national pride, bred for endurance and elegance.

“Just like the horses,” one said with a grin, “Our country is strong, swift, and steady. But we also don’t race just because others are running.”

In this resort city, hospitality is a powerful expression of national pride.

As you move around the streets, women in long traditional gowns greet you with a graceful nod and a soft “Ho? geldiňiz”—welcome.” Dressed in embroidered velvet dresses that sweep the floor and crowned with intricate headscarves, these women are the gentle face of Turkmenistan’s long-held tradition of welcoming strangers with dignity and warmth.

“It is in our blood to treat foreigners with great care and concern.”

In a world increasingly divided, the warmth of Turkmenistan’s people, cloaked in simple gestures of kindness, stands as a symbol of diplomacy—one that speaks not through declarations, but through hospitality that lingers long after the meetings are over.

A Doctrine of Distance

Since 1995, when the UN General Assembly unanimously recognized Turkmenistan’s neutrality, the Central Asian nation has embraced a foreign policy of non-alignment, eschewing military alliances, foreign bases, and entanglements in regional conflicts. The policy, enshrined in the national constitution, is described by government officials as a model of “positive neutrality”—a means of building peace through equidistance and sovereignty.

A Fortress Amid Fires

Bordered by Iran, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and the Caspian Sea, Turkmenistan occupies a strategically sensitive patch of Eurasia. Yet it has remained almost impervious to the turmoil around it. When war engulfed Afghanistan, Turkmenistan kept its embassies open. It offered humanitarian aid—but not political commentary.

Unlike other Central Asian states, it refrained from joining Moscow-led security blocs like the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and even kept Beijing at a careful diplomatic bay despite deepening energy ties.

Turkmenistan’s hosting of the LLDC conference carried both symbolic and practical significance. It is one of the few LLDCs that has successfully leveraged its location by investing heavily in cross-border energy and transport infrastructure.

“Your hosting of this important global gathering is a testament to the country’s commitment to international cooperation and sustainable development,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

A Landmark Moment for Landlocked Nations

On the shores of the Caspian Sea, in the resort town of Awaza, limousines ferried dignitaries past pine-lined boulevards and marble buildings as world leaders gathered for the momentous talk.

The Awaza gathering brought together representatives from 32 landlocked developing countries—home to nearly 600 million people across Africa, Asia, Europe, and South America—to chart a new course under the Awaza Programme of Action, a 10-year strategy aimed at reversing structural disadvantages stemming from geographical isolation.

Awaza’s gleaming hotels and high-tech halls stood in contrast to Burundi’s rugged highlands thousands of kilometers away—but in both, a digital transformation is underway.

The stakes could not be higher. LLDCs account for just over 1 percent of global trade and economic output, despite housing 7 percent of the global population. They face steep transport costs, limited access to global markets, unreliable infrastructure, and acute climate vulnerabilities.

A Moment for Multilateralism

As the 3rd LLDC conference?convened in the windswept coastal town of Awaza, all eyes turned to Turkmenistan—not for bold pronouncements, but for the quiet power of its example. With its longstanding policy of neutrality, the Central Asian nation has carved a distinct identity rooted in non-alignment and peaceful engagement, making it an ideal host for a summit aimed at fostering regional solidarity and global support for countries isolated by geography.

Secretary-General António Guterres, in a rousing address, held up Turkmenistan’s model of diplomacy and inclusion as a guiding light for other landlocked nations struggling with marginalization. Against a backdrop of rising global fragmentation, Awaza became more than a meeting ground—it emerged as a bridge between continents and between aspiration and action.

Speaking at a high-level press conference Tuesday, Guterres issued a passionate appeal for justice, equity, and renewed international solidarity, reminding the world that “geography should never define destiny.”

“This conference reflects a new era of cooperation taking shape across Central Asia,” said Guterres, “grounded in mutual trust, shared priorities, and growing regional solidarity. At a time when multilateralism is being tested, this spirit of partnership is more essential than ever.”

A Plea for Dignity and Inclusion

Guterres’s remarks were peppered with humanistic language rarely heard at geopolitical conferences. “This is not only a matter of development,” he told journalists. “It’s a matter of dignity and justice.”

Responding to a question from Euronews, he drew a distinction between landlocked developed nations like Switzerland or Austria and their developing counterparts. “They have free access to harbors and integrated markets. But for landlocked developing countries, being far from ports and trade hubs is a real disadvantage,” he said.

He praised Turkmenistan’s multilateral diplomacy and recalled the country’s remarkable feat of granting citizenship to all stateless persons left behind after the collapse of the Soviet Union. “This was almost unique in the world—a symbol of generosity I never forgot,” he said.

Four Pillars of Action

The Awaza Programme of Action is a comprehensive development framework aligned with the UN 2030 Agenda. It charts an ambitious, multi-sectoral path forward, structured around four priorities:

1. Unlocking Economic Potential

Guterres called for bold investment in infrastructure, education, digital connectivity, and innovation.

“The countries represented here have the talent and the ideas,” he said. “They need the tools and support.”

2. Connecting to the World

“Trade corridors, transit systems, and regional integration are not technical issues—they are lifelines,” Guterres said.

He urged countries and institutions to invest in both the “hardware” and “software” of trade—resilient transport infrastructure, harmonized customs procedures, and smart logistics platforms.

3. Confronting the Climate Crisis

Though LLDCs contribute less than 3 percent to global emissions, they are among the hardest hit by climate disasters.

Guterres called on rich nations to fulfill their pledges to double adaptation finance, support green industries in LLDCs, and provide early warning systems.

4. Reforming Global Finance

Guterres described the global financial system as “unfit for the realities of today.” He called for tripling the lending capacity of development banks, expanding concessional finance, and reforming sovereign debt architecture.

Global Responsibility and Shared Future

Though the conference was set against a backdrop of regional cooperation in Central Asia, its implications reverberate far beyond.

“When LLDCs thrive, entire regions benefit.” Guterres said

Global Call for Justice, Not Charity

Though spread across four continents—from the Sahel to the Himalayas, and from Central Asia to South America—LLDCs face a strikingly similar plight: crippling transport costs, technological isolation, and rising debt burdens.

“Landlocked developing countries don’t want charity. They want justice,” Guterres told reporters. “They want equitable access.”

Digital Lifelines for a Disconnected World

One of the most pressing themes in Awaza was the digital divide that has left millions in LLDCs without access to online education, health services, or global markets.

“Digital transformation must be central to our effort,” Guterres said.

He pledged to present a report on innovative financing to support AI capacity-building and called for robust public-private partnerships.

Connecting Landlocked Economies to the World

Guterres also emphasized infrastructure investment and seamless cross-border trade as keys to transformation.

“We must cut red tape, digitize border operations, and modernize transport networks,” he said.

Building Bridges Across Borders

In an interview with IPS, Aygul Rahimova, a resident of Turkmenistan, underlined the importance of the LLDC conference for regional connectivity.

“Although we are technically landlocked, Turkmenistan borders the Caspian Sea, which offers us a unique opportunity to serve as a transport and logistics bridge between Asia and Europe,” she said.

“I hope this conference becomes a catalyst for deeper cooperation… Turkmenistan is ready to play a key role in building bridges—through the Caspian, through trade, through diplomacy.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
??

The raised flags of Turkmenistan and the United Nations marked the official opening of the Third UN Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDC3). Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

By Joyce Chimbi
AWAZA, Turkmenistan, Aug 5 2025 (IPS)

Heads of State, ministers, investors and grassroots leaders are gathered in Awaza on Turkmenistan’s Caspian coast for a once-in-a-decade UN conference aimed at rewiring the global system in support of 32 landlocked developing countries whose economies are often ‘locked out’ of opportunity due to their lack of access to the sea.

Geography has long dictated the destiny of landlocked nations. Trade costs are up to 74 percent higher than the global average. It can take twice as long to move goods across borders compared to coastal countries. As a result, landlocked nations are left with just 1.2 percent of world trade and are at great risk of being left furthest behind amid global economic shifts.

Speaking during the opening plenary and in the context of implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), President of Turkmenistan Serdar Berdimuhamedow stated that his country believes “in the need to accelerate the process of ensuring transport connectivity, as well as to bring fresh ideas and momentum to this process.”

“In connection with this, last year at the World Government Summit in Dubai, Turkmenistan proposed creating a new partnership format, namely a global atlas of sustainable transport connectivity. I invite all foreign participants to carefully consider this initiative.”

The Third UN Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries, or LLDC3, is pushing for freer transit, smarter trade corridors, stronger economic resilience, and fresh financing to boost development prospects for the estimated 600 million people living in those countries.

The UN Secretary-General António Guterres stressed that the conference is centered on reaffirming a fundamental truth: that “geography should never define destiny.”

“Yet,” Guterres continued, “For the 32 landlocked developing countries across Africa, Asia, Europe, and South America, geography too often limits development opportunities and entrenches inequality.”

Rabab Fatima, Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, and Secretary-General of the Third United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries, said, “For too long, LLDCs have been defined by the barriers of geography, remoteness, inaccessibility, and the fact that they do not have a sea. But that is only part of the story.”

She stressed that LLDCs may be landlocked, but they are not opportunity locked, as they are rich in resources, resilience, and ambition. These countries seek to lean into these resources and strong partnerships to counter challenges such as an infrastructure financing shortfall of over USD 500 billion.

For these countries, goods take 42 days to enter and 37 days to exit their borders. Paved road density stands at just 12 percent of the global average. Internet access is only 39 percent. To address these constraints, the Awaza Programme of Action proposes a new facility for financing infrastructure investments. This new initiative aims to mobilize capital in large quantities to bridge the gaps and construct roads.

Meanwhile, as these daunting challenges prevail, Guterres said debt burdens are rising to dangerous and unsustainable levels. And one-third of LLDCs are grappling with vulnerability, insecurity, or conflict. Despite representing 7 percent of the world’s population, LLDCs account for just over one percent of the global economy and trade—a stark example of deep inequalities that perpetuate marginalization.

Guterres emphasized that these inequalities are not inevitable. They are the result of an unfair global economic and financial architecture unfit for the realities of today’s interconnected world, compounded by systemic neglect, structural barriers, and—in many cases—the legacy of a colonial past.”

“Recent shocks—from the COVID-19 pandemic to climate disasters, supply chain disruptions, conflicts and geopolitical tensions—have deepened the divide, pushing many LLDCs further away from achieving the SDGs.”

Further stressing that the conference is not about obstacles but solutions that include launching a new decade of ambition—through the Awaza Programme of Action and its deliverables—and fully unlocking the development potential of landlocked developing countries.

Fatima said the Awaza Programme of Action is a bold and ambitious blueprint to transform the development landscape for the 32 landlocked developing countries for the next decade. The theme of the conference, ’Driving Progress Through Partnerships,’ captures a collective resolve to unlock that potential. It underscores the new era of collaboration where LLDCs are not seen as isolated or constrained but as fully integrated.

Emphasizing that the Awaza Programme of Action provides “the tools to unlock the full potential of LLDCs and turn their structural challenges into transformative opportunities. The implementation of the Programme of Action has begun. We arrive in Awaza with momentum on our side. We have put together a UN system-wide development and monitoring framework with clear milestones and outcomes, comprising over 320 complete projects, programs, and activities.”

“Over the course of the week, we will see here the launch of many new partnerships and initiatives that will bring fresh momentum to its implementation. As we take this process forward, allow me to highlight three strategic priorities that will guide our work in Awaza. First, bridging the infrastructure and connectivity gap remains our top priority,” she said.

Heads of state and governments, including the presidents of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Republic of Armenia, Tajikistan, the Republic of Kazakhstan, and His Majesty King Mswati III from the Kingdom of Eswatini, stressed the significance of the conference for the group of landlocked developing countries in terms of identifying priority areas for further efforts with a focus on addressing modern challenges the international community is facing.

Mswati III said the conference reaffirms a shared commitment to having the structural barriers that hinder LLDCs from participating in the global economy, offering a platform to chart a path of resilience, innovation and inclusive growth. The leaders also shared many of the successes they have achieved amidst daunting challenges.

“To build resilience and ensure sustainable growth, Eswatini is diversifying beyond traditional sectors. We are promoting investment in agroprocessing, tourism, renewable energy, ICT, creativity, industries and private enterprise. This strategy broadens our economic base, creates jobs and supports inclusive development, aligning with our national priorities for 2030 and 2063,” he said.

Shavkat Mirziyoyev, President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, said that his country was “demonstrating strong momentum towards greater openness and transparency in logistics. Complex measures are being implemented to facilitate the digitalization of trade and transport processes. Structural transport and logistics spaces are the basis for dynamic transport implementation.”

Mirziyoyev stated that today, a single transport and logistics space is being established in the region. Comprehensive programs and projects are being implemented to transform Central Asia into a fully-fledged transit hub between East and West and North and South. Recently, mutual trade volumes have grown 4.5-fold, investments have doubled, and the number of joint ventures has increased 5-fold.

“This year, jointly with our partners, we have started construction of the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway. Freight traffic on the Uzbekistan-Turkmenistan-Iran-Turkey transport corridor has increased significantly. In today’s world, it is crucial to have concrete, feasible, and institutionally supported solutions to overcome common threats and challenges,” he stated.

Fatima, the Secretary-General of the Conference, said the challenges are many, varied and complex, requiring investing in robust implementation tools and partnerships at all levels.

“Our mapping confirms that every target adopted here in Awaza advances inclusive, resilient and sustainable development. But policy alignment alone is not enough. We need a whole-of-society approach,” she expounded.

“This Conference marks a turning point in that regard. For the first time, LLDC3 features dedicated platforms for civil society, the private sector, youth, women leaders, parliamentarians, and South-South partners – each playing a critical role in making the APOA people-centered and responsive.”

Overall, she urged the global community to seize the present moment—with ambition, unity, and purpose—to chart a new path for the LLDCs: one of prosperity, resilience, and full global integration. She stressed that the true legacy of the ongoing conference will not be measured by declarations, but by the real and lasting change that is delivered on the ground.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
??

Credit: Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Aug 4 2025 (IPS)

Rice queues – something once unthinkable – began appearing around May. As the country’s staple food hit record prices, frustrated shoppers found themselves breaking a cultural taboo by switching to rice from South Korea. It was a symbol of how far Japan’s economic certainties had crumbled, creating fertile ground for a political shift.

That came on 20 July, when Japan joined the ranks of countries where far-right parties are gaining ground. The Sanseitō party took 15.7 per cent of the vote in the election for parliament’s upper house, while the ruling two-party coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and Kōmeitō lost its majority. The result spells trouble for Japan’s civil society.

From conspiracy theories to parliament

Sanseitō, founded during the COVID-19 pandemic, grew out of a right-wing YouTube channel. Initially, it spread virus conspiracy theories and opposed masks and vaccines, territory that globally provided entry points for far-right radicalisation. Since then, it’s embraced exclusionary politics.

The party’s leader, Sohei Kamiya, says he wants to be Japan’s Trump. His ‘Japan First’ agenda, accompanied by an abundance of xenophobic rhetoric, urges strict immigration limits.

Sanseitō shows deep hostility towards excluded groups. It strongly opposes LGBTQI+ rights, even though these are limited in Japan, calling for repeal of the 2023 LGBT Understanding Promotion Act. The party opposes same-sex marriage; despite civil society legal action leading to mixed court judgments, Japan remains the only G7 country to not recognise marriage equality.

Kamiya has blamed young women for Japan’s declining birthrate, saying they’re too career-focused and should stay home and have children. He’s has also said he supports Trump’s moves to eliminate climate protections and calls for Japan’s militarisation, positions right-wing populists are commonly taking around the world.

Economic crisis and political corruption

Change has been coming in Japan’s previously static politics. The LDP, a big tent right-wing party, has been in power, either on its own or with Kōmeitō, for almost all of the time since its 1955 founding. It long enjoyed credit for reconstructing Japan’s shattered post-Second World War economy and rebuilding international relationships through a strongly US-aligned foreign policy.

But its dominance has crumbled under economic stagnation and corruption scandals. The LDP lost its lower house majority in a snap October 2024 election, called by Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba after he assumed leadership following his predecessor’s scandal-forced resignation.

In November 2023, it was revealed that some US$4 million had been hidden in unreported and illegal slush funds linked to key party factions. This scandal followed the July 2022 assassination of former prime minister Shinzo Abe, whose killer harboured a grudge against the Unification Church, a religious movement widely considered a cult. The killing threw the spotlight on extensive links between the church and LDP.

Political crisis coincided with economic malaise. Inflation is rare in Japan, but in common with many other countries, food prices have spiked and pay hasn’t kept pace. The rice crisis, partly due by extreme weather impacts caused by climate change, provided the most potent symbol, affecting a staple food deeply embedded in national identity. The government reacted to high prices by releasing some of its reserve stock, but refused calls to cut the 10 per cent consumption tax, which Sanseitō wants to abolish.

Demographics and immigration fears

Underlying these economic problem lies Japan’s demographic challenge. An estimated 30 per cent of people are aged 65 or over, and around 10 per cent are 80-plus. The flipside is a low fertility rate: each woman is currently predicted to have 1.2 children, far below the 2.1 rate needed to maintain a stable population.

Japan’s demographics threaten to undermine its economic base, since there may not be enough taxpayers to fund social security spending. A previously reluctant government has been forced to ease tight immigration controls and bring in more working-age people. Foreign-born residents now comprise around three per cent of Japan’s population, a small proportion for most global north economies but a highly visible change in a previously broadly homogenous society.

Sanseitō has weaponised this demographic shift, unleashing xenophobic rhetoric to tap into anxieties about cultural change, blaming foreigners for domestic problems. Anxiety about the birthrate has also provided ample ground to scapegoat feminism and LGBTQI+ rights movements.

Political disengagement and generational divides

The political establishment’s failure to connect with younger generations also created a dangerous vulnerability. Research in 2024 showed that only a third of voters were satisfied with the way Japan’s democracy currently works, and over half didn’t identify with any political party. Disaffection is widest among young people, exacerbated by the reality that politicians are typically a generation or two older.

The swing towards Sanseitō suggests that at least some disenchanted with established politics found something to vote for. The party draws support particularly from young people, and especially young men. It’s aided by having a much stronger social media presence than established parties, with around 500,000 YouTube followers compared to the LDP’s 140,000.

In many countries, it was once a safe assumption that young people were more progressive than older generations, but increasingly that no longer holds. In economies where young people are struggling, anything that looks new and promises to break with failed establishment politics, even when extremist, can be appealing.

Instability and polarisation ahead

Sanseitō says it doesn’t want to work with any established party and, as has been seen in other countries, may use its parliamentary presence to mount stunts and court publicity. Its support is unlikely to have peaked, and even though it doesn’t have power, it can expect influence: once far-right rhetoric moves from into the mainstream, it seeps into and shifts the broader political debate.

Japan’s rightward tilt could extend beyond Sanseitō. Unhappiness with the LDP saw another right-wing party, the Democratic Populist Party, pick up support. These shifts could cause the LDP to respond to its losses by taking a more nationalist and conservative tack, as associated with its former leader Abe.

Japan’s trajectory mirrors concerning patterns across global north democracies such as France, Germany, Italy and Portugal, where right-wing populist parties have gained profile by provoking outrage, sowing division and targeting excluded groups, alongside the civil society that defends their rights.

This all suggests danger for Japan’s excluded groups and civil society. As Japan steps along this troubling path, its civil society needs to be ready to make the case for human rights. What began as a rice crisis has evolved into a test of whether Japan’s democratic institutions, including its civil society, can withstand a gathering populist storm.

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

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

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, Aug 2 2025 (IPS)

Successive United States governments have prided themselves on being governed by the Constitution of 1788. The First Amendment introduced in 1791 lays the foundations for secularism, respect for fundamental freedoms, and the right to seek redress of grievances.

Notably, presidential administrations since the Second World War and through the Cold War and even during the so-called ‘War on Terror’ have sought to model the United States as a beacon of democracy. They positioned the Constitution of the United States as a revered document that guarantees civic freedoms which enable people to come together freely, publicly express themselves, and organise to take action to advance their issues.

But today, that image is unravelling. The United States is on the CIVICUS Monitor July 2025 Watchlist along-with Kenya, El Salvador, Indonesia, Serbia, and Turkey. None of these countries are considered bastions of democracy. The CIVICUS Monitor is a civil society research collaboration that measures civic freedoms around the world. The reasons for including the United States in this list are as troubling as they are undeniable.

Protests Confronted with Military Might

The First Amendment guarantees the right of the people to assemble peaceably. Yet in June this year, President Trump personally threatened protestors and ordered the deployment of 700 Marines and 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles. This was a blatant intimidation tactic to keep people from coming to the streets to protest violent and arbitrary implementation of immigration regulations by his administration.

Although, there were a few isolated incidents of violence during the demonstrations, most of the protests were peaceful. The actions of the Trump administration went against the advice of California’s Governor. Sending military personnel into city streets to silence dissent is a common tactic employed by despots. It’s something that takes place in authoritarian states ruled by dictators not celebrated democracies.

