Africa

Oil tankers entering and departing a busy port. Credit: Unsplash/Ramona Flwrs

By Maximilian Malawista
NEW YORK, Jul 28 2025 (IPS)

Two-thirds of the developing world, or ninety-five out of 143 economies, are dependent on commodities for export value, making up 60 percent of their merchandise exports. For the least developed world, this number rises to 80 percent, leaving entire nation’s revenue vulnerable to price swings, fiscal shocks, and evolving trade compositions. Hidden behind the numbers lies a deeper transformation, one disrupting fossil fuel trade, triggering a higher reliance on mineral exports, particularly on mining essential for green technologies.

In 2024, during a special climate panel, on critical energy transition minerals, UN Secretary-General António Guterres remarked, “A world powered by renewables is a world hungry for critical minerals. For developing countries, critical minerals are a critical opportunity – to create jobs, diversify economies, and dramatically boost revenues. But only if they are managed properly.”

Guterres signaled a clear message that this change can indeed boost economies and create jobs, especially in the places which need it most, but only if those countries are then willing to invest in diversification strategies through proper economic management.

At this year’s UN High Level Political Forum Guterres reaffirmed his stance on July 22, stating: “Fossil fuels are outdated. The sun is rising on a new era − the era of clean energy.” Guterres present a six-point action plan forward, which would phase out fossil fuels and secure energy access to all, by outlining methods of financing green transition.

A shift in the tides: oil to ore

Between 2012-2014 and 2021-2023, the share of commodity exports in of global trade have slightly declined, from 35.5 percent to 32.7 percent. At the same time, overall merchandise trade grew by 25.6 percent, with commodity exports growing by 15.5 percent. This 10 percent gap accounts for a 619 billion dollar shortfall due to declining and stagnating energy exports, which currently dominate the commodity trade.

Energy exports once led the commodity trade but are now showing obvious signs of stagnation and future decline. From 2021 to 2023, global energy exports amounted to 3.16 trillion on average, slightly decreasing 1.3 percent from the 2012-2014. The acceleration of renewable energy projects and the UN’s 2030 Agenda have been main proponents in this, driving down the reliance on oil and coal, and improving energy efficiency through global investment in green technologies.

Western Asia, once a dominant region in energy exports, particularly oil, saw its share fall from 31.3 percent to 24.7 percent over the past decade. Russia, once the world’s top energy exporter saw its export value drop by 26.6 percent.

However, in this same period, the United States became the world’s leading energy exporter, driven by its massive quantities of liquefied natural gas and shale oil mining. This shift too even reflects a greener transition, as liquefied natural gas is seen increasingly as a bridge to clean energy, as it presents cleaner effects on the environment, and is overall considered cleaner than oil and coal by a large margin.

In contrast to this overall decline in energy demand, mining exports have been surging. In Asia and Oceania, the regions’ share grew from 33.8 percent to 37.6 percent. Looking at Australia alone, they grew their mining export value from USD 105.7 billion to USD 171 billion due to higher demand from China and other global consumers for metals like copper, cobalt, and lithium. These materials are necessary for solar panels, wind turbines and electric car batteries, which are all considered essential components to a green economy.

Suppliers of the green future: Africa

While much of the world is expanding looking towards the future, Africa is still largely behind in development, creating lags in green agendas. Most of the continent lacks basic access to electricity. Africa is home to twenty of the world’s thirty-three mining export-dependent economies, making them the provider of many materials for green technologies, but not the constructors.

In Western and Eastern Africa, these mining exports make up 65 percent and 57 percent of all merchandise exports. Southern Africa is also particularly reliant, with nations like Botswana presenting mining exports of 91.5 percent. This lack of diversification makes African economies extremely vulnerable to supply chain shifts and price volatility, especially in the event of value chain swaps. Even in countries where mining is not as prevalent like Nigeria, Algeria and Angola, the lowering of oil prices by 20 percent in economies with an 80 percent export value on energy, shows early signs of dangerous fiscal dependency on a lacking financial flow.

The inevitable shift

Secretary-General of UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Rebecca Grynspan said: “There is now an opportunity to leverage these new commodities to update our trade regime, promote structural diversification and turn the tide of commodity dependence once and for all.”