The administration has also violated due process rights of foreign-born student protest leaders and advocates speaking out for the realisation of fundamental freedoms and dignity of the Palestinian people in the face of Israeli occupation. Prominent cases include those of Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi and Rumeysa Ozturk.

Press Freedom in Peril

The First Amendment also protects freedom of speech and of the press. American presidents however powerful have generally respected the role of the media to hold them accountable.

Today, journalists representing independent media outlets are routinely insulted and subjected to derogatory language by the White House press corps, the President and senior officials. Journalists covering protests have faced rubber bullets, arbitrary arrests, and legal intimidation. Salvadoran journalist, Mario Guevara, a legal resident of the United States was detained while livestreaming a peaceful protest. He was then arbitrarily transferred to immigration enforcement custody.

Meanwhile, the Trump Administration’s signature ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ slashed $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This effectively defunds PBS, NPR, and independent local stations committed to non-partisan fact-based reporting. President Trump is also using lawsuits against media houses and entering into questionable settlements to silence criticism. These actions are not isolated; they’re part of a systematic effort to prevent media scrutiny and deny people the ability to form opinions based on truthful journalism.

Civil Society in the Crosshairs

The Constitution doesn’t specially mention nonprofits, but the US Supreme Court has declared that First Amendment rights enshrine freedom of association. That right is being eroded in insidious ways which are unprecedented in modern American history. Through the ages, non-profits have been an essential part of associational life in the United States. The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” slashes billions in nonprofit funding over the next decade. The law guts support that civil society organisations render to some of the most excluded people and communities in the country.

The rapid dismantling of USAID democracy support programs around the world have strengthened the hands of authoritarian governments vehemently opposed to civil society groups that speak truth to power or uncover high level corruption. Robust civil society organisations are an essential component of democracy.

Democracy in Decline

The United States is currently rated as “narrowed” on the CIVICUS Monitor’s rating scale. It’s a designation for countries where civic freedoms exist in theory but aren’t fully upheld in practice. The loss of civility in public life, extreme political polarisation, military response to protests, attacks on journalism, and defunding of civil society are not just policy choices; they are breaches of well-established constitutional premises and the very promise of American democracy. These actions mock the sacrifices of revolutionaries, suffragettes, civil rights activists and civic minded individuals who laid the foundations for American democracy.

To be clear, today, the license to exercise civic freedoms remains uneven. While critics of the administration are being put under pressure, groups aligned to the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement are having a free run. On its first day in office, the Trump Administration pardoned over 1500 violent protestors who were part of a mob that attacked police officers and sought to intimidate Members of Congress. They were convicted by the courts for storming the House of People in January 2021 with the aim of disrupting the peaceful transfer of power, which is the most American of traditions.

Picking who gets to exercise their constitutional rights does not behove a responsible administration. It erodes the very foundations of justice. The Constitution of the United States is a living document meant to safeguard the rights of all people, not just those close to power. When a government treats peaceful protest as rebellion, journalism as subversion, and civil society as a threat, it forfeits its claim to democratic leadership. The world is watching in dismay. And so are we.

Mandeep S. Tiwana is Secretary General of global civil society alliance, CIVICUS.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Uganda's Malaba town borders Kenya to the east and is a major entry point for goods destined for landlocked Uganda, Rwanda, and South Sudan from Kenya's Mombasa Port. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

By Joyce Chimbi
NAIROBI, Aug 1 2025 (IPS)

Landlocked developing countries face a unique set of challenges. Without coastal ports, they rely on transit nations, causing higher trade costs and delays.

To explore solutions to these complex hurdles, the Third UN Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs) or LLDC3, will take place in Awaza, Turkmenistan, 5–8 August 2025.

May Yaacoub, LLDC3 spokesperson and head of Advocacy and Outreach at the United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and the Small Island Developing States (UNOHRLLS), told IPS that the conference is “an opportunity to unlock the full potential of landlocked countries and address the challenges faced by some of the world’s most marginalized countries.”

“In every LLDC the map itself shapes the economy. Without a coastline, even the simplest export, whether cotton lint, copper cathode or cloud?based software, must first cross at least one foreign border and frequently an entire transit corridor before it reaches a port,” Tomás Manuel González álvarez, Senior Programme Management Officer and LLDC Team Lead at UNOHRLLS told IPS.

“The UN estimates that this physical detour means average transport costs in LLDCs are about 1.4?times higher than in comparable coastal economies. Those added costs depress profit margins, narrow the range of viable products and deter investors who value just?in?time delivery.”

Against this backdrop and while lacking direct sea access causes and exacerbates hurdles in trade, connectivity, and development, Yaacoub says LLDCs host vibrant communities with untapped potential and that these countries “have the ideas and know what they need to prosper. By supporting them at LLDC3 with partnerships, innovations and cooperation, we can help to build a more equitable and prosperous future for all.”

“This conference comes at the heels of the expiration of the Vienna Programme of Actions, which was adopted in Vienna, Austria, in November 2014, during LLDC2. LLDC3 will continue the work of LLDC2 and serve as a platform to explore innovative solutions, build meaningful and strategic partnerships, and increase the investment in LLDCs,” she observed.

The theme of the conference is ‘Driving Progress through Partnerships’, which she says underscores a shift from donor-recipient dynamics to mutual accountability and co-investment. And, that this includes a stronger role for transit countries, enhanced multilateral cooperation, and alignment with the SDGs, Paris Agreement and the Pact of the Future.

álvarez emphasizes that this key, landlockedness, is experienced very differently and that the conference agenda reflects an understanding of these complexities. In Africa, “for countries such as Niger or Zambia, the critical pain point is the sheer length and fragility of overland routes—1,800 km from Niamey to Cotonou; 1,900?km from Lusaka to Durban.”

“Road and rail bottlenecks meet frequent customs stops and, in parts of the Sahel, insecurity. The result is chronic delays and freight rates that can exceed the f.o.b. (a term that defines who pays for the transportation costs) value of low?margin agricultural commodities.”

He says in Asia, Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan possess better road and rail grids yet face. At the same time, these economies are accelerating an energy transition, moving from hydrocarbons to renewables and green hydrogen so they now need corridors that can carry high?voltage electricity and fiber as well as bulk ore.

“Bolivia and Paraguay rely on the 3,300?km Paraguay–Paraná waterway for almost four?fifths of their trade. Low river levels during recent droughts have stranded barges and cost Paraguay an estimated?USD?300?million in 2024 alone. Moreover, new tolls levied by Argentina highlight the vulnerability that comes with dependence on a single transit state,” he says.

Within this context, Yaacoub says LLDC3 represents a major change in both scope and ambition compared to its predecessors—LLDC1 held in Almaty in 2003, which was a ministerial meeting, and LLDC2 in Vienna in 2014. The first conference of this nature, or LLDC1 focused primarily on transit policy, infrastructure development, international trade, and technical and financial assistance.

LLDC2 expanded to include structural economic transformation, regional integration, and means of implementation. Notably, she says, LLDC3 “introduces a more holistic and forward-looking agenda, emphasizing climate resilience and adaptation, digital transformation and technology access, sustainable industrialization, reforming the global financial architecture, shock-resilience and disaster risk reduction.”

Yaacoub says the LLDC3 agenda reflects the unprecedented global complexities of the current era—climate change, pandemics, geopolitical tensions, and economic shocks. Key thematic areas include climate vulnerability and financing, with an emphasis on operationalizing the Loss and Damage Fund, doubling adaptation finance, and ensuring access to concessional resources.

álvarez says the conference is particularly focused on converting the narrative from landlocked to land?linked and that unlocking these countries potential relies on a strategy built on mutually reinforcing pillars that include “how Multibillion?dollar investments in regional corridors, the Central and Northern Corridors in East Africa, the Trans?Caspian route into Europe, and new dry?ports on the Paraguay?Paraná system can cut door?to?port time by 30?percent within the decade.”

He says building climate resilience is critical due to a “heavy reliance of LLDCs on agriculture, especially rain-fed agriculture, as a primary source of income, employment, and sustenance. Climate variability has already begun to disrupt agricultural cycles, reduce crop yields, and threaten food security. These effects ripple across rural economies, deepening poverty and forcing difficult choices for households.”

álvarez says these issues are critical, as the same remoteness that inflates freight costs also hampers relief when drought, flood or storm strikes. Many LLDCs suffer disproportionately from climate?related disasters because they lack redundant road and telecom links, and that “as extreme weather intensifies, production shocks travel quickly through thinly diversified economies and can wipe out years of growth.”

Overall, he says, “collectively these headwinds jeopardize progress on at least six Sustainable Development Goals—most visibly Goals 1 (No Poverty), 9 (Industry and Infrastructure) and 13 (Climate Action). Unless structural constraints are eased, many LLDCs risk missing the 2030 milestones by a full generation.”

álvarez says the “developmental drag created by geography is not merely inconvenient; it is systemic.”

Stressing that high logistics costs shrink the set of competitive exports and that “many LLDCs remain reliant on two or three unprocessed commodities, leaving them vulnerable to price swings and limiting the spill?overs that normally accompany industrial clustering.”

He says limited fiscal space means that governments struggle to finance education, health and social protection at scale. LLDCs as a group record poverty rates 50–60?percent higher than the global developing?country average and score lower on the World Bank’s human?capital index, 0.36 versus 0.48 in 2024.

Yaacoub confirms that all these issues will be explored in depth across key thematic areas that also include the private sector, civil society and youth engagement to foster inclusive partnerships and South-South and Triangular Cooperation with an emphasis on regional and interregional collaboration.

“This inclusive process ensures that the new?Awaza Programme of Action?is grounded in the lived realities of LLDCs and their partners,” she observes.

After all is said and done, Yaacoub says the most?desirable outcome?from the?Third UN Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries?would be the global endorsement and operationalization of the Awaza Programme of Action, which is a?transformative and actionable framework?that empowers LLDCs to overcome their structural challenges and thrive in a rapidly evolving global landscape.

Stressing that LLDC3 will serve as “a high-level platform to present, promote, and mobilize support for the implementation of the Awaza PoA that was adopted in December 2024. The second outcome would be the mobilization of resources and investment commitments from development partners to support infrastructure, climate resilience, and digital transformation.”

Ultimately, she is optimistic that the conference will lead to strengthened partnerships and regional cooperation to renew and expand transit agreements and regional integration initiatives, including enhanced South-South and Triangular Cooperation frameworks and commitments to multilateral collaboration aligned with the SDGs, the Paris Agreement and the pact of the Future.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
??

Credit: CAPAIDS Uganda

By Naomi Ayot Oyaro and Tais Siqueira
KAMPALA Uganda / SORIA Spain, Jul 31 2025 (IPS)

In Uganda, local communities are routinely sidelined in development processes, despite knowing most about their own needs. When a Moroto District officer remarked, ‘This is the first time local leaders were truly heard’, it offered a powerful reminder of what so often goes wrong: development fails when communities are excluded.

At CAPAIDS, in partnership with CIVICUS, we have had the opportunity to engage local actors countrywide to undertake collective analyses of what is going well and not so well in development, and articulate key asks. Under the initial phase of our project, we organised intentional and safe spaces for over 200 local and national actors and local government representatives in all seven regions of Uganda.

Following these conversations, it’s time for us to reflect.

Challenges to locally led development

Our discussions took place in a landscape where current development approaches favour global north actors and large national organisations, often at the expense of local communities. Like their counterparts across the country, people from Western Uganda shared their experiences of historical exclusion and expressed hope for more meaningful opportunities to engage in shaping locally led development.

In most cases, local actors lack direct access to donors and instead interact with intermediaries, who they often perceive as donors. During consultations, they raised concerns about potential exploitation by intermediaries and national actors based in the capital. A key issue highlighted was that they may be included in co-design processes for funding proposals, only to find themselves excluded from implementation.

Participants also identified activity budget-based partnerships as exploitative. In these arrangements, intermediaries or international non-government organisations (INGOs) contract local actors on a strictly activity-based funding model, where funds are released per activity and reports are required for each task, without providing overhead funding for local organisations. As a result, local actors effectively become project officers rather than genuine development partners. This approach, while common, does little to foster the growth of local organisations and instead reduces them to mere budget disbursement channels, ultimately limiting their sustainability and independence. For example, several organisations reported being involved in large-scale donor-funded projects but being unable to cover their operational costs, making long-term impact and institutional growth almost impossible.

Additionally, consultations revealed the existence of numerous sub-national civil society and human rights networks that remain underutilised. To prevent siloed approaches, development actors should work through these established networks instead of bypassing them. However, intermediaries and INGOs frequently overlook these networks and instead directly select local partners, reinforcing fragmentation. The exclusion of diverse civil society voices and the absence of mechanisms to build geographical and thematic synergy among organisations are clear shortfalls of the current aid ecosystem. It’s essential these challenges are addressed to help build a meaningful and transformative locally led development framework.

People in Southwestern Uganda identified key barriers to locally led development, with limited funding (identified by 40 per cent) the most significant challenge, as restrictive donor conditions and a lack of direct funding hinder sustainability. Constrained civic space (20 per cent) further limits operations due to government-imposed restrictions. Capacity gaps (15 per cent) limit the ability of local civil society organisations (CSOs), including grassroots bodies, to engage effectively in donor planning and project implementation. Regulatory and compliance issues (15 per cent) create bureaucratic hurdles, making it difficult for local CSOs to operate. Competition from international organisations registered as local CSOs (10 per cent) reduces funding opportunities, while poor donor-local CSO relationships exacerbate the issue. Meanwhile top-down planning (5 per cent) results in interventions that fail to address local needs due to limited community input. These are important challenges to address.

From local to global

The challenges in Uganda aren’t isolated ones. Across the globe, local actors face similar systematic struggles in accessing funding, engaging in decision-making and leading solutions-building.

The global development ecosystem is increasingly recognising the need for change. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recommendation on enabling civil society (2021) and Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation have said as much, while recently and despite major cutbacks, the Dutch government stated that it will continue ‘providing aid to people in crisis situations via local aid organisations, as they are able to respond swiftly and effectively in crises’, highlighting a growing awareness that development must be led by those closest to the issues.

There’s been a surge in commitments from funders to support locally led development. Initiatives such as the Grand Bargain 3.0 and Donor Statement on Locally Led Development, albeit championed by the now-extinguished USAID, have set ambitious goals to support local actors. However, these pledges aren’t always leading to tangible actions. A study by Publish What You Fund reveals that four out of five OECD donors lack clear locally led development strategies, definitions, or measurable targets, hindering accountability and progress.

To truly advance locally led development, there must be a systemic change – in Uganda, and globally. Funders and policymakers must intentionally ensure meaningful participation by local actors in decision-making spaces, integrate locally led development into democracy support frameworks and provide accessible, flexible and high-quality funding that allows communities to define their own priorities. Transparency and accountability are also essential: progress must be assessed collectively with local actors to ensure commitments translate into tangible and meaningful change.

Local communities engaged in change across Uganda made eight recommendations to move from pledges to tangible solutions and actions:

1. Enable full participation, co-leadership and leadership of local communities in coordination mechanisms and programming and policy spaces. This includes the inclusion of local actors and communities in processes on locally led development to build synergy and alignment on key terminology and processes. Community-centred development approaches must be preferred over external expert models.

2. Prioritise radical inclusion. Funding should be directed toward excluded groups, including people with disabilities, women-led organisations and other marginalised communities.

3. Utilise existing local platforms. Donors and INGOs should work through local networks rather than creating parallel structures.

4. Invest inclusively in organisational capacity strengthening, recognising the diversity of civil society. Capacity must be co-developed with local communities based on their contexts and needs, to ensure it brings agency, autonomy, growth and development for local civil society, contributing to sustainability and synergy. Avoid project-based interventions.

5. Advocate for policy shifts. The government of Uganda should focus on policy review and changes to enable locally led initiatives to thrive, including by funding local actors, coalitions and networks.

6. Ensure transparency and accountability. Donors and intermediaries must be held accountable to help promote quantity, quality and data transparency of local funding.

7. Share risks. Development partnerships must be designed so risk is shared among partners, including donors and national and local actors. Risks should not be transferred to the local level.

8. Practise zero tolerance for corruption and resource grabbing. Transparent mechanisms of accountability should be developed in co-creation with local actors, and any abusers of the system must be held to account. Local actors in Uganda presented a case where they exposed potential fraud and instead of proper investigations being done the partnership was terminated.

Championing local actors to be the driving force in their own progress is the way forward, not just in Uganda, but everywhere the path is clear: shift power, resources and trust to local leaders. The question for funders should no longer why, but how fast?

Naomi Ayot Oyaro is Executive Director of CAPAIDS Uganda. Taís Siqueira is Local Leadership Lab Coordinator at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation. CAPAIDS Uganda is in partnership with CIVICUS on the Local Leadership Labs Project as the National Convening Partner in Uganda.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Leaders, policymakers, and partners unite at Africa Day 2025. Credit: Shreya Komar/IPS

By Shreya Komar
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 30 2025 (IPS)

Africa is making progress on over two-thirds of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), but the pace remains far too slow to meet the 2030 targets, especially in areas like decent employment, gender equality, and access to social protection.

This was the central warning of the newly released Africa Sustainable Development Report (ASDR), launched during the 2025 Africa Day session at the UN’s High-Level Political Forum.

The report, which tracks alignment between the African Union’s Agenda 2063 and the UN’s 2030 Agenda, offers a sobering yet actionable picture: Africa’s development efforts are gaining traction, but deep structural barriers, ranging from inadequate financing and data gaps to high youth unemployment and gender-based exclusion, continue to stall momentum.

Despite being home to several of the world’s fastest-growing economies, the continent faces an annual sustainable development financing gap of up to USD 762 billion, according to the report. Social protection coverage remains alarmingly low, with only 19 percent of vulnerable populations benefiting from any form of safety net. Public investment in social protection across most African countries is below 3 percent of GDP, significantly under the global average.

“The current pace of progress is insufficient to achieve the SDGs by 2030,” the report warns, prompting leaders to explore actionable strategies for scaling up inclusive growth, regional integration, and institutional capacity building across the continent.

Health outcomes have improved in areas like life expectancy and disease control, but maternal mortality and unequal access to care persist. Gender equality remains constrained by legal barriers, high rates of violence, and the burden of unpaid care work.

On SDG 8, the continent struggles with low productivity, informality, and youth unemployment, emphasizing the need for inclusive job creation and economic transformation. While the continent has seen some recovery in sectors like tourism, key indicators such as GDP growth per capita (down from 2.7 percent in 2021 to 0.7 percent in 2023) and youth employment remain weak. Over 23 percent of African youth are not in education, employment, or training (NEET), with women disproportionately affected. Despite its potential, tourism contributed just 6.8 percent to GDP in 2023.

Economic shocks, climate change, and geopolitical instability continue to undermine job creation and sustainable growth. The report calls for data-driven strategies, innovative financing, and integrated policies to bridge development gaps and build resilient, equitable systems aligned with both global and continental agendas.

“It is not enough to just create jobs, but we must ensure safe working conditions,” said H.E. Amb. Selma Malika Haddadi, Deputy Chairperson of the African Union Commission.

UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed acknowledged the uneven starting point for African countries, stating, “too often, Africa isn’t at the table where decisions are made but is the first to feel the impact.” She added, “Our young people deserve more than we give them,” highlighting the pressing need for inclusive investment in youth education.

Central to the discussion was the need to mobilize greater technical and financial support, scale up climate financing, tackle illicit financial flows, and reduce social and economic inequalities. Participants emphasized stronger partnerships (SDG 17), inclusive social protection systems, and youth- and women-led innovation as key enablers for transformational change. The launch of the ASDR marked a major milestone, offering data-driven insights to support national strategies.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
??

 
CIVICUS speaks with Matthew Renshaw, a partner at a UK law firm that represents Nigerian communities taking legal action against Shell over environmental damage caused by its operations in the Niger Delta.

Matthew Renshaw

How has oil pollution affected these communities?

Each of the three communities we represent in the Niger Delta have been affected by Shell’s operations in different ways.

The Bodo community endured two major oil spills from Shell pipelines in 2008 that released over half a million barrels of oil, causing the largest devastation of mangrove habitat in history. Families who once depended on fishing can no longer provide for themselves. Even swimming in the waterways is dangerous due to oil contamination. Despite bringing the case before UK courts in 2011, the community is still demanding a proper cleanup that they say has never materialised.

As for the Bille and Ogale communities, they brought their cases against Shell in the UK in 2015. The Ogale community depends primarily on farming and fishing, but since the 1980s, Shell has recorded around 100 spills in and around the area that have resulted in serious contamination of the drinking water. The United Nations conducted tests in 2011 and declared a public health emergency, but very little was done in response. Shell briefly provided safe water to residents, but that ended years ago. With no alternative sources available, many people have been forced to use visibly polluted water to drink and bathe their children.

The Bille community lives on islands in a riverine area where residents depend heavily on fishing and harvesting shellfish. A major pipeline runs directly through the community, very close to where people live. Between 2011 and 2013, multiple oil spills from Shell destroyed mangrove habitats. As with the Bodo community, fishing has become impossible for many people, forcing some to abandon their homes and communities entirely.

Why sue in the UK rather than Nigeria?

The decision to sue Shell in the UK came from our clients. While Shell operates in Nigeria through a local subsidiary, the parent company is based in the UK and has profited immensely from its Niger Delta operations, so our clients view it as equally responsible for the pollution in their communities.

They also believe they can’t get justice in Nigeria. The Nigerian legal system is notoriously slow: cases can take decades to reach judgement due to automatic rights of appeal. Many people won’t live to see justice. Bringing this type of case before Nigerian courts is also prohibitively expensive, because it requires extensive expert evidence that’s inaccessible to most affected communities.

In contrast, UK funding mechanisms make it far more feasible for our clients to pursue justice. They also trust they’ll receive a fairer hearing in London. This approach has already shown results: in the Bodo case, Shell finally brought in international experts to attempt cleanup. International litigation generates meaningful outcomes that wouldn’t happen otherwise.

Even when Shell argued that the case should be heard in Nigeria, in 2021 the UK Supreme Court ruled that because Shell PLC may share responsibility with its subsidiary, the case could proceed in London.

How is Shell defending itself?

Shell claims that most Niger Delta pollution stems from oil theft by local criminals, commonly known as ‘bunkering’. According to Shell, these criminals steal oil from pipelines to sell directly or refine into fuel. The company insists its operations are clean and criminals are to blame, arguing it’s doing its best to stop theft and therefore shouldn’t be held responsible.

This defence is fundamentally flawed. While oil theft is certainly a significant problem in Nigeria, Shell’s claims are overstated. Numerous spills have nothing to do with theft. They’re caused simply by poorly maintained infrastructure and decades-old pipelines that are not fit for purpose. This stands in stark contrast to other countries where maintenance is taken far more seriously.

Even accepting Shell’s argument, our clients contend that Shell should have taken reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable theft. In other countries, pipelines are buried, fitted with detection systems and monitored closely to detect intrusion attempts or spills. Our clients contend that Shell has failed to implement these basic measures in the Niger Delta.

What did the recent court ruling say, and what do you hope to achieve?

The High Court sided with our position, ruling that if Shell failed to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm, it can be liable for pollution caused by bunkering. Significantly, the court also rejected Shell’s claims that it couldn’t be held liable for spills older than five years, ruling that if a spill has still not been cleaned up – even if it happened decades ago – the company can still be held accountable.

This ruling has far-reaching implications. It’s particularly significant for the Ogale case where pollution dates back to the 1980s, and it opens the door for many other Niger Delta communities affected by legacy spills dating to the 1970s or earlier. Beyond Nigeria, the ruling sends a warning to multinational companies attempting to divest from polluting operations without accepting responsibility for the damage left behind.

Our clients seek three main outcomes from the 2027 trial: proper cleanup and environmental remediation of their polluted lands, emergency provisions such as access to clean drinking water and compensation for lost livelihoods and damaged property.

A pressing concern is Shell’s recent divestment from its onshore operations in Nigeria. The company has sold its assets to a consortium and is attempting to walk away from decades of pollution. While the communities we represent have at least secured court proceedings, many others have been left behind with no cleanup and no accountability.

We’re determined to prevent Shell and other multinational companies from abandoning polluted sites without taking responsibility. Success in holding Shell accountable, including for decades-old spills, could establish crucial legal precedents. Legally, it would confirm that companies remain responsible for long-term environmental damage. Morally, it’s about basic fairness: after decades of extracting resources and making huge profits, companies shouldn’t be allowed to leave behind a toxic legacy.

While our case won’t create internationally binding precedents, it could significantly influence how similar claims are litigated in other countries, particularly in common law jurisdictions.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Twitter
YouTube

SEE ALSO
Business and Human Rights Treaty: a decade of struggle for corporate accountability CIVICUS Lens 08.Mar.2025
Chiquita verdict offers hope for corporate accountability CIVICUS Lens 29.Jul.2024
Peru’s oil spill raises corporate accountability questions CIVICUS Lens 01.Apr.2022

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Elders Advisory Group - Juan Manuel Santos, Zeid Ra'ad Al-Hussein, and Mary Robinson. Credit: Naureen Hossain/IPS

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 29 2025 (IPS)

Dignitaries across the international community have convened in New York to promote the two-State Solution – the coexistence of Israel and Palestine as sovereign states – as the only path forward to shared sustainable peace in the Middle East. Former and current leaders from 145 countries and independent groups will speak at the United Nations to demonstrate their ‘near-universal support’ and discuss the steps that need to be taken to achieve it.

The UN high-level conference on the two-state solution, which is co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, is taking place at UN Headquarters from 28-30 July. The conference includes thematic discussions on issues relating to regional security and the reconstruction of Gaza and statements from member states and regional stakeholders.

There is a shared spirit of cooperation and consensus from the participating member states to move forward with the two-state solution, according to representatives of The Elders. Founded by Nelson Mandela in 2007, The Elders are an independent advisory group of global leaders working towards peace, justice and a sustainable future.

Members from the group, including its current chair and former president of Colombia Juan Manuel Santos, spoke to the press on Monday afternoon on this “interesting and exceptional moment for the UN, for the Middle East, for the world,” as Santos remarked.

“The position that The Elders have taken has, in a way, generated some kind of reaction, especially from the [present] Israeli government. That has made our task a bit more difficult, but we persevere,” said Santos. “My own experience is that every conflict sooner or later has a resolution.” He further noted that the “circumstances may be right” to negotiate the two-state solution in light of the urgency of the “humanitarian tragedy” unfolding in Gaza and expressed his hope that this would “facilitate a process” for long-term peace and stability in the Middle East.

“It’s a moment built on when we can hopefully see a real commitment to the two-state solution in practical, real terms,” said Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland and former chair of The Elders. Robinson noted the opportunity this would present going into the UN General Assembly in September.

At present, more than 59,000 deaths have been reported in Gaza since October 2023. In recent weeks, reports from the UN and humanitarian aid partners have warned of mass starvation and acute malnutrition in Gaza, where at least 74 people have died due to malnutrition and one in five children under the age of five are acutely malnourished, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

Within Israel and Palestine, there are also advocates for the two-state solution, and they already have their own approach to this, according to Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. He referred to one initiative led by Israeli and Palestinian advocates calling for a “Two States, One Homeland” framework, which includes an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian states, careful negotiation over territorial adjustments instead, and the freedom of movement and residence for all Israelis and Palestinians.

“I think the very strength of it is that it is being driven by Israelis and Palestinians themselves, activists and lawyers,” said Al-Hussein. “We thought that it’s important that the conference understand the creative thinking that’s going on outside the UN.”

“We want to see a two-state solution as an end goal but understand it in practical terms of how to actually take place, so we gave expression to that.”

Both Israel and the United States have boycotted the conference, citing reasons relating to the ongoing hostage situation in Gaza and ceasefire negotiations stalling due to Hamas’ refusal to cooperate.

There was significant pressure to finally move forward on this matter. “You know, there is a real sense of urgency,” Robinson said regarding the international community’s response. “And I think that can’t be ignored, even by a powerful United States supporting Israel, the current Israeli government. And of course, they particularly can’t ignore the widespread sense now of an unfolding genocide.”

Robinson further suggested that the U.S. could exert its influence over Israel to pull back from the war and end the mass starvation campaign, which runs the risk of straining relations between the historic allies if Israel does not listen to the U.S.’s demands, and the “realization that the U.S. is becoming complicit in a genocide.”

Apart from the U.S., other players in the geopolitical landscape, notably members of the European Union (EU), could take clear measures to halt the fighting. Robinson reported that countries responsible for arms transfers, such as the United Kingdom and France, could halt their operations and prevent them from getting into the hands of Hamas or Israeli military forces. Further sanctions could be imposed on Israeli leaders responsible for the “systemic violations” and illegal settlements, as well as a review of their trade agreements with Israel.

Hamas’ involvement in negotiations has also been a point of debate, with France calling for their demilitarization. Santos said that the “cause that moved Hamas” could become “obsolete” once an agreement is reached. He further remarked that Hamas would need to “evolve” into a force that could participate in the Palestinian structure and would allow them to be part of the solution without being a “spoiler or disruptive force.”

Santos also remarked, “Hamas is more of a cause. For every militant that is killed, two more are born.”

In reference to the “strategic mistake” Israel made in declaring its intention to destroy the group. In their efforts to do so and project a certain image, the war in Gaza that has raged on for nearly two years will likely cost Israel and its standing with its own people, the international Jewish community, and even the United States. This could pressure Israel into joining negotiations.

Further support for the two-state solution could also be cemented as more countries recognize the state of Palestine. Prior to the conference, President Emmanuel Macron announced that France would officially recognize the state of Palestine in September during the UN General Assembly. This is significant because, as Robinson noted, it is the first member of the Group of 7 to recognize Palestinian statehood. This has the potential to “create much more momentum” should other EU members make the same move.

The Elders were consistent in their hope for the enthusiasm and global consensus for the two-state solution displayed so far during this conference. How far these negotiations can proceed after this week would also be dependent on the willing participation of all parties and states. In this case, the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza underpins this conference with a sense of urgency to take action sooner rather than later, however unlikely it seems under the current circumstances.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
??

Activists march in the street of Goma, in the Democratic Republic of Congo to demand climate justice and an end to oil exploration in the Virunga National Park. Credit: MNKF Creatives

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINAGAR, India & KINSHASA, DRC, Jul 29 2025 (IPS)

The?Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)?stands on the precipice of a profound environmental and social crisis, as the government prepares to auction 55 new oil blocks that cover more than half the country’s landmass.

Touted as a pathway to economic growth, the move has triggered fierce backlash from scientists, civil society groups, Indigenous leaders, and international conservationists, who warn that the proposed fossil fuel expansion threatens some of the most ecologically and culturally significant landscapes on Earth.

According to a new report by Earth Insight and its partners, titled?“Forests to Frontlines: Oil Expansion Threats in the DRC,”?the 2025 licensing round—covering a staggering 124 million hectares—poses catastrophic risks to biodiversity, climate stability, Indigenous rights, and global environmental commitments.

The DRC is home to the world’s second-largest rainforest and the largest tropical peatland complex, known as the Cuvette Centrale. These ecosystems are not just national treasures—they are global climate regulators, storing billions of tonnes of carbon and sustaining rainfall patterns across Africa. But with 66.8 million hectares of intact forest—64% of the country’s remaining wilderness—now within the new oil block boundaries, experts fear the irreversible collapse of one of Earth’s last ecological strongholds.

“The Congo Basin is nearing an ecological tipping point. Further fragmentation could flip its forests from carbon sinks to carbon sources, triggering climate feedback loops with devastating planetary consequences,” the report warns.

Oil Blocks vs. Protected Areas

While the DRC government claims to have spared high-profile protected zones like?Virunga National Park?from direct overlap with oil blocks, the report reveals that this is a smokescreen. Roughly 8.3 million hectares of protected areas and 8.6 million hectares of Key Biodiversity Areas are still overlapped by the new blocks.

What’s more, even oil blocks positioned just outside protected zones can cause significant harm. Road construction, pipeline development, and increased human encroachment lead to deforestation, habitat fragmentation, and growing tensions between local communities and conservation authorities.

The report underscores that environmental protection on paper means little if the surrounding buffer zones are sacrificed to industrial expansion.

The Green Corridor Betrayed

In January 2025, the DRC government declared the establishment of the?Kivu–Kinshasa Green Corridor, an ambitious conservation initiative spanning 540,000 km2—an area the size of France. It was praised as a groundbreaking step toward landscape-scale conservation and sustainable development.

Just months later, however, 72% of this same corridor has been overlapped by newly designated oil blocks.

“The overlap between oil blocks and the Green Corridor undermines the very ecosystems the project was designed to protect. This is a betrayal of community rights, climate action, and biodiversity promises,” Emmanuel Musuyu, Executive Director of CORAP said.

Moreover, local communities whose lands fall within the corridor were not properly consulted. Now, they face the double threat of exclusion under conservation frameworks and degradation from extractive industry—without benefiting from either.

Peatlands in Peril

Perhaps the most dire warning in the report concerns the?Cuvette Centrale, the largest tropical peatland on Earth. This region stores an estimated 30 gigatons of carbon—roughly equivalent to global emissions over three years.

The new oil blocks span nearly the entire DRC portion of these peatlands, putting them at imminent risk of degradation. Activities such as drilling, road-building, and seismic testing could drain the wetlands, exposing carbon-rich peat to oxygen and unleashing vast quantities of CO? and methane into the atmosphere.

“Even small disturbances in peatlands can trigger runaway emissions. If degraded, they are almost impossible to restore within human timescales,” reads the report.

The Cuvette Centrale is a globally irreplaceable carbon sink. To drill there would not just be short-sighted—it would be a global catastrophe.

“Peatlands are extremely important ecosystems, and the Cuvette Centrale peatlands represent one of the largest terrestrial carbon sinks on the planet. More safeguards need to be established to ensure the integrity of this vital ecosystem is maintained and industrial activities are limited,” Tyson Miller, Executive Director for Earth Insight, who is also one of the report authors, told IPS News.

The Human Cost: 39 Million Lives at Risk

Beyond ecosystems, the oil expansion endangers people—millions of them. The report estimates that 39 million people, nearly half the DRC’s population, live within the newly auctioned oil blocks. These communities rely on forests, rivers, and lands for their survival, livelihoods, and cultural identity.

Especially vulnerable are community forests, legally recognised lands governed by local populations. As of mid-2025, over 4 million hectares of such forests exist—and 63% now fall within oil block boundaries.

These forests represent not just environmental assets but legal victories and instruments of self-determination. Their incursion by oil development violates both national laws and international protections, including the principle of?Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC).

Contrary to promises of economic upliftment, past oil projects have shown that wealth rarely trickles down to local communities. Instead, they inherit contaminated water, degraded lands, and shattered livelihoods.

“We estimated the number of people living within the boundaries of the newly proposed oil blocks using?2020?UN adjusted constrained population estimate raster data (100m resolution) from WorldPop, a research program based at the University of Southampton. This data uses remotely sensed data to estimate the number of people living in each pixel, which we in turn use to calculate the population under threat. Outdated and missing census data, especially in rural areas, require that we use modelled population datasets,”?Miller told IPS News.

Muanda: A Grim Glimpse of the Future

The coastal town of Muanda, home to the DRC’s only active oil operations, serves as a cautionary tale. Despite decades of extraction, Muanda remains among the country’s poorest regions. Locals suffer from polluted mangroves, shrinking fish stocks, and chronic illnesses—while oil revenues enrich foreign companies and Congolese elites.

“Muanda is the least developed oil town in the world. We breathe poisoned air, our natural livelihoods are gone, and there’s no health care to treat our illnesses,” said Alphonse Khonde, a resident.

The DRC now risks exporting this failed model across half its territory.

Civil Society Resists

Congolese civil society is not staying silent. In June 2025, a Week of Action saw protests, press briefings, and international advocacy from Kinshasa to London. At the forefront is the?Our Land Without Oil?coalition—a powerful alliance of grassroots organisations, Indigenous networks, and legal advocates.

Their message is resolute: “This government cannot claim to be a climate leader while auctioning off our forests and futures. We have a choice: dig our grave with oil or build a livable, dignified, and sovereign future,” said Pascal Mirindi, Campaign Coordinator.

The report also contains several urgent recommendations: cancel the 2025 oil licensing round and halt future hydrocarbon expansion; protect the Cuvette Centrale as a non-negotiable conservation priority; revoke oil blocks within the Green Corridor to honour its original vision; uphold Indigenous and community rights by ensuring free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) and legal land recognition; invest in low-carbon development, including renewables and sustainable mineral extraction; and align international finance with climate goals rather than fossil fuel interests.

The Road Ahead

As the world races to combat climate change, the DRC faces a critical decision. Will it become a model of green leadership or fall into the familiar trap of extractive exploitation? The stakes couldn’t be higher—not just for the Congolese people, but for the planet.

The Congo Basin’s fate is the Earth’s fate. What happens next in the DRC will echo for generations.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
??

A Sudanese mother and her child at a shelter in Tawila, North Darfur. Credit: UNICEF/Mohammed Jamal

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 28 2025 (IPS)

Earlier this month, Sudanese civilians began facing a considerable escalation of hostilities, with the most recent attacks from the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) claiming dozens of lives. Amid a rapidly growing scale of needs and an overwhelming lack of funding, the United Nations (UN) and its partners have struggled to deliver adequate amounts of humanitarian aid.

On July 23, the RSF coordinated an attack on the Brima Rashid area in West Kordofan State, with combatants entering on assault vehicles and indiscriminately firing at homes and a market. According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), this attack killed over 30 people and severely injured 40 others, with a significant amount of these casualties being women and young children.

“Medical sources say many of the wounded need urgent surgical care,” said Farhan Haq, the UN Deputy Spokesperson for the Secretary-General at a press briefing. “OCHA stresses that events in Brima Rashid underscore the growing risks facing civilians in the Kordofan region and the urgent need for a cessation of hostilities, protection of civilians, and safe, sustained access to humanitarian assistance and services.”

This is just the latest in a series of attacks that have marked a sharp rise in violence across the Kordofan and North Darfur regions. Between July 10 and 13, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) launched a series of attacks on North Kordofan’s Bara locality. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) estimates that these attacks resulted in 60 civilian deaths, while figures from independent civil society groups estimate up to 300 deaths.

Concurrently, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) launched a series of attacks on the Al Fula and Abu Zabad villages in West Kordofan State, including an airstrike on a school that was being used as a makeshift displacement shelter, killing over 20 people. On July 17, the SAF also targeted a family in an airstrike in Bara, killing at least 11 civilians. Additional attacks and civilian casualties were recorded in El Fasher and the Abu Shouk camp.

“An escalation of hostilities in North Darfur and Kordofan will only further aggravate the already severe risks to civilians and the dire humanitarian situation in a conflict that has already wrought untold suffering on the Sudanese people,” said the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk. “I urge those with influence to act to prevent such an escalation, and to ensure that both parties uphold their obligations under international law, including on the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure.”

According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), as of July 14 there have been over 3,400 internal displacements as a result of the recent attacks in North Kordofan. These numbers were further inflamed by a period of heavy rain and flooding from July 14 and 15, resulting in 400 additional displacements.

The majority of these displaced individuals are currently residing with host communities and face a dire lack of access to basic services, such as food, water, shelter, and healthcare. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) estimates that approximately 30 million people are in dire need of humanitarian assistance and protection, which is roughly half of Sudan’s population.

Conditions are particularly dire in the Tawila locality of North Darfur, which currently hosts over 560,000 internally displaced civilians. OCHA’s partners report that a significant amount of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) needs are not being met, as there is a critically low ratio of one latrine for every 150 people. Humanitarian experts have expressed concern due to the rising cases of cholera in Tawila. According to figures from Sudan’s Health Ministry, there have been over 1,300 cases of cholera and 18 related deaths recorded across 35 localities, with 519 of these cases being recorded in Tawila alone.

Additionally, Sudan’s hunger crisis has taken a considerable turn for the worse in recent weeks, with food prices having skyrocketed immensely. According to OCHA, South Darfur had been hit particularly hard, with flooding cutting off critical supply routes from Chad and the north of Sudan. Over the course of a month, the price of wheat has risen by 31 percent and the price of sugar has risen by 21 percent, pushing these essential items out of reach for thousands.

Figures from the World Food Programme (WFP) show that famine has been confirmed in 10 states across Sudan, with nearly half of the population facing extreme levels of hunger. OCHA projects that women are disproportionately impacted by the hunger crisis, with rates of food insecurity among female-headed households nearly doubling from 14 percent in 2024 to 26 percent in 2025.

The persistence of widespread hunger and disease across Sudan is a testament to Sudan’s fragile healthcare system. According to OCHA, heightened insecurity has resulted in the closures of over 32 health facilities in Sudan. The centers that are still functional face a critical shortage of essential supplies such as vaccines, medication, and surgical equipment. It is estimated that thousands lack access to life-saving care.

On July 25, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and IOM released a joint report that analyzed the conditions facing Sudanese refugees who had returned home after fleeing to Egypt and South Sudan. According to the report, roughly 320,000 refugees had returned to Sudan throughout the past year, with many struggling to access basic services .

“Without urgent action, people will be coming back to cities that are in ruins,” said Abdallah Al Dardari, Director of the Regional Bureau for Arab States in the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). “We are in a race against time to clear the rubble and provide water, power and healthcare.”