The clean energy shift is not theory, it is happening real time and its reshaping supply chains fast. Countries like the U.S. and Australia have successfully adapted their economies to this shift, preparing for a new landscape of green domination. The rise in mining exports supports a demand from advanced economies needing critical minerals, but this financial flow for the exporting countries might not stay forever, especially if more competitors break into the market driving down the price further and further: much like what is happening to oil. A country’s path to clean energy now lies as an indicator of working economic models and the ablution of outdated financial flows.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

Plastic pollution from Amadi River by Iwai-Dialax. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

By Michael Stanley-Jones
RICHMOND HILL, Ontario, Canada, Jul 28 2025 (IPS)

The UN80 Initiative, unveiled in March by Secretary-General António Guterres, is a system-wide effort to reaffirm the UN’s relevance for a rapidly changing world.

The Initiative comes at a time of brutal budget cuts across the UN system. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees is cutting 3,500 jobs and making reductions in senior positions and offices to manage budget shortfalls. The World Health Organisation is expected to cut 20-25% of its global staff. Cuts at The World Food Programme range up to 30%.

And yet the needs served by the United Nations remain stark. The UN appealed for US$29 billion funding for the Global Humanitarian Overview 2025 to assist nearly 180 million vulnerable people, including refugees, in December 2024. Near the midpoint of the year, just $5.6 billion – less than 13 per cent – had been received.

Facing this harsh fiscal environment, the Secretary-General established seven thematic clusters under the UN80 Initiative covering peace and security, humanitarian action, development (Secretariat and UN system), human rights, training and research, and specialised agencies to improve coordination, reduce fragmentation, and realign functions where needed.

The UN80 Task Force is scheduled to release its recommendations at the end of July.

In their timely opinon piece, “UN Reform: Is it Time to Renew the Idea of Clustering the Major Environmental Agreements?”, Felix Dodds and Chris Spence advocate for “clustering key conventions and bringing scientific bodies to strengthen international environmental governance, while also offering potential cost savings.”

“Currently, there are hundreds of different multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in force but perhaps only 20-30 core global MEAs with broad international participation,” Dodds and Spence write.

Bringing the fragmented set of environmental conventions together in clusters to address the interconnected issues they address could strengthen their work, reduce inefficiencies, and fill significant gaps in how the UN approaches the triple plenary crises of biodiversity loss, climate change and pollution.

There is one experience which suggests how such a clustering of MEAs secretariats could be accomplished. In 2009, on an ad interim basis, the Joint Convention Services of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions was set up, preparatory to a decision by an extraordinary conferences of the parties of the three chemicals and wastes conventions to establish a joint Secretariat in February 2010.

I was hired as the first staff member assigned to serve the three conventions equally in December 2009, holding the position of Public Information Officer in the Rotterdam Convention Secretariat while acting on behalf of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions until August 2014. This gave me a ring-side view of the process of “synergies” between the three clustered conventions.

The experience of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions with clustering their instruments provides a proof of concept of the benefits that may be gained by other closely related MEAs joining forces. The conventions addressing biological diversity and climate change may be ripe for applying the lessons learned from the three global chemicals and waste conventions.

The “synergies process” streamlined the three conventions’ implementation, reduced administrative burdens, and maximized the efficient use of resources.

Future conferences of the Parties (COPs) of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions are now held back-to-back on a biennial schedule. For the more than 180 governments which attend the ‘SuperCOPs’, the efficiencies gained in time, travel and expense are obvious. The joint nature of the conferences also allows for a greater exchange of information and views between the parties to the conventions, helping close gaps in implementation and increasing at the technical and scientific level understanding of how the actions of any one MEA impact the others.

The listing of a chemical in the Stockholm Convention’s annexes may trigger classification of products containing the substance as hazardous under the Basel Convention. Hazardous constituents that may be found in plastic waste due to their use as additives in various applications include halogenated organic compounds used as flame retardants. Several halogenated organic compounds used as flame retardants are listed under the Stockholm Convention’s Annex A to be eliminated or severely restricted. The adoption of amendments to the Basel Convention in 2019) sought to enhance the control of the transboundary movements of plastic waste and clarify the scope of the Convention as it applies to such waste.

Close coordination between the two instruments is therefore welcome.

Another important lesson concerns how the groundwork was successfully laid for the establishment of a joint ‘BRS’ Secretariat. The process needs to be owned and embraced by the Parties to the Conventions themselves. As legally independent entities, they must be the drivers of any envisioned reform.