The report underscores the vast array of dangers that await Sudanese returnees, including the risk of injury or death from unexploded ordnance, high rates of gender-based and sexual violence toward women and girls, as well as a lack of psychosocial support services for traumatized individuals.

The UN and its partners remain hopeful that the current influx of returnees is an indication of stabilization in Sudan. “Those heading home are not passive survivors. They are vital to Sudan’s recovery,” said Othman Belbeisi, IOM Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa. “Yes, the humanitarian situation is dire, but with the right support, returnees can revive local economies, restore community life and foster hope where it’s needed most”.

Despite this, increased funding for humanitarian affairs and a sustainable end to hostilities is the only way to ensure lasting peace and stability in Sudan. The UN projects that approximately USD 4.2 billion dollars is needed to keep up aid operations in Sudan for the next year. However, only 23 percent of the required funds have been met, indicating that services may need to be scaled back next year.

“More than evidence of people’s desire to return to their homeland, these returns are a desperate call for an end to the war so that people can come back and rebuild their lives,” said Mamadou Dian Balde, UNHCR Regional Refugee Coordinator for the Sudan crisis, shortly after returning from Khartoum and Wadi Halfa at the border with Egypt. “Not only do they mark a hopeful but fragile shift, they also indicate already stretched host countries under increasing strain. We urge stronger international solidarity with the Sudanese people uprooted by this horrifying war and with the countries that have opened their doors to them.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A young girl washes her hands in a puddle near a UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the DRC. Photo Credit: UN Photo/Sylvain Liechti

By Juliana White
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 21 2025 (IPS)

Electric vehicles contribute to an ongoing environmental and humanitarian crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Mining operations cause deforestation, pollution, food insecurity and exploitative labor practices.

Advertisers paint electric vehicles as an environmentally friendly option to help save the planet. In the West, American states like California and New York incentivize citizens to go green and help their cities by ditching gas-powered vehicles.

California officials are trying to enact legislation to reach 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035. Across the country in New York, officials implemented the Drive Clean Rebate. Through this program, New Yorkers can receive up to 2,000 USD off the purchase or lease of an electric vehicle.

Governments are pushing for more electric vehicle sales because they are helping reduce the damage inflicted by fossil fuels. In the United States, emissions have reduced by around 66 percent. In China, a country dominating the electric vehicle production and sales market, emissions have been reduced by an estimated range of 37 percent to 45 percent.

However, consumers must understand that electric vehicles primarily benefit the environment in wealthier regions. Rising demands for electric vehicles and lithium-ion batteries foster destruction and exploitation in poorer countries like the DRC.

One of the key minerals used to make lithium-ion batteries is cobalt. The DRC is the world’s top producer of mined cobalt, at a staggering 75 percent. To fulfill high demands for the mineral, the DRC has become a hot spot overrun by industrial and artisanal small-scale mining operations.

“The surge in demand for lithium-ion batteries has dramatically increased global demand for cobalt, and DRC cobalt production is projected to double by 2030,” said the International Labor Organization (ILO) to IPS. “Because industrial mines can’t keep pace, this has encouraged expansion of artisanal and unregulated mining.”

Artisanal small-scale mines are poorly regulated, informal operations for extracting minerals. Located all over the DRC, these mines exploit child labor, use basic handheld tools, and disregard safety protocols.

“ASM can also lead to conflict as clashes take place between traditional licensed large-scale mining operations and ASM over access to minerals,” Dr. Lamfu Yengong, the Forest campaigner for Greenpeace Africa, told IPS. “While statistics on the actual number of ASM miners in SSA are hard to find, it is estimated that in the DRC alone, there are between 200,000 and 250,000 ASM miners who are responsible for mining as much as 25 percent?of the DRC’s cobalt.”

The growth of mining is also decimating the DRC’s environment. Mining sites need large areas of land to operate. As laborers dig, open pits form, releasing dust and other toxic chemicals into the air and polluting surrounding waterways.

Cobalt mines often contain sulfur minerals, which can create acid mine drainage. This process occurs when sulfur minerals are exposed to both air and water.

Sulfuric acid is incredibly harmful because it can make water unsafe for human consumption, kill aquatic life and produce algal blooms. Contact with the acid causes skin irritation and burns, and respiratory issues, and long-term exposure increases the risk of cancer.

Deforestation, erosion, contaminated soil and water sources, increased noise levels and dust and smoke emissions from mining pursuits disrupt the lives of Congolese locals and wildlife. Many are killed or forced to relocate as land, once prosperous for life, now nourishes profit-fueled exploits.

“Mining in the DRC is tearing through the heart of the Congo Basin, one of the world’s most important carbon sinks, leaving behind poisoned rivers, deforested landscapes, and devastated ecosystems,” Yengong said. “What once were lush forests are now scarred by unregulated extraction, threatening biodiversity, accelerating climate change, and robbing future generations of their environmental heritage.”

Despite having over 197 million acres of arable land, the DRC is one of the top-ranking areas of food insecurity globally. Over 25 million Congolese people suffer from a lack of access to food.

Mining endeavors only fuel the hunger crisis because contaminants in the soil and water make growing crops difficult. Forest resources also disappear as more land is cleared for new mines.

Alongside food insecurity impacted by pollution, agriculture efforts suffer from climate change. Weather patterns have drastically changed across the globe, making rain patterns unpredictable. A heavy reliance on rainfed agriculture and prolonged droughts in the DRC immensely impact food supplies.

One of the many camps in the DRC for people displaced by conflict and environmental devastation. Credit: UN Photo/Sylvain Liechti

The pursuit of minerals for lithium-ion batteries encourages mass destruction and egregious human rights violations in the DRC. But mining operations cannot simply stop to solve the problem. Many Congolese people rely on working in the mines to support their families.

Groups such as the ILO, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the World Food Programme (WFP) are actively working on sustainable solutions to stop further exploitation and harm to the DRC.

“To improve the health of workers in or near mine sites, the ILO is supporting the roll-out of the universal health insurance scheme (Couverture Santé Universelle—CSU), which aims to provide coverage for all individuals in DRC, including those working in the mining sector and their families,” the ILO said. “The benefit package will include a range of services such as general and specialist consultations, hospitalization, essential medicines and vaccines, medical procedures and exams, maternity and newborn care, palliative care, and patient transfers between facilities.”

The UNEP is forming plans focusing on minimizing the environmental impacts of mining. Working with the DRC’s government

“UNEP is working with the DRC’s government to develop a national plan for the extraction of minerals like cobalt. The plan would focus on minimizing the environmental impact of mining,” said Corey Pattison in a UNEP press release. “We are also exploring whether local and international institutions can help resolve conflict around mineral extraction, including through processes like revenue sharing and dispute resolution.”

The WFP is trying to ease the problem by investing in resilience programs. Activities are created to build skills in communities to improve long-term food security. Skill building includes educating farmers in post-harvest loss management, literacy, business and collective marketing.

They also work closely with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to limit negative environmental impacts. Reforestation initiatives are actively underway across the DRC. The WFP reported that 3,850 women in North and South Ubangi planted tree seedlings in 2022.

The crisis in the DRC should not mark the end of lithium batteries and electric vehicles. Scientists are working on new solutions for cleaner, more efficient power sources. Some new batteries in the works include sodium-ion batteries, silicon-carbon batteries, and lithium-sulfur batteries. Introducing more power sources could limit the overwhelming strain on resources in the DRC as the need for cobalt would reduce.

A report released by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) suggests that sustainable mining techniques and technologies are another tactic to reduce environmental impacts. However, significant change relies on the DRC’s government and its officials. They must enforce stricter mandates to mitigate the harm ravaging Congolese people’s lives.

The ILO says that Corporate Social Responsibility has been made mandatory through the 2018 mining code. Mining companies are required to invest .3 percent of their annual turnover into community development projects.

In turn, the mandate allows for easy tracking of mining companies’ income through transparency mechanisms like the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI).

While the DRC has enacted environmental regulations and is involved in additional support programs, its history of weak institutions and conflict challenges aid efforts. Rampant instability greatly limits the implementation and enforcement of policies.

“The world’s clean energy transition must not come at the cost of Congolese lives and forests. The critical minerals beneath the DRC fuel the global economy, yet the people above them remain among the poorest and most exploited,” said Yengong. “Real climate solutions must prioritize the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, end greenwashing, and ensure justice, not just extraction.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
??

 
CIVICUS discusses the military use of artificial intelligence (AI) in Gaza with Dima Samaro, a Palestinian lawyer and researcher, and director of Skyline International for Human Rights, a civil society organisation (CSO) that defends digital freedoms and human rights in the Middle East and North Africa. Dima serves on multiple boards focused on civic space and surveillance issues, including Innovation for Change’s MENA Hub, the Surveillance in the Majority World Network and the VUKA! Solidarity Coalition, and volunteers with Resilience Pathways to help Palestinian CSOs counter Israeli efforts to restrict civic space and manipulate public narratives.

Dima Samaro

What AI tools are being deployed in Gaza?

Israel is using experimental AI systems on an unprecedented scale in Gaza, making real-time life-or-death decisions against a besieged civilian population. The technology strips away humanity from warfare. In Nuseirat refugee camp, residents reported hearing the cries of infants and women before Israeli quadcopters opened fire directly on those who responded.

The surveillance apparatus is equally invasive. During forced evacuations from northern to southern Gaza, civilians undergo invasive facial recognition and biometric scans to pass military checkpoints. AI-equipped ‘smart cameras’ monitor hospitals such as Al-Shifa in real time during raids. Constant biometric scanning leaves people feeling hunted, reducing them to targets and inflicting deep psychological trauma.

The impacts extend beyond surveillance. In Jabalia refugee camp, explosive robots systematically destroy homes and kill civilians, blocking rescue efforts and burying survivors under rubble. United Nations (UN) experts describe these attacks as ‘domicide’ – the deliberate destruction of civilian homes.

Technology no longer just enables violence but also helps automate the genocide. Israel has integrated AI into its military kill chain, using systems such as The Gospel, Lavender and Where’s Daddy to generate kill lists, geolocate targets and assign strikes. Lavender alone reportedly marked over 37,000 Palestinians for assassination based on flawed metadata and biased algorithms. These systems eliminate human oversight, leading to mass civilian casualties under a secretive, unaccountable regime.

Most information about these technologies comes from Israeli whistleblowers and western investigative journalists. In Gaza, over 230 journalists have been killed since October 2023, many deliberately targeted in drone strikes. This has allowed experimental warfare to continue largely hidden from global scrutiny.

How do corporations profit from this technology?

A vast network of companies profits from Gaza’s suffering. Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms manufacturer, supplies 85 per cent of Israeli military drones and gear, marketing them as ‘field-tested’ in Gaza. European firms enable the violence: Italy’s Leonardo S.p.A. supplies naval guns with electronic targeting systems, while Greece’s Intracom Defense continues receiving European Union (EU) defence funding despite developing components for Israeli weapons systems.

US tech giants provide the digital infrastructure. Amazon, Google and Microsoft deliver cloud services that have allegedly helped confirm assassination strikes that have killed civilians. Amazon reportedly hosts intelligence on nearly every person in Gaza. Palantir expanded its contract with Israel in early 2024 to provide battlefield systems that identify and target Palestinians.

Most cynically, surveillance also masquerades as humanitarian aid. Firms such as UG Solutions, staffed by former US military personnel, use drones to scan Palestinians at aid distribution sites. This data feeds directly into targeting systems, transforming the search for food into potential death sentences. As of 13 July, the UN reported 875 Palestinians had been killed while trying to access food, 674 of them near sites run by private contractors such as the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, part of this militarised aid network.

This creates a profit model where Palestinians become variables in a dataset and civilian suffering becomes marketable. Behind the rhetoric of self-defence, corporations turn genocide into lucrative business.

What legal protections exist against military AI?

Virtually none. The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s 2021 AI ethics guidelines and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights are voluntary and lack enforcement. The 2024 EU AI Act exempts AI systems, including autonomous drones used in warfare from regulation, which is particularly troubling given the EU’s dual role as both ethical AI standard-setter and major arms supplier to Israel.

Export controls also fail. The Wassenaar Arrangement – an agreement to control the export of arms and goods and technologies with military uses – cannot regulate Israel since it’s not a member, allowing its AI weapons to avoid scrutiny and gain wide export.

This legal vacuum enables powerful states to evade international law, invoking national security to justify AI violence far beyond battlefields. In Gaza, this manifests through forced biometric scans during displacement that serve solely as control tools. Survival depends on surrendering to constant surveillance.

The hypocrisy is stark: Israel recently signed the Council of Europe’s AI and Human Rights Convention while simultaneously using AI for mass surveillance and killing. This highlights how ethical frameworks shaped in the global north fail to address conflict zone realities.

What’s needed for effective accountability?

Current accountability mechanisms are structurally broken. Israeli military leaders blame algorithms despite known error rates, while corporations hide behind trade secrecy. In Gaza, this may constitute war crimes, yet legal tools such as universal jurisdiction are rarely applied.

Soft approaches fail completely. Corporate self-regulation and voluntary oversight assume transparency that doesn’t exist in Gaza. Real accountability requires direct pressure: arms export bans, targeted sanctions, strategic litigation and removing military exemptions from AI laws. We need International Criminal Court investigations targeting Israeli officials and corporate leaders enabling these actions.

Why does this matter globally?

Gaza serves as a warning. AI warfare tested on Palestinians gets exported worldwide. Israeli drones previously used in Gaza are now deployed by Frontex, the EU’s border control agency, to patrol the Mediterranean and intercept, not rescue, migrant boats before they reach European shores. Israeli arms exports hit a record US$ 14.79 billion in 2024 – over half sold to Europe. Weapons used in Gaza today could be used tomorrow in Colombia, Myanmar or Sudan.

As militarised AI becomes normalised, the language of ‘precision’ and ‘efficiency’ masks atrocity. The lesson from Gaza is clear: when AI-powered machines control who lives, human rights die. This transcends Palestine’s tragedy – it foreshadows everyone’s future.

Yet resistance persists despite repression. Journalists and civil society activists continue to document AI warfare and prepare legal actions under constant danger and internet blackouts. We refuse invisibility. While governments debate toothless AI ethics, grassroots organisations, university students and tech workers challenge corporations enabling violence. The No Tech for Apartheid campaign targets companies supporting Israeli surveillance, such as Google.

Gaza reminds us that the fight against automated warfare happens not in UN halls but on the ground, and that it’s both a stand against the algorithmic erasure of Palestinian lives and a broader defence of human rights everywhere.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Twitter
Dima Samaro/Twitter

SEE ALSO
Israel vs Iran: new war begins while Gaza suffering continues CIVICUS Lens 19.Jun.2025
‘Digital platforms amplify the Israeli narrative while systematically silencing Palestinian voices’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Dima Samaro 27.Dec.2024
‘AI-powered weapons depersonalise the violence, making it easier for the military to approve more destruction’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Sophia Goodfriend 23.Nov.2024

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The General Assembly’s Plenary meeting on Nelson Mandela International Day. Credit: Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine/IPS

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 18 2025 (IPS)

The United Nations celebrated Nelson Mandela International Day in honor of the activist and politician’s lifelong commitment to peace and democracy.

At the 16th celebration of Nelson Mandela International Day, delegates, representatives and visitors alike reflected on the impact of South Africa’s first black president and leader in a fully representative democratic election.

The activist and politician, who spent 27 years in prison, was a staunch freedom fighter—arguing that freedom was not only an individual mission but also a collective responsibility and communal effort.

These principles were enshrined in the Nelson Mandela Rules, officially called the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, a document protecting humane treatment of individuals without liberty. The document emphasizes respect for human dignity, prohibits torture and promotes fair and just conditions.

Although the Nelson Mandela Rules are “soft law” and not legally binding, the General Assembly has adopted them as universally agreed minimum standards. Many countries have incorporated the rules into domestic law, but many others have violated conditions of healthcare, solitary confinement and ethical working rights. Delegates and various speakers agreed that there was still much work to be done.

Nelson Mandela International Day, established in 2009 by the United Nations General Assembly and officially celebrated in 2010 on July 18th (President Mandela’s birthday), is a holiday encouraging all citizens around the world to engage positively in their communities.

Dr. Naledi Pandor, chair of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, addresses the UN General Assembly Plenary on Nelson Mandela International Day. Credit: Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levin/IPS

From annual volunteer events to the annual Mandela Prize, awarded to two laureates each year who have profoundly impacted their communities by serving humanity, speakers, including the award recipients, the Secretary-General and the chair of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, all reflected on Mandela’s legacy on their own lives and on the UN.

In Secretary-General António Guterres’ remarks to the General Assembly at their plenary meeting, he said, “Power is not a personal possession to be harbored. Power is about lifting others up; it’s about what we can achieve with one another and for one another. Power is about people.” He echoed Mandela’s belief in collective grassroots action to deliver power to the powerless, encouraging member states to bring these principles into practice.

Dr. Naledi Pandor, chair of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, similarly called for action against injustice and inequality. She recalled how the United Nations aided South Africa in ending apartheid as it “stood against apartheid domination, not through arms but through bringing its undeniable moral weight into combat against injustice. That boldness, that courage is needed more and more today.”

Nelson Mandela, then Deputy President of the African National Congress of South Africa, raises his fist in the air while addressing the Special Committee Against Apartheid in the General Assembly Hall, June 22, 1990. Credit: UN Photo/Pernaca Sudhakaran

Pandor went on to recall Mandela’s political views beyond South Africa—his demand for global equity extended to all, and reflecting on how he might feel about the current state of the world, she quoted his 1990 speech to the UN Special Committee Against Apartheid.

Mandela said, “We also take this opportunity to extend warm greetings to all others who fight for their liberation and their human rights, including the peoples of Palestine and Western Sahara. We commend their struggles to you, convinced that we are all moved by the fact that freedom is indivisible, convinced that the denial of the rights of one diminishes the freedom of others.”

Mandela was a strong supporter of Palestine, often comparing its struggle with South Africa’s. South Africa, even after his death, maintained close ties to Palestine and brought the case of genocide against Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2024.

The 2025 Nelson Mandela laureates, Brenda Reynolds of Saulteaux First Nation and Canada and Kennedy Odede of Kenya, both spoke about how Mandela inspired their respective work. Reynolds, a social worker by trade, led the establishment of a national, culturally grounded mental health initiative for survivors of Indian residential schools.

Reynolds described her work with survivors as an example of Mandela’s notion of moving forward from resentment towards progress—as people found peace with their experiences, they were able to recover and lift up their communities from oppression. She described this as a process of peacebuilding within people, saying, “peace begins with individuals, and from there, you can find peace within your family and within your communities.”

Odede, who founded Kenya’s largest grassroots movement, Shining Hope For Communities (SHOFCO), to empower struggling urban communities, shared how Mandela’s words and experience with struggle inspired him to build within his own life. He found creative ways to organize communities around simple things like soccer, providing hope to people in dire situations.

The representative for The Gambia, who spoke on behalf of the African states, called upon the UN to adhere to Mandela’s principles, particularly on poverty as a man-made horror that can and must be removed by actions of human beings. The representative warned of extreme poverty on the rise, centering the “developing countries and middle-income countries” suffering the most “with unemployment rates beyond records.”

He said, “It is time for solidarity, partnerships and genuine actions where they are most needed,” asserting that poverty and underdevelopment were huge perpetuators of racism, therefore continuing a vicious cycle that oppressed people.

The representative argued, “rising inequity and progressive discrimination are not inevitable; they are a result of decades of policies and dynamics emanating from colonialism, appetite, and discrimination.” Criticizing these practices as misaligned with the UN charter, he pushed the UN to renew their commitment to progressing social development by redistributing wealth.

As the world commemorates Nelson Mandela’s enduring legacy, the message resonating from this year’s observance is clear: his vision of freedom—rooted in dignity, justice and collective responsibility—demands more than remembrance; it requires action. From prison reform to poverty alleviation to indigenous healing to grassroots empowerment, Mandela’s ideals continue to challenge the global community to uphold humanity over power and compassion over indifference. In honoring his life, the UN and its member states are reminded that freedom is not static—it is a continual struggle, a shared pursuit and a moral obligation.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
??

Excerpt:

A farmer pours cow dung into the biodigester to be converted into energy. Credit: Robert Kibet/IPS

By Robert Kibet
ZOUNGOU, Burkina Faso, Jul 18 2025 (IPS)

In the heart of Burkina Faso’s drylands, in the village of Zoungou, a quiet transformation is underway. Alhaji Birba Issa, a smallholder onion farmer, bends over neat rows of lush green crops, the hum of solar-powered pumps audible in the background.

“This land used to sleep during the dry season,” he says, dusting soil from his hands. “Our diesel pump would break down. Crops died. But now, we farm all year.”

Issa leads one of 89 farmer cooperatives participating in the Renewable Energy for Agriculture and Livelihoods (REAL BF) programme, which is equipping smallholder farmers, especially women and youth, with clean energy technologies that are reshaping agricultural productivity and dignity across Burkina Faso’s drought-prone regions.