A series of decisions taken by the parties to the conventions in 2008 and 2009 established an ad hoc joint working group on enhancing cooperation and coordination among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions. Under co-chairs nominated by the parties and drawn from the North and the South to steer the process, the ad hoc working group was mandated to prepare joint recommendations on enhancing cooperation and coordination among the three conventions at the administrative and programmatic levels. This ensured that the changes would have the political backing of the parties themselves.

A further lesson is that the leadership of the newly formed cluster of conventions’ secretariat needed to be placed in one team. In practice, this meant consolidating the executives of the three conventions (on the UNEP side, as Rotterdam has a joint secretariat shared by UNEP and FAO). Having multiple executives hindered the synergies process. Reducing three executive posts down to one brought coherence as well as additional cost savings. The streamlining of secretariat staff further contributed to creating a more efficient, less costly secretariat.

My assignment in the ‘BRS’ Secretariat covered media relations, public information and outreach, including helping manage the joint conventions’ synergies website. Public information provided a fertile ground for joint activity between the three legally independent conventions.

The benefits brought by such administrative measures are minor when placed alongside the larger structural reforms of the synergies process which serve the ultimate purpose of promoting exchange of information, environmentally sound management, and the restriction or elimination of a broad range of undesirable hazardous substances from the planet.

Ultimately, this may be the highest benefit the clustering of the thematically-related hazardous chemical and wastes instruments bring to global environmental governance.

Felix Dodds and Chris Spence (July 17, 2025). UN Reform: Is it Time to Renew the Idea of Clustering the Major Environmental Agreements? Inter Press Service.

United Nations (June 16, 2025). Brutal cuts mean brutal choices warns UN relief chief, launching ‘survival appeal’. UN News.

United Nations (June 23, 2025). UN80 Initiative: What it is – and why it matters to the world | UN News.

Michael Stanley-Jones is an Environmental Policy and Governance Fellow at the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, in Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada.

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

Most of the dead were worshippers taking part in a night vigil which was stormed by armed men, officials said.

An UNRWA school turned shelter in Al Bureij, Gaza, lies in ruins following a missile attack in May 2025. Credit: UNRWA

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Jul 28 2025 (IPS)

The West, led by the Trump administration, has enabled the Netanyahu government to commit crimes against humanity and became complicit in the unfathomably horrific disaster that is being inflicted on the Palestinians in Gaza

The war in Gaza has crossed many red lines, rendering Palestinian lives worthless, trivial, and of no consequence. Much of the horrific crimes against humanity being committed against the Palestinians in Gaza by the Netanyahu government could have been prevented had it not been for the nearly unconditional and continuing political, economic, and military support of Western powers, led by the US.

If this does not constitute complicity in war crimes perpetrated against tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians, then I don’t know what does.

Western powers’ claims of high moral grounds seemed to have withered completely, as evidenced by the fact that even though most of Gaza lies in utter ruin, and over 59,000 people have been killed, Western support remains shamelessly unabated.

And while the majority of the 2.1 million Palestinians are starving to death, the supplies of killing machines continue to flow, while the suppliers pay less than lip service to the intensifying human cataclysm on the entire population of Gaza.

Before I elaborate on the US’ indispensable role in ending the war in Gaza, a brief review of what other Western powers have failed to do is in order.

Children in Gaza wait in the hope of receiving food. Credit: UN News

France, the UK, and Germany’s Dereliction

The Western powers, especially the UK, France, and Germany, have consistently supported Israel’s onslaught on Gaza, claiming Israel’s right to defend itself. Only during the past few weeks have they started to contemplate addressing the horrific humanitarian crisis in Gaza. They have considered measures— from suspending trade and imposing sanctions to public criticisms and diplomatic efforts—to force Netanyahu’s hand.

In addition, recently the UK, France, and Canada issued a joint statement threatening “concrete reactions,” including targeted sanctions, if Israel fails to end its renewed offensive and allow unhindered humanitarian aid, and insisting on immediate improvements in humanitarian access. The UK and France have also co-hosted international conferences to advance a ceasefire and a two-state solution, and pledged diplomatic and financial support for peace initiatives.