When Energy Meets Agriculture

Burkina Faso faces some of the highest levels of climate vulnerability in the world. Over 80 percent of its population depends on rain-fed agriculture, which has become increasingly unreliable due to erratic rainfall and rising temperatures.

In response, the REAL BF program—implemented by Practical Action with support from multiple development partners—has taken a holistic approach. It connects off-grid solar systems, biodigesters, and energy-efficient processing technologies to smallholder farming, helping communities extend their farming seasons, preserve harvests, and reduce reliance on polluting fuels.

By July 2024, the programme had reached 15,937 smallholder farmers, more than 80 percent of them women, and achieved 82 percent activity completion and 90 percent budget execution.

“These are not drop-and-go technologies,” says Issouf Ouédraogo, Practical Action’s West Africa Regional Director. “We co-designed the solutions with farmers, supported them to organize in cooperatives, and trained them to manage the systems. The results are community-owned, and that’s why it’s working.”

Fields that Grow Beyond Rain

In places like Komki Ipala, solar-powered irrigation now reaches 115 hectares of farmland. Farmers grow vegetables, rice, legumes, and onions throughout the year—no longer limited to the short rainy season.

“Before, we farmed three months,” says Aminata Zangre, a cooperative leader in Zoungou. “Now we plan for eight. My children eat better. We sell the surplus. And we use cow dung to generate energy. It’s like turning waste into hope.”

Zangre’s cooperative uses biodigesters to turn livestock waste into biogas and compost, reducing deforestation and creating a sustainable cycle of cooking fuel and organic fertilizer.

In Gon-Boussougou, Molle Nossira supervises a fish processing cooperative that once struggled with spoilage and smoke. “The fish used to go bad before midday. Now we use energy-efficient ovens and solar cold rooms,” she says. “Our fish stays fresh. We sell at better prices. We even sell cold drinks, which attract more customers.”

Quantifying the Impact

The numbers tell a compelling story:

• 180 MWh of clean energy is generated annually by the systems installed.
• 148 tonnes of compost and 1,268 kg of butane-equivalent biogas are produced yearly.
• 722 tonnes of firewood saved per year, helping preserve 135 hectares of forest.
• An estimated 1,437 tonnes of CO? emissions are avoided annually.
• Each smallholder farmer has seen a minimum income increase of 50,000 CFA francs (around USD 80) annually—often more.

“Food security has improved. Post-harvest losses are down. Women no longer spend hours collecting firewood,” says Farid Sawadogo, a field coordinator with Practical Action. “We see resilience growing in very real ways.”

Women in the Lead

While energy infrastructure is often seen as a male domain, this programme has turned that perception on its head.

In Koulpelé, Awa Convolbo leads a women’s cooperative focused on shea butter processing. “We used to work entirely with firewood, which was exhausting and harmful,” she recalls. “Now we use improved cookstoves and solar-powered water pumps. Our income has grown, and I’ve been able to support my children’s education.”

Convolbo participated in a knowledge exchange visit to Rwanda and returned home inspired to restructure her cooperative’s finances. “Clean energy didn’t just change how we cook—it changed how we lead,” she says.

Youth Shaping the Future

Young people, too, have found new roles in their communities—maintaining solar systems, managing cooperative finances, and digitizing agricultural planning tools.

“Young people now see farming and energy as a future,” says Sawadogo. “They are staying in their villages, building careers, and bringing new ideas.”

To further support access to knowledge and resources, Practical Action launched the Yiriwali Platform, a multilingual digital tool where farmers can choose clean energy technologies, find technology providers, and connect with microfinance institutions. Available in French, Moore, Dioula, and Fulfulde, the platform strengthens ties between smallholder farmers, tech suppliers, and financiers.

Scaling Lessons Beyond Borders

The REAL BF programme aligns with the UN’s Local Climate Adaptive Living Facility (LoCAL) and supports the Sustainable Development Goals—particularly?SDG 2?(Zero Hunger),?SDG 7?(Affordable and Clean Energy), and?SDG 13?(Climate Action).

With demonstrated success in rural Burkina Faso, the model is attracting interest from agencies like UNDP, FAO, and ECOWAS as a blueprint for scaling across the Sahel.

Practical Action hopes to expand the programme and deepen its impact through additional investment, particularly for the remaining cooperatives that could not yet be funded due to budget limitations.

“We’re showing that smallholder farmers aren’t victims of climate change,” says Ouédraogo. “They’re agents of climate resilience—when they have the right tools and power.”

Farming with Dignity

Back in Zoungou, Birba Issa reflects on the change he has seen in his community: children returning to school, women leading cooperatives, and farmers planning not just for the season but for the future.

“We’ve turned drylands into green fields,” he says. “And we farm with dignity.”

As the sun sets over the Sahel, these solar-powered communities are not just surviving—they are showing the rest of the region how to thrive.

Credit: United Nations

By Jesselina Rana
NEW YORK, Jul 18 2025 (IPS)

In its 80-year history the UN has never once been led by a woman. As the international community convenes for the 2025 High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) to review progress on gender equality and other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this remains a fundamental hypocrisy at the heart of global governance. How can an institution that has systematically excluded women from its highest office credibly champion gender justice worldwide?

With the various SDGs under review this year – goal 3 (health), 5 (gender equality), 8 (decent work), 14 (life below water) and 17 (partnerships) – there’s a widening gap between the UN’s pledge to seek ‘evidence-based solutions’ to ‘leave no one behind’ and the lived reality of women, girls and excluded communities worldwide. Despite decades of rhetoric on inclusion, these groups remain systemically marginalised from meaningful power and access to decision-making.

This contradiction between rhetoric and reality reflects a deeper power imbalance across the world that undermines the credibility and the effectiveness of efforts to address pressing global challenges.

CIVICUS’s State of Civil Society Report paints a picture of a disturbing rollback of progress on gender justice that spans continents and contexts. In Afghanistan, the Taliban have institutionalised a system of gender apartheid. In the USA, the Trump administration has drastically curtailed access to reproductive healthcare. Globally, the freeze on USAID’s health funding is projected to deny 11.7 million of the world’s most excluded women access to contraception, leading to over 4.2 million unintended pregnancies and more than 8,300 preventable maternal deaths. In Russia, the state’s campaign against ‘child-free propaganda’ represents its latest attempt to control women’s choices and repress LGBTQI+ people.

According to UN experts, Palestinian women and girls have faced sexual violence in detention, including being strip-searched by Israeli soldiers. In China, women’s rights activists have been imprisoned for ‘inciting subversion of state power’. Meanwhile, authorities in Ghana, Kenya, Mali and Uganda have introduced harsh anti-LGBTQI+ laws under the guise of protecting family values.

These global trends and imbalances are exacerbated by attacks on civic space, restricting civil society’s ability to challenge discriminatory laws and practices and dramatically increasing risks to the safety and lives of those who dare to resist. According to the CIVICUS Monitor, a collaborative initiative tracking civic space worldwide, over 70 per cent of the world’s population lives in countries where civic space is severely restricted. Only six out of 37 countries participating in Voluntary National Reviews at this year’s HLPF – the Bahamas, the Czech Republic, Finland, Japan, Micronesia and St Lucia – have open civic space. Civic freedoms are being crushed precisely when public participation is most desperately needed.

Even in the face of persistent failings in global governance and multilateral systems, feminist leadership continues to deliver where institutions fall short. As the UN marks the 25th anniversary of its Women, Peace and Security agenda, its most powerful legacy lies not in policy declarations, but in the actions of women who have transformed its vision into reality from Colombia to Sudan and Myanmar to Ukraine, contributing to peace agreements, defending rights under attack and rebuilding communities. Their leadership is often intersectional, crisis-tested and grounded in lived realities – precisely the evidence-based solutions needed to truly leave no one behind.

Today, the most effective responses to pressing global needs – climate resilience, democratic renewal and gender justice – are coming from the grassroots. Feminist movements, particularly in the global south, are already delivering on the SDGs, despite restricted civic space, chronic underfunding and persistent sidelining by patriarchal power structures locally to globally.

Across every metric that matters – from peace sustainability to economic resilience, from climate adaptation to democratic governance – feminist leadership works. Yet the institutions tasked with solving global challenges continue to exclude the leaders who’ve proven most effective at delivering solutions. If the UN80 Initiative is truly aimed at reasserting the value of multilateralism, it must centre the voices of women and excluded groups in policymaking and implementation.

The 2025 HLPF should offer a moment of reckoning. States can continue the charade of promoting gender equality while perpetuating gender exclusion at the highest levels, or they can finally align their actions with their rhetoric.

Through the 1 for 8 Billion campaign, civil society is calling for multilateral structures to be reimagined. This is not a call for incremental change or token gestures: it’s a demand for transformation. The world can’t afford another 80 years of male-dominated leadership at the UN while women and excluded communities bear the disproportionate brunt of global crises. The selection process for the next UN Secretary-General must be transparent and inclusive, and the role should be held by an intersectional feminist woman who leads with courage and holds truth to power.

Jesselina Rana is UN advisor at CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Across the globe—from Gaza’s rubble to the streets of Tbilisi—people are standing up for justice, dignity, and basic rights. But far too often, they are paying with their freedom, their safety, even their lives.

Why, in 2025, does speaking out for justice still cost an arm and a leg?

Takaedza Tafirei

The CIVICUS Monitor paints a worrying picture: only 40 out of 198 countries maintain an open civic space, while 72.4% of the world’s population lives under repressive or closed conditions—a rise from the previous year. Freedom of expression violations appeared in 49 countries (45% of all cases), while peaceful-assembly and association violations made up 29% and 26%, respectively. Alarmingly, detention of human rights defenders was recorded in at least 58 countries, and nearly 10% of violations were linked to Israel, Palestine and solidarity protests.

Such repression can take place anywhere–from authoritarian countries to “mature democracies.” In March 2025, for instance, the United States—once a global standard-bearer—was added to the CIVICUS Watchlist for its rapid decline in civic freedoms, including executive orders threatening peaceful assemblies and free expression.

When democracies tighten civic space, authoritarian actors feel empowered to escalate their own crackdowns. This is a dangerous global trend.

Both of us have personal experience facing down authoritarianism.

Takaedza comes from Zimbabwe, where his journey as a protest organizer taught him what state repression looks like up close. Today, he coordinates global efforts to protect the right to peaceful protest at CIVICUS, working with brave activists who’ve been beaten, jailed, and silenced—simply for demanding a better future. From his own experience, he’s lived their fears and their hopes.

Asma Darwish

Today, Asma leads the Stand As My Witness campaign at CIVICUS, which advocates for the release of imprisoned human rights defenders around the world. Since its launch five years ago on the 18 July Nelson Mandela International Day, Stand As My Witness has helped contribute to the release of 31 jailed human rights defenders around the world, from Burundi to Saudi Arabia, Algeria to Zimbabwe.

We do this work professionally, but we also know what it means to be persecuted and to feel abandoned, unseen. And we know how life-changing it can be when the world stands in solidarity with you.

From the pro-Palestinian student protests in the U.S. to Georgia’s anti–foreign agent law demonstrations, from Kenya’s #RejectFinanceBill movement to Mozambique’s electoral justice protests to Iran’s Women, Life, Freedom uprising—one pattern is clear: the price of peaceful protest is becoming unbearable.

Civic space is shrinking at an alarming rate. And when countries that are supposed to model democracy begin restricting their own civic spaces, it sends a dangerous signal. It emboldens authoritarian regimes to crack down even harder, knowing there will be little consequence.

This global assault on protest rights isn’t just a threat to human rights—it’s an attack on the very spirit of youth-led resistance. It’s an attempt to smother change before it even begins.

To be persecuted for speaking out is not just a legal issue—it’s emotional, mental, deeply personal. It’s isolation. It’s fear. It’s the constant threat that your activism might cost your freedom—or worse, your life.

But it’s also resilience. It’s the strength of knowing you are not alone. And that’s where you, the reader, come in.

This isn’t just our fight—it’s yours too. Here’s how the world can stand with those risking everything for justice.

First, always name and shame repressive governments.

Some regimes are incredibly sensitive to international perception. Public exposure—through social media, op-eds, open letters, and campaigns like #StandAsMyWitness —can be a powerful deterrent. In Asma’s case, sustained international pressure contributed to her release from detention and that of some family members. Naming and shaming works. Use your voice.

Second, practice global solidarity so human rights defenders feel seen and not forgotten.

When defenders are imprisoned, they often feel abandoned, but just knowing their names are being spoken and stories shared gives them strength. Personal letters, solidarity statements, and international acknowledgment matter. Solidarity isn’t symbolic—it’s strategic. It reminds governments that the world is watching, and assures imprisoned activists that they are not alone.

Third, if you can, provide real support such as legal, logistical, and mental health aid.

Many human rights defenders operate under immense strain with limited resources. Donating to or supporting trusted groups who provide legal assistance, emergency relocation, digital security or trauma care can help ease the burden and provide material benefits for whatever activists under threat might need in the moment. Likewise, attending trials—even virtually—can deter abuse and spotlight injustice. Advocating for mental health care, including for activists seeking asylum, is both necessary and long overdue.

Along those same lines, don’t just look abroad for activism–always make sure you fight for your rights at home and hold your own government accountable, too. That means pushing your elected officials to speak out on global abuses, provide asylum for persecuted human rights defenders, and safeguard civic space. Democracy isn’t static. When we lose it in one place, we all feel the effects. And if you lose your ability to protest peacefully in your own country, it will be even harder to stand up for the rights of others across borders.

Next, use your platform—whatever it is. Whether you’re an artist, educator, influencer, student, or professional—use your space to amplify human rights defenders’ voices. Bring their stories into classrooms, media and workplaces. Advocate for them publicly. Help shift the narrative from passive sympathy to active solidarity.

Last of all, don’t forget to celebrate human rights defenders. Too often, we hear about human rights defenders only at negative times such as when they’re imprisoned or killed. But their courage deserves celebration. Nominating them for awards, fellowships and storytelling projects honors their resistance and affirms their dignity.

Despite the crackdowns, we are not without hope because we’ve seen throughout the Stand As My Witness campaign how solidarity and activism works. Change is possible as long as across the globe, people organize, resist, and imagine a more just and free world.

If we want a world where justice is not punished, where peaceful protest is not criminalized, where human rights defenders do not pay with their lives—then we must act now. Not later. Not when it’s convenient. But now. Solidarity is our only currency for survival.

Takaedza Tafirei is Programme Coordinator for Freedom of Peaceful Assembly at CIVICUS and a former protest organiser.

Asma Darwish is a Bahraini human rights defender and Lead for Stand As My Witness Campaign & MENA Advocacy at CIVICUS.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

 
CIVICUS speaks with Claude Iguma, a mining governance expert with a PhD in Social Sciences, who is based in Bukavu, South Kivu province, eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

On 27 June, the DRC signed a peace agreement with Rwanda. This agreement forms part of a wider deal with the Trump administration promising US access to Congolese coltan in exchange for assistance in quelling armed rebellions and stabilising the region. Coltan is a crucial mineral for the global electronics industry, but its extraction fuels conflicts, insecurity and human rights violations.

Claude Iguma

Coltan, or columbite-tantalite, is primarily mined in eastern DRC, particularly in Kivu and Tanganyika provinces. Its unique chemical properties, particularly its resistance to extreme temperatures, make it an indispensable component of the modern electronics industry.

This global demand has transformed the region in three fundamental ways. First, it has established the DRC as one of the world’s leading coltan suppliers. The Rubaya mine, located in the Masisi territory of North Kivu, is a prime example of this: it produces more than half of the DRC’s coltan, making it a popular destination for international buyers and smelters.

Second, this mineral wealth has fuelled violence. Coltan mining has become inextricably linked to violence perpetrated by armed groups. The Rubaya mine is regularly the scene of tensions between ethnic armed groups and illegal coltan traders. Global Witness has documented this situation in a report that clearly establishes the link between international demand for coltan and the violence ravaging eastern DRC.

Third, the global energy transition has intensified the appetite of western powers for this mineral. A controversial agreement signed in February 2024 between the European Union (EU) and Rwanda regarding strategic minerals is proof of this: the EU is sourcing coltan from a country with little to no coltan reserves. This also explains why the USA is so invested in the minerals-security agreement between the DRC and Rwanda.

What are the human rights and security impacts of mining?

Artisanal coltan mining takes place in a context of widespread illegality that systematically violates human rights. Armed groups have established a sophisticated system of extortion, imposing forced labour, levying illegal taxes and controlling access to mines by erecting barriers on access roads. These same groups also regularly rob miners, creating a climate of permanent terror.

However, responsibility does not lie solely with armed groups. The military is also present at mining sites, where they extort money from miners. The miners work in extreme physical conditions without any protection, digging deep pits where fatal accidents are commonplace. An accident at the Rubaya mine on 19 June claimed 45 lives.

The exploitation of vulnerable people is another shocking aspect of this industry. Despite legal prohibitions, pregnant women and children continue to work in the mines, driven by poverty and the ineffective enforcement of regulations.

This situation perpetuates a vicious cycle of insecurity. Mining areas have become the scene of constant clashes between rival militias fighting for control of these lucrative resources. In the Numbi region of South Kivu, for example, fighting between Nyatura militias and local Mai-Mai groups has become a regular occurrence. These rivalries extend beyond mere territorial control and are deeply rooted in tensions between ethnic groups these militias claim to represent.

The consequences are disastrous: the mass displacement of people, the establishment of military regimes at extraction sites and the complete collapse of state authority in these areas. The absence of state structures creates a legal vacuum where militarisation and arms trafficking flourish.

What does the agreement between the DRC and the USA mean?

Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi’s offer to grant the USA privileged access to Congolese minerals is part of a strategy to secure the territory. The aim is to neutralise the rebellion by M23 – an armed group on the offensive in recent years – exchange for US commitment to regional security. At the same time, the agreement aims to stop Rwanda’s systematic looting of Congolese minerals, as evidenced by the peace agreement signed on 27 June.

On paper, the strategy seems coherent. In practice, however, the challenges are considerable. The porous nature of the DRC’s borders could allow illegal supply networks for coltan and other minerals to keep operating in neighbouring countries. More problematic still is the fact that the M23 is only one of many armed groups present in eastern DRC. Neutralising it, even if successful, will not automatically solve the problem posed by the other militias. Specific dismantling strategies that go beyond the scope of this bilateral agreement will need to be developed.

From an economic perspective, the agreement presents significant opportunities. Investment of billions of dollars in the DRC’s mining sector could generate significant employment and boost an economy already heavily dependent on minerals. These investments should also improve infrastructure, particularly access to mines via the road network and evacuation routes to export ports.

However, three major risks threaten this strategy. First, capital influx could exacerbate corruption among the Congolese political elite. Second, as has happened in the past, minerals may be exported without being processed locally, which would perpetuate the DRC’s dependence on unprocessed raw materials. Third, the intensification of mining could exacerbate the problem of excessive dependence on mining to the detriment of other vital economic sectors, such as agriculture.

What is civil society doing to improve the situation?

Congolese civil society is taking a multifaceted approach to humanise mining. Its intervention is structured around three main areas.

Advocacy is the first part of this action. Many organisations are campaigning with state authorities to improve the living conditions of artisanal miners and clean up supply chains. They systematically denounce irregularities observed at every stage of these chains, creating constant pressure on institutions.

The second pillar is training and support. Civil society organisations are investing heavily in training mining operators, particularly in relation to the mining code and setting up mining cooperatives. Implemented directly on mining sites, these programmes aim to professionalise artisanal mining. Projects such as Madini Kwa Amani na Maendeleo and Minerals for Peace and Development, which are being implemented in Ituri and South Kivu by a consortium of organisations including International Alert, International Peace Information Service, Justice Plus and Observatoire Gouvernance et Paix, illustrate this collaborative approach.

The third component of this initiative is the assessment of mining sites. Civil society organisations actively participate in assessment missions that determine the risks associated with each site in terms of exploitation, security, respect for human rights and environmental impact. This technical expertise helps steer public policy and private investment towards more responsible practices.

GET IN TOUCH
Facebook

SEE ALSO
Human rights under fire in DRC conflict CIVICUS Lens 24.Mar.2025
Deadly conflict in eastern DRC culls human rights and civic freedoms CIVICUS Monitor 10.Mar. 2025
DRC: ‘Rwandan support for M23 threatens to turn conflict into a regional crisis’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Steward Muhindo 04.Feb.2025

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

TANGO (The Gambia), supporting communities in the North Bank Region, through distribution of improved cooking stoves. Credit: TANGO

By Christelle Kalhoule and Sarah Strack
NEW YORK, Jul 16 2025 (IPS)

As delegates gather in New York over the coming weeks for the 2025 High-Level Political Forum (HLPF), we see this moment as a test. A test of whether world leaders are serious about rescuing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – or content to let the promises of Agenda 2030 drift quietly into irrelevance.