Sadly, Western threats and limited actions fall far short of what is critically needed to end these mind-boggling war crimes being committed by Netanyahu and his government. They must impose an immediate embargo on all supplies of military equipment and spare parts, and, being the largest trading partners, they must freeze all trade with Israel where it hurts. Only by taking these measures can Netanyahu and his corrupt government realize the magnitude of the European ire.

US Complicity in Netanyahu’s Crimes Against Humanity

The US can wield far greater pressure on Israel than what other Western powers can exercise combined. Sadly, though, neither the Biden nor the Trump administrations have used their immense leverage to force Netanyahu to end the horrific war that is on the verge of destroying what’s left of Gaza and devastating nearly entirely its inhabitants.

The US commitment to Israel’s national security has been a given since Israel’s establishment in 1948. But then, even though successive American administrations have and continue to adhere to this commitment, 77 years later, Israel does not feel secure due to the continuing conflict with the Palestinians.

That is, if the US cares about Israel’s national security, which it does, it should have mitigated the source of Israel’s sense of insecurity by relentlessly pushing Israel to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians, where Israel’s ultimate national security rests.

For decades, successive American presidents, including Trump, have championed the notion of a two-state solution. Although they have made repeated efforts over several decades to forge peace between the two sides, they have never taken concrete steps to pressure both sides to accept the only realistic outcome that they have been advocating, which could have ended the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Not once have the Biden and the Trump administrations threatened, let alone imposed, sanctions on Israel, to stop the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza and the deliberate chokehold on the supplies of food, medicine, and water, which is causing mass starvation and even famine. To the contrary, both continued to supply Israel with the weapons and munitions it was asking for with no reservations.

Military aid to Israel

According to the Costs of War Project, which tracks US military aid and expenditure, since the war began in October 2023, the US has provided Israel $22.76 billion in military assistance. In January 2025, Trump authorized the release of 1,800 MK-84 bombs (2,000-lb weapons) that the Biden administration had previously withheld as a protest against Israel’s actions in Rafah.

Instead of realizing that this heinous Gaza war only reinforces the idea that only a two-state solution would end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Trump offered to take over Gaza and build a ‘luxury riviera’, which would only perpetuate the deadly Israeli-Palestinian conflict for another generation.

Instead of disabusing Netanyahu and his government of the notion of planning to rebuild new Jewish settlements in Gaza, Trump has been pushing the idea of relocating the Palestinians to a third country. This is nothing but music to Netanyahu’s ear, praising Trump for his “ingenuity” because nothing will quench Netanyahu and his government’s appetite more than seizing more Palestinian land and getting rid of the Palestinians once and for all.

Instead of insisting on an immediate ceasefire and developing a clear exit strategy from Gaza, Trump is still tiptoeing around, careful not to antagonize his political base, especially the evangelicals. For these religiously devout Christians, Israel can do no wrong, even though thousands of innocent women and children have been killed and hundreds more are added weekly to the roster of the dead, while Netanyahu is destroying what’s left of Gaza’s infrastructure to render it unlivable.

Now, the Netanyahu government is forcibly displacing the Palestinians in Gaza to the south and building a concentration camp on top of the ruins of Rafah. From there, the government is planning to commit a total ethnic cleansing by exiling the Palestinians to a third country. Yes, another Nakba (catastrophe), à la 1948, is in the making.

Trump Can End the War If He Wills It

Trump’s focus on a ceasefire as a first step is imperative and immediately needed, but it must only be a first step. He must make it unequivocally clear to Netanyahu that, during the cessation of hostilities, he must develop and submit an exit strategy from Gaza. The war must stop and cannot be resumed under any circumstances, and the flow of humanitarian assistance must begin immediately in sufficient quantities to prevent mass starvation.

Yes, given Israel’s dependence on the US on a host of issues, including political cover, economic assistance, and military aid, Trump is in a position not to ask but to demand that Netanyahu adhere to the US’ demand to end this horrifying war, the ultimate consequences of which are hard even to imagine.

Trump, who is clamoring to win a Nobel Peace Prize, is facing a crossroad. At the first road, remaining silent in the face of this pending catastrophe. He will be complicit, before the law, in the war crimes being committed in Gaza. The other road could potentially help him to realize his dream by ending the war in Gaza and beginning an Israeli-Palestinian peace process that would lead to the only viable solution—a two-state solution.

Will he rise to the occasion and do what all of his predecessors failed to achieve?