For ten years, governments have pledged to “leave no one behind.” But that promise rings hollow when those at the center of sustainable development—civil society and communities—are excluded from decision-making, denied funding, and sidelined in monitoring processes. The credibility of the SDG agenda now hinges on one urgent question: will the world get serious about #UNMuting civil society and enabling it to fully play its role at all levels?

The evidence is stark. In 2024, Official Development Assistance (ODA) fell by 7.1% (16 billion USD approximately. Projections for 2025 suggest additional drops of up to 17% (38 billion USD approximately). Civil society organisations in many countries recently surveyed report funding cuts. At the same time, an enabling environment continues to shrink, especially in fragile or repressive contexts, limiting civil society’s ability to operate as showcased in most recent EU SEE alerts. And while global declarations reaffirm the importance of partnerships, local organisations—particularly feminist, youth-led, and community-based groups—continue to operate at the margins of power and resources.

From visibility to power

This year’s High-Level Political Forum focuses on the review of SDGs 3 -health, 5 – gender equality, 8 – decent work, 14 – life below water and 17 – partnerships for the Goals. But these Goals are not abstract targets—they are linked to everyday realities that communities and civil society across the globe confront and act upon for a better future.

In communities across the globe, civil society is not waiting for permission to lead. We are co-creators of solutions, watchdogs of accountability, and stewards of public interest. In Vanuatu, Fale mobilised rapidly after the 2024 earthquake, coordinating shelter, food and psychological support where institutional response lagged. In Mexico, local networks spotlighted how legal barriers and discrimination exclude indigenous and migrant communities from accessing public services. In Nepal, young activists from the NGO Federation of Nepal are working to make health, education and employment policies more inclusive of persons living with disabilities. These are not just stories of service delivery- they are blueprints for equity, agency and justice from the ground up.

Yet such models remain largely invisible in global discussions-not because they lack impact, but because they lack recognition, access and resourcing. Civil society’s role is routinely framed as consultative or complementary. It’s time to move beyond visibility and tokenism. Recognition must translate into resourcing, influence, and leadership.

As Silla Ristim?ki, Adviser on Global Justice at Finnish Development NGOs (Fingo), puts it: “Concerning global trends of closing civic space must be countered at all levels. A free, diverse and independent civil society lays the foundation for lasting peace, stable societies and sustainable development.”

Localisation is more than a buzzword: it’s the only way forward

Communities, civil society, and their partners are advancing SDGs from the ground up. Forus’ newly released report, Unlocking the Power of Localisation and Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships, reveals that over 65% of SDG targets rely on local delivery. Yet most global financing, planning, and monitoring systems remain top-down and disconnected from the realities of local actors.

The report highlights over 15 case studies—from Fiji to Morocco, Zambia to Argentina—where CSOs are driving Voluntary Local Reviews (VLRs), engaging in budget advocacy and developing citizen monitoring tools that track public services. But without long-term, flexible financing and stronger multilevel governance, these efforts risk disappearing.

Centering local feminist leadership for systemic change

Despite being at the forefront of local action and deeply embedded in communities, civil society organisations -especially feminist and youth led groups – continue to operate at the margins of power and financing. The “March With Us” campaign, launched by Forus in 2021, has amplified powerful voices over the years such as Hala al Karib in Sudan, Dianah Kamande in Kenya and many more- women and civil society organisations who are peace builders and system changers.

If governments and multilateral institutions are serious about accelerating SDG progress, , then gender must be seen not as a standalone goal, but as a lens across all policies-especially financing. It must be mainstreamed across all SDG implementation and financing strategies—from public development banks to national budgets.

That is why Forus, on the occasion of the fourth international conference on financing for development (FfD4) in Seville, called for a re-imagination of financial architecture – one that recognises the legitimacy of civil society as both actor and agenda setter for transformative change.

Building trust through investing in civil society

Civil society is doing more than delivering services, it is building trust. At Forus, we are investing in storytelling, civic diplomacy, and digital governance to counter disinformation and revitalize democratic participation. Our Local Power Working Group and We Are Leaving No One Behind campaign uplift lived experiences that show not just what’s wrong with current systems—but what’s possible.

These are not “human interest” stories. They are powerful contributions to shaping policies for just and sustainable development.

What needs to change—Now

As the world moves into the final five years before 2030, the window for course correction is rapidly closing. At the 2025 High-Level Political Forum Forus urges governments, donors and international institutions to;

· Fund civil society through long-term, flexible, and core support—not project crumbs.
· Recognise community-led monitoring and data as legitimate contributions to SDG review and accountability.
· Invest in localization, not just through technical support but through the transfer of power and resources
· Embed civil society in financing and planning systems for development processes – including financing for development and public development bank strategies, and not as observers but architects of change.
· Shift power—not just through consultation, but through redistribution of voice, visibility, and resources.

In a world of growing polycrisis and democratic erosion, civil society is not optional. We are an essential part of the ecosystem for social justice, resilience and transformation. If the SDGs are to be saved, it won’t be through declarations-but through redistribution. Of resources. Of voice. Of power.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Rallying call to end TB by 2030. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

By Busani Bafana
BULAWAYO, Jul 15 2025 (IPS)

Every day, Yondela Kolweni has to hold down her son, who screams and fights when it is time for his daily life-saving TB tablets—a painful reminder of her battle with the world’s top infectious killer disease.

“It is a fight I win feeling awful about what I have to do,” says Kolweni (30), a Cape Town resident and a TB survivor. “The tablets are bitter, and he spits them out most of the time, and that reminds me of the time I had to take the same pills.”

Kolweni’s five-year-old son is battling Multidrug Resistant TB (MDR TB), a vicious form of TB that is rising among children globally.

The global burden of MDR-TB among children and adolescents has increased from 1990 to 2019, particularly in regions with lower social and economic development levels, according to a recent study. In addition, the top three highest incidence rates of MDR TB in 2019 were recorded in Southern sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, and South Asia, while the top three highest rates of deaths in the same period were recorded in Southern, Central, and Eastern sub-Saharan Africa.

South Africa is one of 30 countries that account for 80 percent of all TB cases in the world and has the most cases of drug-resistant TB.

A Bitter Pill to Swallow

Kolweni’s son was diagnosed with MDR-TB five years ago, having tested positive for TB which has affected his grandmother and his mother. He was immediately on treatment, a drug cocktail that included moxifloxacin—a pill not for the yellow-livered.

“There were two medications he had to take, and there was one specifically, the yellow one, that he did not like, and with the color he knew what it was,” Kolweni told IPS in an interview, explaining a daily battle to get her son to take his meds.

It was down to a fight. She crushed the tablets, mixed them with a bit of water, and fed them through a syringe.

“We would sometimes hold him or wrap a towel around him so that we could feed him the medication, but he would still spit it out, which meant he was not taking the dosage he was meant to take,” said Kolweni. “We then came up with the idea to put his tablets in his yogurt, but that technique did not work because, being a smart kid, he took the bait but would soon spit out the medication.”

Moxifloxacin, an exceptionally bitter medicine, is one of the key drugs in the new all-oral treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR TB). The treatment is a combination of the drugs Bedaquiline, Pretomanid, Linezolid and Moxifloxacin, known as BPaLM. The BPaLM regimen is specially formulated for children but is a bitter pill to swallow.

Sweet Medicine

But there is sweet hope. A new study, by Stellenbosch University and the TB Alliance, found that sweet, bitter-masked versions of Moxifloxacin significantly improve kids’ willingness to take the drug—easing the burden on parents and boosting treatment adherence.

Two formulations of moxifloxacin have been identified by children as tasting better than new generic versions of products currently on the market.

The results from the ChilPref ML study—a Unitaid-funded effort sponsored and led by Stellenbosch University in collaboration with TB Alliance—will help improve MDR TB treatment and adherence in children.

Dr. Graeme Hoddinott, of Stellenbosch University and the principal investigator of the study, notes that children cannot be treated in a humane manner for drug-resistant TB if the medicines taste so terrible that children refuse them or must be forced to take them.

Children diagnosed with drug-sensitive TB have good outcomes even within the four months because there is usually one tablet given, and there is a child-friendly formulation that dissolves easily to be given on a spoon or in a syringe, Hoddinott said. However, for drug-resistant TB, the situation is complicated. Most drugs for MDR TB are no longer used because of their toxicity and have been replaced by new drugs.

MDR-TB drugs are not child-friendly, Hoddinott admits. The active ingredient that kills TB in Moxifloxacin makes the pills incredibly bad tasting for children who have to take the medication daily for between six and nine months in cases of MDR TB.

“These drugs are incredibly bad tasting; they are genuinely awful to a point where adults who have been on extended TB treatment have been unable to administer the same drugs to their children because the smell evokes the time when they were sick,” Hoddinott told IPS. “It is a trauma to administer such bad-tasting drugs to a child, both for the parent and the child, particularly for the young children.”

The ChilPref study recruited just under 100 healthy children, ages 5–17, from two diverse settings in South Africa. The children evaluated flavor blends using a ‘swish and spit’ taste panel—tasting the medicine, which was dissolved in water, and then spitting it out without ingesting any of it.

Each child participant ranked the flavor blends among the three from each manufacturer and also rated the taste, smell and other characteristics of each. For moxifloxacin, there was a clear, strong preference for the new flavor blends (“bitter masker” and orange for Macleods, and strawberry and raspberry and tutti frutti for Micro Labs) over the existing commercially available flavors for both manufacturers. For Linezolid, there was no preference between the flavor blends.

“Ensuring children have access to effective and palatable TB treatments is a crucial step in improving adherence and treatment outcomes,” said Koteswara Rao Inabathina, one of the study’s authors and CMC Project Manager at TB Alliance.

“Through close collaboration with manufacturers, we have addressed critical unmet needs by developing practical solutions that make available and effective drug-resistant TB treatments not only accessible but also palatable and acceptable for children.”

The results of the ChilPref study showed that children preferred two new flavor blends of moxifloxacin, produced by Macleods Pharmaceuticals, India, and Micro Labs Pharmaceuticals, India. The results were communicated to the manufacturers, who are already updating their products.

“We are not surprised that a lot of kids did not like any of the tastings because we knew that they were horrible taste-wise, but we got a very clear signal for both manufacturers that the flavor blends we recommended were more preferred,” Hoddinott said. “We changed which flavor was going to market with relatively simple research.”

Dr. Cherise Scott, Senior Technical Manager at Unitaid, said the easier it was for children to take their medicines regularly, the more likely they were to complete their treatment successfully.

“We will not allow children to be neglected in global health responses simply because their needs are more complex.”

A Promising Treatment for MDR TB

As multi-drug-resistant TB transmission increases among children and adolescents, the development of new treatments is imperative, Hoddinott explained.

Moxifloxacin may also be increasingly used in the future for the treatment of drug-susceptible TB, which affects an estimated 1.2 million children globally each year.

Drug-resistant TB, has previously been one of the most difficult diseases to manage because of limited child-friendly treatment options, but scientists have made strides in developing new treatments for children, explains Dr. Anthony Garcia-Prats, one of the study authors and an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

“Now we are making sure that these medicines are appropriate for children, starting with an aspect that children and parents say is critical: taste,” Garcia-Prats said in a statement.

The new treatment is given when TB is either resistant to rifampicin, a critical first-line drug, or rifampicin and isoniazid, another first-line drug combination. These resistant strains are collectively referred to as RR/MDR-TB.

Annually there are an estimated 32,000 new cases of RR/MDR-TB among children 14 years and under—a population that is extremely sensitive to the taste of medicine, according to researchers.

This discovery could help improve adherence to TB medication and move a step closer towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3 to end TB by 2030.

“It is not a silver bullet,” Hoddinott cautions. “It does not solve everything, as people affected by TB still face many other challenges, and even the preferred flavor blends still do not taste nice. But, as part of the overall fight against TB in children, it’s an important step.”

Kolweni welcomes the development of masked TB medication.

“My experience with TB medication was not nice, and for children it is worse, and I think flavored tablets would make it easy for children to take, like? Gummies,” she said. “Every child loves flavors; even a suspension would be nice. My son would love it, and I will have no trouble getting him to take his medicine.”

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
?

Doctors administer diphtheria and tetanus vaccinations provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) to children in Haiti displaced by the earthquake in 2010. Credit: Sophia Paris/UN Photo

By Naomi Myint Breuer
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 15 2025 (IPS)

The latest data highlights that the world is off track to meet the targets set by the Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) to achieve 90 percent global immunization coverage for essential childhood vaccines and halve the number of unvaccinated children by 2030.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) released the 2024 Estimates of National Immunization Coverage (WUENIC) on July 15, revealing both progress and challenges in global childhood immunization.

WUENIC, the world’s largest dataset on childhood immunization, reports on 16 antigens across 195 countries.

In 2024, 20 million children did not receive at least one dose of the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccine, a global marker for childhood immunization coverage. Of those children, 14.3 million received no vaccines at all. This is 4 million more than the 2024 target and 1.4 million more than in 2019, the IA2030 baseline year.

“We’ve hit this very stubborn glass ceiling, and breaking through that glass to protect more children against vaccine-preventable diseases is becoming more difficult,” Dr. Kate O’Brien, Director of the Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals at WHO, said at a July 14 press briefing.

Conflicts are much to blame for the difficulty in immunization. Children living in one of the 26 countries affected by fragility, conflict or humanitarian emergencies are three times more likely to be unvaccinated than those who live in stable countries. Half of unvaccinated children live in these 26 countries.

“These aren’t just numbers. They are real children in places like Sudan and Yemen, where instability makes vaccine delivery difficult,” Thanbani Maphosa, Managing Director of Country Programmes for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, said. “In these settings, reaching a charge can mean navigating danger, displacement and a fractured health system.”

However, the 14.3 zero-dose children is a reduction from the 2023 number of 14.4 zero-dose children, and 85 percent of infants in the world received three doses of the DTP in 2024, an increase of 1 million more from 2023.

“While that growth may sound modest, in each of these children, this means another child protected at the same time,” O’Brien said.

Through their Zero-Dose Immunization Program (ZIP), UNICEF and partners have vaccinated over 1 million children in conflict-affected regions of the Sahel and the Horn of Africa since 2023. In 2024, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, supported more children against more diseases than ever before.

“That is not just a statistic. It is a testament to the resilience and determination of countries,” Maphosa said.

Furthermore, two-thirds of countries have maintained at least 90 percent coverage of four key vaccines over the past five years.

WUENIC reports there is improving immunization against measles. First-dose coverage rose to 84 percent, with 1.7 million children vaccinated in 2024, while second-dose coverage increased from 74 percent in 2023 to 76 percent in 2024.

Still, 20 million children missed their first dose, and 12 million did not complete their second, leaving 30 million at risk for measles. 360,000 measles cases were confirmed globally in 2024, the highest number since 2019. The number of countries with large and disruptive measles outbreaks rose to 60, almost double the 2022 number.

The rise in cases is due to an accumulation of people who are unvaccinated since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

Dr. Ephrem T. Lemango, Associate Director for Health and Global Chief of Immunization at UNICEF, warned that the progress made in 2024 is not enough to prevent measles outbreaks.

Lemango warned that even where national coverage rates appear high, disparities among districts put many disproportionately at risk. Measles outbreaks can only be prevented with 95 percent coverage with two measles vaccine doses in every community in every county.

Immunization efforts are challenged by fewer health facilities, workforce shortages, vaccine stockouts, and difficulties reaching remote communities, especially in areas affected by conflict or displacement. In high-income countries, immunization is challenged by decreased acceptance and vaccine hesitancy due to misinformation and distrust in institutions. Funding cuts are further putting children at risk for vaccine-preventable diseases. Nearly 50 countries have been disrupted by funding cuts.

“Misinformation and any forms of vaccine hesitancy are a reflection of a broader lack of trust or mistrust in the systems that deliver the vaccines, in the health workers that provide the vaccines, in the manufacturing facilities or ecosystem that manufactures the vaccines,” Lemango said.

Social media and the COVID-19 pandemic are largely to blame for disinformation and misinformation surrounding vaccines.

Lemango and O’Brien emphasized the importance of training health workers to address the questions and concerns of parents in regard to vaccinating their children and the critical role community leaders play in influencing public trust. O’Brien noted that a family’s local medical practitioner is the most influential voice in their decision to vaccinate their children.

“Political leaders, community leaders, religious leaders, and family leaders have a powerful influence on the choices that families make around the health of their children, and the voices of leaders can either reinforce trust or erode trust,” O’Brien said.

However, O’Brien emphasized that lack of access remains the primary barrier to immunization, rather than misinformation. Lemango noted that 95 percent of parents want their children to be vaccinated.

An area of notable progress is HPV vaccination. 43 million girls were vaccinated against HPV in 2024, setting the world on track to reach 86 million adolescents by the end of 2025. 60 million girls are now protected against cervical cancer, more than in any previous decade.

He noted that many countries are committing record levels of domestic financing to immunization, but a funding gap persists. Of the USD 11.9 billion needed to achieve their goals, only USD 9 billion has been raised.

Maphosa noted that millions of children are still not being reached and there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution. Lemango called on governments, partners and communities to close funding gaps, serve fragile or conflict-affected communities and address misinformation.

Maphosa emphasized the urgency of the situation, given a global rise in conflict, fragility and population. “Vaccines have never been more important and urgent than they are now,” he said.

He added that countries and organizations must work together to close the immunization gap so that every child is protected.

“That’s the promise of immunization,” he said. “One of the best tools the world has to ensure health, security and prosperity. And with continued commitment and continued investment, it’s a promise we can keep.”

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
??

“Plastic Ocean” by Alejandro Duràn, one of the artworks previously on display in the UN lobby. Credit: Jennifer Levine/IPS

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 14 2025 (IPS)

The United Nations’ HOMO SARGASSUM exhibition served as a public immersion into the marine world and called upon viewers to take action in the face of the climate crisis, specifically regarding invasive species and water pollution.

For the past month, an art exhibition entitled?HOMO SARGASSUM?took up residence in the New York headquarters lobby in connection to World Ocean Month and the 2025 UN Ocean Conference. Organized by the Tout-Monde Art Foundation. In its final week on display, visitors walked through the various projected films, sculptures and photographs. The exhibit closed on July 11.

The work is described as an immersive multisensorial art and science exhibition intended to bring together various experts in science, scholarship and creativity from the Caribbean to share their perspectives on the prevalent environmental and social issue. The exhibit is primarily an introspective study of sargassum, a type of seaweed or algae commonly found on the coast of the Americas and in the Caribbean.

Sargassum, which has?proliferated?significantly in recent years due to pollution and chemical fertilizer, releases toxic gases that harm nearby residents in water and on land. Animals struggle to survive, and humans experience respiratory failures and burns. This algae has inspired fear since Christopher Columbus?recorded his crew’s sighting of the plant. Sargassum has also become a symbol recently for climate change in the Caribbean as well as the coexisting nature of marine and human life.

Co-curator and executive and artistic director of the Tout-Monde Art Foundation Vanessa Selk described the exhibit as a journey rather than a singular experience. She said, “Much like sargassum migrating through the Atlantic Ocean, we encounter natural and human-made challenges such as pandemics, pollutants and hurricanes. This narrative of the global ecological crisis, reflected in silent floating algae, warns us to change our existing paradigms and consider ourselves as one with our environment.”

Billy Gerard Frank, one of the featured artists in HOMO SARGASSUM, echoes this sentiment.

Frank created a mixed-media piece entitled “Poetics of Relation and Entanglement” with a painting featuring Columbus’ archival notes and sargassum pigment, as well as a film he shot on the island of Carriacou. The film centered on a large metal tank surrounded by sargassum, which had washed on shore and rusted onto the massive object. He specifically shot the film around the sargassum and the tank, an eyesore for the locals who used the beach and a barrier to boats trying to leave. Growing up in Grenada, Frank recalls sargassum as a mild inconvenience but explained how it has become more prevalent due to climate change.

However, only in recent years has conversation around sargassum?shifted towards the impact of climate change and geographical inequities, like, as Frank noted, how smaller islands that produce significantly lower levels of pollution are the worst affected by climate change through natural disasters.

He referenced the recent Hurricane Beryl, a Category 5?storm that “completely devastated” islands like Carriacou. His inclusion of Columbus’ notes brings a decolonial perspective: the threats Caribbean islands face from mounting climate change are exacerbated by their history of occupation, mostly from European colonial powers. In a global organization like the UN where historical, geographical and environmental context is key to making any decision, such an interdisciplinary perspective is key.

From countless gifts from member states to various donations, the UN has been an artistic hub since its inception. As both a tourist attraction and space of work for international diplomats, the UN is a particularly ripe space for more radical, political art—notably Guernica,?a tapestry based on a Picasso painting portraying the Spanish Civil War—due to its broad audience.

Speaking to IPS, Frank shared how influential art has been in political, social and intellectual movements, saying, “historically…creators, writers, and artists have been able to forge ahead and create new spaces…it gives us some hope that our work and the calling are even more important.”

Frank also told IPS how important it was for him to have the work featured at the UN.

“Because the UN is also a site of consternation right now, specifically with everything that’s happening globally. And in fact, that’s the space where this type of work should be, where there should be more conversation, and a space in which it could create a critical dialogue amongst people who work there, but also the public facing that too.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
??

UN Secretary General António Guterres addresses the session “Strengthening multilateralism, economic - financial affairs and artificial intelligence” on July 6 at the 17th summit of BRICS in Rio de Janeiro. For the first time ever, artificial intelligence was a major topic of concern at the BRICS summit. Credit: UN Photo/Ana Carolina Fernandes

By Naomi Myint Breuer
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 14 2025 (IPS)

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly developing and leaving its mark across the globe. Yet the implementation of AI risks widening the gap between the Global North and South.

It is projected that the AI market’s global revenue will increase by 19.6 percent each year. By 2030, AI could contribute USD 15.7 trillion to the global economy. However, the increases to nations’ GDP will be unequally dispersed, with North America and China experiencing the most gains while the Global South gains far less.

The risks of AI to the Global South

Due to smaller capacities to fund research, development and implementation, fewer countries in the Global South are adopting AI technology. Access to affordable AI compute to train AI models is one of the AI field’s greatest barriers to entry in the Global South, according to the 2024 UN report, “Governing AI for Humanity.”

Further, AI is designed to create profitable market extraction that does not benefit the global majority, according to Vilas Dhar, President and Trustee of the Patrick J. McGovern Foundation. As countries in the Global North are AI’s primary investors, it is being developed to address their needs.

“The result is a quiet erosion of political and economic autonomy,” he said. “Without deliberate intervention, AI risks becoming a mechanism for reinforcing historical patterns of exploitation through technical means. It also risks losing the incredible value of diverse, globally minded inputs into designing our collective AI future.”

Across the world, people risk losing their jobs to AI, but many countries in the Global South are reliant on labor intensive industries, and AI poses a greater threat to increasing unemployment and poverty. Particularly children, women, youths, people with disabilities, older workers, creatives and people with jobs susceptible to automation are at risk.

According to Daron Acemoglu, professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, labor-replacing AI poses a greater threat to workers in the developing world, as capital-intensive technology may not be useful in these nations where oftentimes capital is scarce and labor is abundant and cheap. Technology that prioritizes labor-intensive production is better suited to their comparative advantage.

“Because advanced economies have no reason to invest in such labor-intensive technologies, the trajectory of technological change will increasingly disfavor poor countries,” he said.

If these trends continue, these nations will experience increased unemployment and fall behind in the deployment of capital-intensive AI, due to limited financial resources and digital skill sets. More AI policies and guidelines, as well as education on data privacy and algorithmic bias, could assist in reducing this inequality.

Evidently, AI threatens to widen the gap between the Global North and South, as AI capacities are consolidated within a small group of institutions and regions. In Dhar’s view, AI will need to be designed to serve people and problems rather than be focused on profit maximization.

“If left unaddressed, this imbalance will cement a way of thinking about the world that mirrors the development of the Internet or social media – a process we do not want to replicate,” Dhar said.

Opportunities of the new technology

But the development of AI also poses opportunities for the Global South.

AI could design context-specific systems for local areas in the Global South that are not just based on the Global North, according to Dhar. “It can unlock new models of inclusion and resilience,” he said.

For example, AI could aid farmers in decision-making by informing them of weather and drought predictions using geospatial intelligence, as well as of marketing price information. AI could also help train farmers and other producers. It can also be used to improve education and healthcare in nations where these are major issues harming their populations and stunting development.

Acemoglu said that AI should be developed to complement rather than replace human labor for these benefits to become possible. “That will require forward-looking leadership on the part of policymakers,” he said.

AI in conflict

AI is also starting to make an appearance in conflict. In Ukraine, autonomous drones are being used, which are capable of tracking and engaging enemies, as well as BAD.2 model robot dogs, which are ground drones that can survey areas for enemies. Autonomous machine guns are also used, in which AI helps spot and target enemies.

The use of AI in conflict poses an ethical dilemma. AI could protect human lives on one side of the conflict but pose a great threat to the lives on the other end of the battlefield. This also raises the question of whether AI should be given the power to engage in harm.

But perhaps the use of AI can reduce the number of people engaging in conflicts harming developing countries and move these people to other sectors where they can realize more potential and aid their country’s economic development.

What international frameworks should do

Clear international frameworks must be established to prevent a rise in inequality and a greater gap between the Global North and South.

For the first time ever, AI was a major topic of discussion at the 17th BRICS summit, which serves as a coordination forum for nations from the Global South, in Rio de Janeiro. BRICS member countries signed the Leaders’ Declaration on Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence, which presents guidelines to ensure AI is developed and used responsibly to advance sustainability and inclusive growth.

The declaration called on members of the UN to promote including emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs) and the Global South in decision-making regarding AI.

“New technologies must operate under a governance model that is fair, inclusive, and equitable. The development of AI must not become a privilege for a handful of countries, nor a tool of manipulation in the hands of millionaires,” Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said at the summit.

However, the UN report “Governing AI for Humanity” found that 118 countries, most of which are in the Global South, were not part of a sample of non-UN AI governance initiatives, while seven countries, all of which are in the Global North, were included in all initiatives.

According to Dhar, global governance must create a more equitable distribution of power that entails sharing ownership and embedding the Global South at every level of institutions, agreements and investments, rather than simply for consultation. These nations must also be aided in building capacity, sharing infrastructure, scientific discovery and participation in creating global frameworks, he said.

In his remarks at the BRICS summit, UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed his concern over the weaponization of AI and stressed the importance of AI governance that is focused on equity. He said in order for this to be done, the current “multipolar world” must be addressed.

“We cannot govern AI effectively—and fairly—without confronting deeper, structural imbalances in our global system,” Guterres said.

Dhar emphasized that the inclusion of every person in the conversation on AI is crucial to creating legitimate global technological governance.

The future of AI is being negotiated with immediacy and urgency,” Dhar said. “Whether it becomes a force for collective progress or a new vector for inequality depends on who is empowered to shape it.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
??

Credit: Piroschka Van De Wouw/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Samuel King and Inés M. Pousadela
BRUSSELS, Belgium / MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Jul 14 2025 (IPS)

Donald Trump’s bullying tactics ahead of NATO’s annual summit, held in The Hague in June, worked spectacularly. By threatening to redefine NATO’s article 5 – the collective defence provision that has anchored western security since 1949 – Trump won commitments from NATO allies to almost triple their defence spending to five per cent of GDP by 2035. European defence budgets will balloon from around US$500 billion to over US$1 trillion annually, essentially matching US spending levels.

This is a staggering shift. Some NATO members currently spend around 1.2 per cent of GDP on traditional defence items, making the leap to five per cent an extraordinary proposition. The UK alone is earmarking US$1.3 billion to restore tactical nuclear capabilities, while the European Union (EU) has approved a US$176 billion fund for joint defence projects. Member states will even be allowed to breach normal debt limits without penalty – a clear signal that defence spending now trumps all other priorities.

At a time when people across NATO countries struggle with living costs and feel public services have been cut to the bone, this remilitarisation threatens deeper economic insecurity. More military spending may mean less for education, healthcare and programmes supporting those most in need. The UK has already announced cuts to international aid, which a few years ago stood at 0.7 per cent of gross national income, to 0.3 per cent by 2027 to pay for defence, and other countries are following suit. The upshot will be a massive transfer of income from the world’s poorest people to politically powerful defence corporations, mostly based in the USA.

A further alarming aspect of NATO’s spending surge is what it lacks: meaningful transparency requirements or standardised oversight mechanisms. Defence procurement typically operates behind closed doors, so normal accountability rules don’t apply. Decisions are shrouded in secrecy, complex international supply chains make oversight harder and industry-government relationships blur ethical lines. The revolving door between officials and contractors compromises independent decision-making, while national security provides convenient cover for decisions that might not withstand public scrutiny.

Rapid spending increases will exacerbate these accountability problems. The pandemic showed that sudden shifts in state spending are rarely transparent and provide opportunities for corruption. As governments race to meet deadlines and pressure from Trump mounts to show immediate results, expedited procurement processes are likely to bypass normal checks and balances.

History offers sobering lessons. In Afghanistan, billions supposed to develop local defence capacity disappeared into ghost projects and phantom battalions. Corruption undermined military effectiveness by producing substandard equipment and compromising logistics networks, helping enable the Taliban’s rapid return to power. Ukraine’s experience provides another cautionary tale—despite intense international scrutiny since Russia’s invasion, it took years to root out corrupt networks that had captured large portions of the defence budget.

Meanwhile, Russia has spent decades honing its malign influence operations, using cash and networks of cronies to hollow out democratic processes in western states, including many NATO members. A defence spending boom with no accountability safeguards risks creating fresh vulnerabilities authoritarian states and organised criminal groups can exploit.

The solution is to democratise defence spending. Recent research on EU defence procurement reveals that more transparent military contracting consistently produces lower corruption levels. Countries with greater transparency spend money more efficiently, with fewer cost overruns and higher-quality equipment.

One of the most glaring gaps in NATO’s current approach is the absence of civil society from defence governance. Other government ministries routinely consult with civil society, but defence ministries make major spending decisions with minimal input from those who can ensure choices reflect real human security needs and democratic values.

Civil society organisations bring crucial capabilities governments often lack: the independence to ask difficult questions, the expertise to spot red flags in complex contracts and the persistence to follow money trails to politically sensitive destinations. Security encompasses more than troops and weapons – it includes building institutional resilience, defusing disinformation and strengthening democratic systems against attack, areas where civil society has much to contribute.

Effective oversight doesn’t mean revealing sensitive operational details or compromising security. It requires tracking financial flows, monitoring contractor performance and ensuring competitive bidding processes. Civil society groups have repeatedly demonstrated they can investigate defence spending without endangering national security.

Before the money starts flowing, NATO should establish a defence procurement transparency initiative that sets baseline standards for member states. This should include requirements for public disclosure of contract values and vendor selection criteria, covering procurement, exports, offset agreements and spending on AI, cyber capabilities and research and development. National parliaments must be empowered to scrutinise decisions, independent oversight bodies should be adequately resourced to follow the money and both should draw on civil society expertise.

Civil society needs to be protected and allowed access to monitor defence spending flows, and whistleblower protections for defence sector employees should be strengthened. As civil society organisations worldwide endure funding cuts, including because of the Trump administration’s evisceration of aid spending, any increase in defence spending mustn’t come at the cost of democracy and human rights.

NATO’s credibility, and ultimately its security, depends on reconciling human security with respect for democratic values. That will only be achieved if civil society is able to play its role.

Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, and Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, writer at CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

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

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

People in Yemen impacted by war and climate shocks receive aid from the IOM. Photo credit: Majed Mohammed/IOM Yemen

By Juliana White
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 13 2025 (IPS)

Yemen’s humanitarian crisis, driven by conflict, economic collapse and climate shocks, leaves migrants desperate to return to their home countries.

In March 2025, the Global Data Institute Displacement Tracking Matrix recorded that 1,234 non-Yemeni migrants left the country.

Once a critical transit and destination point, Yemen is unable to support incoming asylum seekers. Yemenis are struggling to survive amidst a decade-long conflict and worsening climate change impacts. Over 4.8 million people are internally displaced, and 20 million rely on aid.

Most migrants come from Ethiopia and Somalia, searching for safety or work in the Gulf countries. However, many become stranded in Yemen due to the harsh conditions and abuse.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) found that in 2024, around 60,900 migrants arrived in Yemen with no means to survive. Subsequently, they are exposed to severe protection risks, including physical and sexual violence, exploitation, abduction, detention, and debt bondage.

“With limited humanitarian resources and few service providers on the ground, migrants often suffer from hunger, untreated medical conditions, and lack of shelter. Many are stranded without access to even the most basic services,” said the IOM to IPS.

“Meanwhile, public hostility toward migrants has increased, as they are increasingly viewed as competing with vulnerable Yemeni populations for scarce assistance. The ongoing conflict in Yemen further compounds these vulnerabilities, with migrants caught in airstrikes, exposed to explosive ordnance, and lacking access to safety.”

Women and girls are the most vulnerable group of migrants traveling through Yemen. They are disproportionately threatened with gender-based and sexual abuse.

“I’ve been beaten, detained, and exploited in Yemen,” said a 24-year-old Ethiopian woman to IOM. “Most nights, I went hungry. After everything that happened to me, I am happy to go back to my home and family.”

Severe climate impacts also make it increasingly difficult for both migrants and Yemenis to access food and water. Around 17.1 million Yemenis are struggling with food insecurity, and climate-related issues are only exacerbating this crisis.

The June 2025 Migration, Environment, and Climate Change (MECC) Country Report on Yemen by the IOM says that Yemen is the 12^th most water-scarce country in the world. This significantly influences food insecurity, as rising temperatures caused by climate change create unpredictable rainfall.

In some areas, severe droughts are turning fertile farmland into arid deserts, forcing farmers to plant new crops or move in search of better conditions. Meanwhile, in other communities, heavy rain is sparking extreme flooding. Impacted areas are decimated by soil erosion and disease from contaminated water.

“Areas that used to experience heavy rainfall have now suffered from drought, and farmers have to adapt to this drought by either planting drought-resistant crops, changing their livelihoods, or migrating to another location. And some areas used to suffer from drought but now experience heavy rainfall, where the intensity of rainfall has led to the emergence of new diseases brought by floods,” said an official in the General Authority for Environmental Protection responsible for planning and information to the IOM.

Together, brutal conflict and a lack of access to vital necessities significantly limit migrants’ ability to return to their home countries. The IOM reported that in 2020, around 18,200 people risked their lives traveling by sea. Overcrowded vessels traversing rough waters often capsize, killing dozens on board.

For others, their journey back home leads them through heavily war-inflicted areas. Without proper assistance, migrants are left to navigate through dangerous frontlines, risking death from armed violence and landmines.

However, programs like the IOM’s Voluntary Humanitarian Return (VHR) aim to facilitate migrants’ safe return home. VHR is one of the only solutions for stranded migrants to voluntarily return in a safe and dignified manner.

So far, the IOM has helped 66 migrants safely return this year. This is a significant drop compared to the 5,200 individuals returned in 2024.

“IOM provides lifesaving protection and health service through Migrant Response Points (MRPs) in Aden, Sanaa and Marib and Community-based Care centers in Aden and Sanaa, as well as through mobile teams along the migratory routes funded by ECHO and UK FCDO,” said the IOM to IPS. “Since 2015, IOM has been facilitating Voluntary Humanitarian Return (VHR) as the only viable solution for stranded migrants who wish to return home voluntarily, safely, and with dignity.”

The IOM is backed by numerous groups such as the European Union, the King Salman Humanitarian Aid and Relief Centre (KSrelief), the US State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, and the governments of Germany, France, Norway, and Finland. Unfortunately, despite widespread support for the program, more donations are urgently needed. The IOM is struggling to help migrants due to significant funding cuts.

“As migration flows continue to surge, the demand for safe and dignified return options for migrants has reached critical levels,” said Matt Huber, IOM’s former Chief of Mission in Yemen. “Without immediate funding support, the continuity of this vital programme is at risk, leaving thousands of vulnerable migrants stranded in precarious conditions with many experiencing serious protection violations.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
??

The June Climate Talks, SB62 under the UNFCCC, in Bonn 16-26 June, Photo Credit: UN Climate Chang/Lara Murillo

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINAGAR & BONN, Jul 11 2025 (IPS)

This 62nd meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB62) from June 16 to 26, 2025 revealed the persistent complexities and political tensions that continue to challenge multilateral climate governance.?

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) convened its 62nd meeting of the?Subsidiary Bodies (SB62) from June 16 to 26, 2025 – a critical juncture in the global climate negotiation process ahead of the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) set for November in Belém, Brazil.

Often referred to as a “mini-COP”, SB62 serves as a mid-year platform where negotiators and technical experts advance discussions on implementing the Paris Agreement and lay the groundwork for decisions at the COP.

While some progress was made on adaptation and procedural issues, key areas such as climate finance, technology, and scientific assessments remained contentious. Interviews with climate experts Jennifer Chow of the Environmental Defence Fund and Meredith Ryder-Rude shed light on systemic challenges within the UNFCCC process and offered insights into pathways for more effective climate action.

Jennifer Chow of the Environmental Defense Fund

Deadlock That Foreshadowed the Tense and Fractious Atmosphere

The Bonn conference brought together government delegations, UN agencies, intergovernmental organisations, Indigenous and youth representatives, and civil society observers. The Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) focused on operational matters including finance, capacity-building, and gender equality, while the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) addressed scientific guidance and technical issues such as carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.

Brazil, as COP30 host, fielded the largest delegation with 173 provisional attendees, signalling its intent to influence the upcoming COP agenda. The Brazilian COP presidency outlined three priorities: reinforcing multilateralism, connecting climate regime outcomes with people’s everyday lives, and accelerating Paris Agreement implementation through institutional reforms.

Yet the meeting’s opening was marked by a two-day delay in adopting the agenda, largely due to disagreements over including discussions on developed countries’ finance obligations under?Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement. This early procedural deadlock foreshadowed the tense and fractious atmosphere permeating the conference.

How Scientific Discussions Remained Politically Sensitive

Adaptation emerged as a focal point, with negotiators agreeing on a refined list of global adaptation indicators, including measures related to access to financing — a key demand from developing countries. Steps were also taken toward transitioning the Adaptation Fund to operate exclusively under the Paris Agreement framework and clarifying loss and damage reporting procedures.

Nonetheless, the broader finance discussions exposed deep divides. The?collective quantified goal (NCQG) of USD 300 billion, established at COP29 in Baku, continues to be a source of dissatisfaction, especially among developing nations seeking more predictable and adequate funding. These finance issues cut across multiple agenda items, influencing adaptation, transparency, and just transition talks.

Scientific discussions remained politically sensitive. Although the parties agreed to “take note” of recent scientific reports from the World Meteorological Organisation, stronger language expressing concern about current warming trends was blocked by some countries. This reflected ongoing sensitivity around acknowledging the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C temperature limit.

Streamlining, Trust, and Effective Finance Delivery

In an exclusive interview with Inter Press Service,?Jennifer Chow, Senior Director for Climate-Resilient Food Systems at the?Environmental Defense Fund, highlighted structural challenges impeding UNFCCC efficiency and effectiveness:

“As is true for other multilateral processes, it is nearly impossible to address a growing list of issues efficiently without a concerted effort to prioritise, simplify approaches, and partner with others who may not require budgetary support. I think this is more pertinent to focus on than funding fluctuations.”

Chow claimed that the proliferation of agenda items and ballooning delegation sizes have complicated negotiations. “There are too many agenda items—and delegations have ballooned as a result. The secretariat and bureau could closely examine the COP, CMA, and SB agendas, propose streamlining, and develop a list of agenda items to sunset over the next two years, as some issues may no longer require negotiation. In some areas, constituted bodies can take up the work. Closing agenda items does not have to equal a lack of ambition.”

She also pointed to the trust deficit within the process.

“We can focus on giving more time for areas of convergence and less ‘unlimited’ time on issues where there is no consensus. Additionally, we need to give more leadership roles to Small Island Developing States (SIDS)?and?Least Developed Countries (LDCs). We have conflated progress review and rule-making, and renegotiating matters that were already agreed upon can erode trust.”

On countries’ climate plans, Chow stressed the need to prioritise implementation. “A plan is a plan. Evidence of implementation and progress towards 2030 commitments should be highlighted just as much as new 2035 commitments. Let’s not lose sight of the critical decade and sprint to 2030. Stronger implementation now will result in more ambitious plans later.”

Environmental Defense Fund’s expert Meredith Ryder-Rude

Meredith Ryder-Rude, also from the Environmental Defense Fund, shed light on the reasons behind stalled adaptation finance negotiations and the challenges of ensuring funds reach vulnerable communities.

“The recent negotiations stalled because the sticking point has historically been disagreement over which funding sources can be ‘counted’ towards adaptation finance goals. There is no disagreement over the urgent need for dramatically higher adaptation finance, but political and ideological differences remain over what types of funding from developed countries are truly delivering adaptation outcomes.”

She explained the complexity of adaptation finance integration.

“Guidance directs countries to mainstream adaptation in development, economic, and financial planning. Given distrust between parties and the severe impacts and costs involved, finding middle ground is difficult. Developed country budgets are tight, and those controlling funds are often not closely involved in climate discussions or understanding of multilateral climate funds, creating a big gap to bridge.”

On improving the effectiveness of finance delivery, Ryder-Rude highlighted the importance of capacity building in recipient countries. “One of the most critical ways to ensure climate finance reaches vulnerable communities effectively is increasing absorptive and financial management capacity at the local level. Funding levels have remained largely static for decades. We focus much on unlocking more funding—the supply side—but more attention is needed on the demand side.”