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs, at New York University (NYU). He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.
alon@alonben-meir.com Web: www.alonben-meir.com

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

A nuclear test that was carried out on an island in French Polynesia in 1971. Credit: CTBTO

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 28 2025 (IPS)

The rising nuclear threats over Europe and East Asia are increasingly ominous—particularly in the ongoing Russian-Ukraine military conflict and in the North- South political confrontation in the Korean Peninsula.

The appointment last week of a 21-member Panel of scientists, following a General Assembly resolution, has been described as “a response to a global environment in which the risk of nuclear war is higher than at any point since the depths of the Cold War”.

The move comes ahead of the 80th anniversary, in early August, of the devastating atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which claimed the lives of between 150,000 and 246,000, mostly civilians– and still remains the only use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict.

As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned last week: “Nuclear weapons are wielded as tools of coercion and nuclear arsenals are being upgraded. A nuclear arms race is once again a very real possibility. The guardrails against nuclear devastation are being eroded.”

A more authoritative warning, in the current context, may come from the new “Scientific Panel on the Effects of Nuclear War.”

Guterres announced the appointment of “an independent scientific panel of experts tasked with examining the physical effects and societal consequences of a nuclear war on a local, regional and planetary scale in the days, weeks and decades following a (future) nuclear war.”

The panel will study the possible impact of a nuclear war on everything “from public health to ecosystems, agriculture, and global socioeconomic systems”. The last cross-sectional United Nations study of this kind was undertaken almost four decades ago in 1988.

The link to the list of scientists:
https://press.un.org/en/2025/dc3900.doc.htm

Randy Rydell, a former Senior Political Affairs Officer in the UN’s Office for Disarmament Affairs (1998-2014) and Executive Advisor to Mayors for Peace (2014-2025), told IPS: “The General Assembly deserves credit for creating this panel, an action well within its Charter mandates for commissioning studies and deliberating disarmament issues.”

Amid new threats to use such weapons, soaring nuclear-weapons budgets, and the lack of disarmament negotiations, he said, such a panel will help to educate the public, and hopefully their leaders, about the full scope of the horrific consequences from any use of such weapons.

“I hope it will encourage all parties to appreciate the need for disarmament as the most effective way — actually the only way — to eliminate such threats all together. By clarifying nuclear weapon effects using the most recent scientific tools, the panel can help to restore disarmament to its rightful place, high on the global and national public agendas,” he said.

The panelists are described as leaders in their fields, across a range of scientific disciplines, and come from all regions of the world. They will seek input from a wide range of stakeholders, from international and regional organizations to the International Committee of the Red Cross to civil society and affected communities. The Panel will hold its first meeting in September and will submit a final report to the General Assembly in 2027.

Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute told IPS the unleashing of the destructive capacity of nuclear weapons, by any of the nine states (UK, US, Russia, China, France, Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea) with these devices, would result in consequences of such horror that our imaginative capacity would be vastly inadequate.

The Panel’s hard science approach might help open the eyes of our minds to this reality, he pointed out. “Not only would devastation of the web of human life be shocked, threaded, and possibly damaged beyond repair but we would be annihilating millions of other living forms — insects, plants, fish, reptiles, mammals, and birds”.

The arrogance of such injury to the animal kingdom to protect an invention of our human hands, states, is an arrogance rarely reflected upon. Objective scientific understanding of the specific effects of these weapons, hopefully, will compel greater cooperation in the efforts of nations to stop their spread, stop the current arms race making uses more likely, and re-enliven disarmament efforts, said Granoff.

“The value of more people and especially decision makers having trustworthy empirical knowledge as well as far greater public awareness might lead to a revival of the process that reduced arsenals, in the past recent decades, from over 70,000 to less than 13,000, a proof that progress can be made when the will for sanity, safety and realism prevail.”

The scientific dimension of nuclear weapons, he argued, is understandably difficult to comprehend.

“The UN in its 1991 report found the ‘(n)uclear weapons represent a historically new form of weaponry with unparalleled destructive potential. A single large nuclear weapon could release explosive power comparable to all the energy released from the conventional weapons used in all past wars.’” (quoting the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, UNITED NATIONS, EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WAR ON HEALTH AND HEALTH SERVICES 7 (2d ed. 1987)); see also DEPARTMENT FOR DISARMAMENT AFFAIRS, UNITED NATIONS, NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY 7 (1991).