She pointed to promising models emerging from developing countries. “National-level organisations serve as aggregators managing multimillion-dollar grants from multilaterals and disbursing smaller grants to local community groups. They mentor these groups to increase independence and ability to manage larger sums over time. Eventually, local organisations can manage funding directly with donors. We need more small grant programmes, more national aggregators familiar with local contexts, and generally more trusting, flexible financing—especially for adaptation.”

Empowering most vulnerable remains critical to the UNFCCC’s future effectiveness

Meanwhile, with the world approaching the COP30 in Belém, Brazil, the outcomes of SB62 reveal both the urgency and difficulty of advancing ambitious climate action. Key issues expected to dominate the COP agenda include operationalising the new collective quantified goal for climate finance, finalising rules for?carbon markets under Article 6, and translating adaptation frameworks into real-world support.

Countries were expected to submit updated?Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)?aligned with the 1.5°C target; however, nearly 95 percent missed the informal February 2025 deadline, raising concerns about political will and transparency.

Brazil’s presidency faces scrutiny over inclusiveness and transparency, especially regarding its proposed Circle of Finance Ministers tasked with developing a new climate finance roadmap. Questions about Belém’s capacity to host an effective COP add another layer of complexity.

Geopolitical challenges—including the notable absence of a formal U.S. delegation due to previous administration policies—further underscore the fragility of global climate leadership. In this context, rebuilding trust, streamlining negotiating processes, and empowering the most vulnerable remain critical to the UNFCCC’s future effectiveness.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
??

The Human Rights Council is an intergovernmental body within the UN system responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe, and for addressing situations of human rights violations, and making recommendations on them, according to the UN. It has the ability to discuss all thematic human rights issues and situations that require its attention throughout the year. It meets at the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG).

By Lucy McKernan and Hilary Power
NEW YORK / GENEVA, Jul 11 2025 (IPS)

The United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has expressed concern at the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ announcement that certain activities mandated by the council cannot be delivered due to a lack of funding. The council has sought clarity on why certain activities had been singled out.

Among the activities the commissioner says can’t be delivered is the commission of inquiry on grave abuses in Eastern Congo, an important initiative created—at least on paper—at an emergency session of the HRC in February in response to an appeal by Congolese, regional, and international rights groups.

The establishment of the commission offered a glimmer of hope in the face of grave and ongoing atrocities in the region, and it was hoped it might be an important step toward ending the cycle of abuse and impunity and delivering justice and reparations for victims and survivors.

It is not only the activities highlighted by the commissioner that are impacted by the funding crisis, however. Virtually all the HRC’s work has been affected, with investigations into rights abuses—for example in Sudan, Palestine, and Ukraine—reportedly operating at approximately 30-60 percent of capacity.

In discussions about the proposed cuts, several states—notably those credibly accused of rights abuses—have sought to use the financial crisis as cover to attack the council’s country-focused investigative mandates or undermine the Office of the High Commissioner’s broader work and independence. For example, Eritrea invoked the crisis in its ultimately unsuccessful effort to end council scrutiny of its own dismal rights record.

Amid discussions on the current crisis, there has been little reflection among states on how the UN got into this mess. States failing to pay their membership contributions, or failing to pay on time, has compounded the chronic underfunding of the UN’s human rights pillar over decades.

The United States’ failure to pay virtually anything at the moment, followed by China’s late payments, bear the greatest responsibility for the current financial shortfall given their contributions account for nearly half of the UN’s budget.

But they are not alone: 79 countries reportedly still haven’t paid their fees for 2025 (expected in February). Among those that haven’t yet paid this year are Eritrea, Iran, Cuba, Russia, and others that have used the crisis to take aim at the council’s country mandates or to undermine the work or independence of the high commissioner’s office.

Rather than seeking to meddle in the office’s work or reduce the HRC’s scrutiny of crises, states should work with the UN to ensure funds are available for at least partial delivery of all activities they mandate through the council, particularly in emergencies.

Urgent investigations into situations of mass atrocities are key tools for prevention, protection, and supporting access to justice. They cannot wait until the financial crisis blows over.

Lucy McKernan is United Nations Deputy Director, Advocacy, Human Rights Watch (HRW), and Hilary Power is UN Geneva Director, HRW

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

About 9.2 million people across the world living with HIV were not receiving treatment in 2024, according to the UNAIDS report. At the launch of the report were Rev. Mbulelo Dyasi, Executive Director of SANARELA. Winnie Byanyima, UNAIDS Executive Director, Aaron Motsoaledi, Minister of Health of South Africa. Juwan Betty Wani, Programme Coordinator, Adolescents Girls and young women Network South Sudan. Helen Rees, Executive Director, Wits RHI. Credit: UNAIDS

By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 10 2025 (IPS)

UNAIDS called the funding crisis a ticking time bomb, saying the impact of the US cuts to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) could result in 4 million unnecessary AIDS-related deaths by 2029.

A historic withdrawal of global HIV/AIDS funding threatens to derail decades of hard-won progress in the fight against AIDS, according to UNAIDS’ annual report, entitled Aids, Crisis and the Power to Transform. This funding shortage – caused by sudden and massive cuts from international donors – is already dismantling frontline services, disrupting lifesaving treatments for millions and endangering countless lives in the world’s most vulnerable communities.

“This is not just a funding gap—it’s a ticking time bomb,” said UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima.

Despite major strides in 2024, including a decrease in new HIV infections by 40 percent and a decrease in AIDS-related deaths by 56% since 2010, the onset of restricted international assistance, which makes up 80 percent of prevention in low- and middle-income countries, could have disastrous effects. The report, mostly researched at the end of 2024, concluded that the end of AIDS as a public health threat by 2030 was in sight.

However, in early 2025 the United States government announced “shifting foreign assistance strategies,” causing them to withdraw aid from organizations like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which had earlier promised 4.3 billion USD in 2025. PEPFAR is one of the primary HIV testing and treatment services in countries most affected. Such a drastic decision could have ripple effects, including pushing other major donor countries to revoke their aid. The report projected that if international funding permanently disappears, they expect an additional 6 million HIV infections and 4 million AIDS-related deaths by 2029.

At a Press Briefing, Assistant Secretary-General for UNAIDS Angeli Achrekar noted the importance of PEPFAR since its inception in 2003, calling it one of the most successful public health endeavors. She expressed hope that as the US lessens its support, other organizations and countries are able to take up the global promise of ending AIDS without eroding the gains already made.

Achrekar noted “acute shifts” in a weakening of commitment from countries less directly affected by HIV/AIDS since the US has pulled funding.

UNAIDS also reports a rising number of countries criminalizing populations most at risk of HIV – raising stigma and worsening gender-based violence and non-consensual sex, two of the highest HIV risk-enhancing behaviors. The report showed the primary groups who lacked care were child HIV infections and young women, which is likely related to government campaigns? “attacking HIV-related human rights, including for public health, with girls, women and people from key populations.”

These punitive laws include criminalization or prosecution based on general criminal laws of HIV exposure, criminalization of sex work, transgender people and same-sex sexual activity and possession of small amounts of drugs. These laws have been on the rise for the past few years, and in conjunction with limited funding, the results for HIV/AIDS-positive patients could be fatal.

Recently, scientific breakthroughs have been made regarding long-acting medicine to prevent HIV infection. Health workers have seen tremendous success, both with new technologies like annual injections and the potential for more growth in the form of monthly preventative tablets and in old prevention techniques like condom procurement and distribution and access to clean, safe needles for drug users. However, due to various global conflicts and wars, supply chains have been disrupted, often harming countries not in the thick of the altercation but reliant on products like PrEP, an HIV prevention medication.

Although many countries most afflicted with the AIDS crisis have stepped up, promising more national funding for the issue, and many community networks have doubled down on their efforts, the disruption of supply chains and the lack of international frontline health workers cannot be solved overnight. To entirely restructure how healthcare is provided takes time – something those with HIV do not always have.

Areas like sub-Saharan Africa, which in 2024 housed half of the 9.2 million people not receiving HIV treatment, have been particularly affected by the recent changes. The majority of child infections still occur there, and combinations of “debt distress, slow economic growth and underperforming tax systems” provide countries in sub-Saharan Africa with limited fiscal room to increase domestic funding for HIV.

Despite the loss of funding, significant progress has been made to protect essential HIV treatment gains. South Africa currently funds 77% of its AIDS response, and its 2025 budget review includes a 3.3% annual increase for HIV and tuberculosis programs over the next three years. As of December 2024, seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa have achieved the 95-95-95 targets established by UNAIDS: 95% of people living with HIV know their status, 95% of those are on treatment, and 95% of those on treatment are virally suppressed. UNAIDS emphasized the importance of this being scaled up to a global level.

Achrekar observed, referring to countries whose domestic funds towards AIDS have increased, that “prevention is the last thing that is prioritized, but we will never be able to turn off the tap of the new infections without focusing on prevention as well.”

She reiterated the importance of countries most affected by the HIV/AIDS crisis establishing self-sustaining health practices to ensure longevity in both prevention and treatment.

Achrekar praised the global South for their work in taking ownership of treatment while still calling upon the rest of the world to join.

She said, “The HIV response was forged in crisis, and it was built to be resilient. We need, and are calling for, global solidarity once again, to rebuild a nationally owned and led, sustainable and inclusive multi-sectoral HIV response.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
??

 
CIVICUS speaks to Cristinel Buzatu, regional legal advisor for Central and Eastern Europe at Greenpeace, about how Romania’s state gas company is weaponising the courts to silence environmental opposition.

Cristinel Buzatu

What’s the Neptun Deep project and why is Greenpeace challenging it?

The Neptun Deep project is the largest proposed fossil gas drilling project in the European Union (EU), and we’re fighting it on multiple fronts. Operated by Romgaz Black Sea Limited Nassau SRL and OMV Petrom SA in the Romanian Black Sea, this massive drilling operation threatens biodiversity, accelerates climate change and extreme weather and locks Romania and the EU into an outdated and harmful fossil fuel system.

Our legal challenge targets the project’s environmental permit. We asked the Bucharest Tribunal to suspend it, arguing the Constan?a Environmental Protection Agency had approved it in breach of environmental law. The agency’s evaluation was superficial at best, relying on outdated data on the project’s climate impacts and greenhouse gas emissions. Crucially, they ignored its impacts on biodiversity and water bodies, failed to consider risks from potential military conflicts and bypassed meaningful public consultation. Key documents such as ecotoxicity tests and archaeological diagnostic reports were kept hidden from public scrutiny.

When the court rejected our application, it hit us with a massive bill of 150,000 lei (approx. US$34,550) in legal costs to each company. They had demanded even more.

How did Romgaz turn legal costs into a weapon?

Romgaz claimed we failed to pay those costs and were therefore insolvent, which is grounds for dissolving an organisation under Romanian law. They alleged we had no assets or bank accounts and were using several legal entities to avoid responsibility. But the truth is we’ve never received a formal payment notice. When we actively requested one, none came.

Yet Romgaz pressed ahead, filing for our dissolution while launching a media smear campaign. We prepared our defence, confident the facts would vindicate us, as Romgaz’s claims were demonstrably false. But we never got our day in court. Just hours before the first hearing, Romgaz abruptly withdrew the case. Even then, it publicly reaffirmed its accusations and vowed to try again. The strategy was clear: inflict maximum reputational damage while denying us any opportunity to defend ourselves.

Is this part of a broader attack on environmental groups?

Absolutely. This case exemplifies a troubling trend targeting civil society in Romania, particularly environmental groups that dare to use the courts. The playbook is simple: companies that win cases demand excessive legal costs. When organisations can’t pay, the companies pursue their dissolution on insolvency grounds.

We’ve seen this weapon deployed repeatedly. Take Militia Spirituala, a local organisation that was dissolved at the request of a real estate developer. The same developer also tried to shut down Salvati Bucurestiul over unpaid legal fees, although the organisation survived by paying up. Now that developer is suing several organisations for damages totalling a million euros.

The chilling effect is undeniable. While we lack exact figures on litigation rates, the reality speaks for itself: only a handful of organisations still dare to challenge corporate projects in court. Most have been scared off by the legal and financial risks. This amounts to a serious restriction on access to justice, and we urgently need to find ways to reverse this trend.

How did civil society fight back against Romgaz?

The response was immediate and powerful. Civil society recognised the Romgaz case for what it was: a textbook SLAPP – a strategic litigation against public participation. Within just 24 hours, over 25,000 people signed a petition condemning the attempt to silence us.

But the attack’s roots went deeper than one company’s aggression: it was a coordinated effort made from the highest levels of government. On 20 March, the Ministry of Energy held up the Energy Transfer lawsuit in the USA against three Greenpeace organisations as a model to emulate, explicitly encouraging national energy firms to launch similar legal assaults on environmental groups that challenge their projects. The message was unmistakable: the state stands with corporations against civil society.

This provoked unprecedented unity. Over 110 civil society organisations from diverse fields signed an open letter demanding the minister’s dismissal. Yet even this solidarity wasn’t enough to stop the attacks. In May, the minister openly welcomed Romgaz’s attempt to dissolve us, repeating baseless claims about our finances and structure – the same lies peddled in court.

Still, something remarkable has happened. Many people who have never supported us before reached out, saying that while they might not always agree with our campaigns, they recognised this legal action as pure intimidation. That support gives us strength to carry on, defend civic space and resist corporate capture of our democracy.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube

SEE ALSO
The price of protest: Greenpeace hit with huge penalty CIVICUS Lens 09.Apr.2025
‘Energy Transfer’s lawsuit against Greenpeace is an attempt to drain our resources and silence dissent’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Daniel Simons 01.Apr.2025
Europe: ‘Member states must introduce national anti-SLAPP legislation to protect public watchdogs’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Francesca Borg Costanzi 21.Mar.2024

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Gereltuya Bayanmukh speaks about her motivations to become involved in climate activism. Credit: ?Leo Galuh/IPS

By Aatreyee Dhar
ULAANBAATAR, Jul 9 2025 (IPS)

Youth activist Gereltuya Bayanmukh still reflects on the events in her formative years that inspired her to become a climate activist. When she was a child, she would visit her grandparents in a village 20 km to the south of the border between Russia and Mongolia.

She was happy to see each of the nomadic people in their traditional gers power up their settlements using solar power.

“I remember seeing my neighbors own a solar panel and a battery to accumulate power. They were turning on lights and watching TV using solar power. Nowadays, they even have fridges,” she says.

She thought the herders made a conscious choice about their lifestyles and understood the need of the hour in the face of the looming climate crisis. That is to say, switch to renewable energy and power a safer future.

“This was the reason I became a climate activist,” she says.

No matter how unwitting her notion about her community achieving self-sufficiency with renewable energy was, the findings about what entailed this system revealed something else.

“I later learned that the solar panels were partially subsidized by the government as a part of the nationwide government to equip 100,000 nomadic households with solar energy,” she says.

What she perceived turned out to be a nationwide renewable energy scheme by the Mongolian government for the nomadic herders.

The scheme, called the National 100,000 Solar Ger [Yurt] Electricity Program, introduced in 2000, provided herders with portable photovoltaic solar home systems that complement their traditional nomadic lifestyle.

At least 30 percent of Mongolia’s population comprises nomadic herders. Before 2000, when the scheme came into effect, herders had limited or no access to modern electricity. By 2005, the government managed to equip over 30,000 herder families through funds from several donor nations.

However, the full-scale electrification effort for herders was beginning to stagnate. The 2006 midterm custom audit performance report by the Standing Committee on Environment, Food and Agriculture of the Parliament carried sobering revelations.

The scheme in its initial phase was poorly managed: there was no control over the distribution process, with some units delivered to local areas landing in the hands of non-residents violating the contract, failure to deliver the targeted number of generators, misappropriation of the program funds, and inability to repay the loans within the contractual period.

However, in the third phase–2006-2012–the program was able to expand its implementation with the support of several international donors, including the World Bank.

“At first, I thought how great that we started out with the renewable energy transition, giving access to renewable energy at a lower price. And it was even in 1999. That was when I was just four years old. I believe we were on our way to building a future like this. Like we visualized here. The future of green nomadism. However, my optimism faded when I read the midterm audit report and discovered that the program had been (just as) poorly managed as the first part. It was only with the assistance of the international partners that the program finished well,” says Gereltuya.

Gereltuya is the co-founder and board director of her NGO, Green Dot Climate, which focuses on empowering youth as climate activists and raising awareness and practical skills for climate action.

One of the mottoes of her NGO is to change the youth’s and Mongolian people’s attitudes?and practices around climate change issues as well as solutions.

In the past year, the NGO has been successful in reaching over half a million Mongolians, including nomads, helping them become more environmentally conscious and empowering the youth to be climate activists—makers and doers themselves.

“In the past year, we have reached over half a million Mongolians. Our Green Dot youth community has logged more than 100,000 individual climate actions, saving over 700,000 kg of CO?, 25 liters of water, and 80,000 kilowatt-hours of energy. Next, we will aim for a million collective actions, a stronger community and a minimum of 50 collaborative climate projects in Mongolia,” Gereltuya said during her delegate speech at the One Young World Summit, a global event that brings in young leaders from around the world to discuss global issues, in 2023.

The state of Mongolia’s nomads in the current energy system

Mongolia as a country heavily relies on coal for energy production, which contributes to 90 percent of its energy production. Coming to just transition, the government aims for a 30 percent renewable energy share by 2030 of its installed capacity, as enshrined in the State Policy on Energy 2015-2030. Mongolia is also committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 22.7 percent by 2030 while the energy sector accounts for 44.78 percent of the total emissions as of 2020 according to Mongolia’s Second Biennial Update Report.

Gereltuya’s NGO, Green Dot Climate, has been mapping Mongolia’s energy systems for the past few years now. As of 2024, Mongolia’s electricity sector relies on CHP [combined heat and power] plants and imports from Russia and China to meet its electricity demands.

Only 7 percent of its total installed energy comes from renewable sources, with the Central Energy System accounting for over 80 percent of the total electricity demand. “We found that about 200,000 households remain unaccounted for in the centralized energy grid calculations. These are likely the same nomadic families or their later generations who likely adopted their first solar systems at least two decades ago,” she explains.

Gereltuya says that her organisation meticulously compared the recent household data cited by the Energy Regulatory Commission of Mongolia to that of the total? number of households as per the Mongolian Statistical Information Service to find the numbers that went missing

Mongolia’s backslide into fossil-fuel economy

Although Mongolia has promised to increase its renewable energy share to 30 percent by 2030, it is still far behind in the race to achieve its target.

In the 2020 Nationally Determined Contribution [NDC] submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], Mongolia set its mitigation target to “a 22.7% reduction in total national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030,” which can increase to a 27.2 percent reduction if conditional mitigation measures such as carbon capture and storage and waste-to-energy technology are implemented. Further, if “actions and measures to remove GHG emissions by forest are determined”, the total mitigation target would rise to 49.9 percent by 2030.

“Instead of focusing on decarbonizing its coal-based economy, Mongolia shifted to focus on carbon-sink and sequestration processes to reduce its emissions. This suggests that despite our many promises, policies and past efforts to mainstream renewables, we may still end up with business as usual. A case of bad governance, stagnation and vicious cycles,” she says.

Recommendations for Mongolia’s energy sector

Gereltuya’s NGO has been actively engaged in the survey ‘Earth Month 2025’ that is aimed at collecting specific recommendations from the youth voices in the country for the NDC 3.0 that the government is expected to submit in COP30. She shares a few recommendations that she believes can help improve the country’s energy systems.

On the demand side, households not connected to the grid should update and improve their solar home systems, especially now that the solutions are much cheaper and more efficient.

According to the 2024 World Bank ‘Mongolia Country Climate and Development Report,’ the average residential tariff for electricity in Mongolia was estimated to be 40 percent below cost recovery, and subsidies were worth 3.5 percent of GDP in 2022. The lack of cost recovery created hurdles in efforts to enhance energy efficiency and investment in renewable energy. In the context, those connected to the grid should pay more for their energy use to reflect the real cost of energy production and support renewable energy feed-in tariffs. There should be responsible voting of citizens demanding better policies and implementations and not trading in policies for short-term gains.

On the supply side, there is a need to stop new fossil fuel projects immediately: there are at least six such projects, including one international project under Mongolia’s current Energy Revival Policy, underway.

Secondly, Mongolia’s electricity infrastructure needs significant improvement. As the UNDP recently highlighted, Mongolia’s infrastructure is aging, inefficient and heavily subsidized.

Thirdly, fully utilize installed energy capacity, which is at only 30 percent, largely owing to the infrastructure inefficiency.

Fourth is to increase the overall renewable energy capacity five times to meet demand, which means 15 times the energy made in full demand. And phase out coal-based power, replacing it with fully renewable energy.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
??