In 1995, the prestigious Canberra Commission, convened by the government of Australia, stated, “The destructiveness of nuclear weapons is immense. Any use would be catastrophic. . . . There is no doubt that, if the peoples of the world were more fully aware of the inherent danger of nuclear weapons and the consequences of their use, they would reject them, and not permit their continued possession or acquisition on their behalf by their governments, even for an alleged need for self defence,” declared Granoff.

Professor Zia Mian, Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University told IPS the University’s Program on Science and Global Security, back in 2015, launched a process to seek a UN General Assembly resolution for a UN study on the effects and humanitarian impacts of nuclear war.

In 2023, the Scientific Advisory Group of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in its report to the Second Meeting of TPNW states recommended a new UN General Assembly mandated study on the consequences of nuclear war, he pointed out.

The Group suggested a “global scientific study on the climatic, environmental, physical and social effects in the weeks to decades following nuclear war,” one that examined “whether and how the interactions of these different physical, environmental and social effects over various timescales might lead to cascading humanitarian consequences,” said Professor Mian, who is also co-director of the Princeton Program on Science and Global Security and co-chair of the Scientific Advisory Group of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

The panel is tasked with publishing a comprehensive report, making key conclusions, and identifying areas requiring future research. The report will be considered by the UN General Assembly at its eighty-second session in 2027.

The last cross-sectional United Nations study of this kind was undertaken almost four decades ago in 1988 (Study on the Climatic and Other Global Effects of Nuclear War, United Nations publication, Sales No. E.89.IX.1).

Questions regarding the panel can be addressed to nweffectspanel@un.org.

Zia Mian, We Need a U.N. Study of the Effects of Nuclear War, Scientific American, October 28, 2024; Nuclear War Effects and Scientific Research: Time for a 21st Century UN Study, First Committee Monitor, Reaching Critical Will, New York, October 4, 2024.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

The US president is spearheading an ambitious but controversial deal to end a long-running conflict.

The US president is spearheading an ambitious but controversial deal to end a long-running conflict.

Jennifer Echegini says her Women's Africa Cup of Nations-winning goal for Nigeria against Morocco is one she will keep in her heart forever.

Jennifer Echegini says her Women's Africa Cup of Nations-winning goal for Nigeria against Morocco is one she will keep in her heart forever.

President Mahama leads the tributes, saying "his enduring legacy will echo through the ages".

Nigeria's sensational comeback stuns hosts Morocco 3-2 and seals a record-extending 10th Women's Africa Cup of Nations title.

Nigeria's sensational comeback stuns hosts Morocco 3-2 and seals a record-extending 10th Women's Africa Cup of Nations title.

Congolese customs official Floribert Bwana Chui Bin Kositi has been beatified for standing up to corruption.

Congolese customs official Floribert Bwana Chui Bin Kositi has been beatified for standing up to corruption.

Congolese customs official Floribert Bwana Chui Bin Kositi has been beatified for standing up to corruption.

A major exhibition about the dangerous lives of the boys and young men who scour slag heaps in search of copper.

A major exhibition about the dangerous lives of the boys and young men who scour slag heaps in search of copper.

A major exhibition about the dangerous lives of the boys and young men who scour slag heaps in search of copper.

The blue trousers are hemp woven into denim, which is a warp-faced textile in which the weft passes under two or more warp threads. The black and white outfit is from hemp as well. Credit: Nimco Adam / qaaldesigns

By Michael Stanley-Jones and Claire Egehiza Obote
Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada / Trollhättan, Sweden, Jul 25 2025 (IPS)

Plastic pollution has emerged as one of the most pressing environmental challenges of our time. Since the mid-20th century, over 8 billion metric tons of plastic have been produced globally (UNEP, 2021). Shockingly, more than 90% of this plastic waste has not been recycled. Instead, it has been incinerated, buried in landfills, or leaked into the environment where it can persist for hundreds of years, fragmenting into microplastics.

Among the most insidious threats within this overwhelming tide of waste are microplastics: plastic particles smaller than 5 millimeters. These tiny fragments often originate from the breakdown of larger plastic items or are directly released through industrial processes, personal care products, and increasingly, from textiles. Though they represent a smaller portion of total plastic waste by weight, their impact is disproportionately severe and persistent

Michael Stanley-Jones

Recent scientific findings have shown that micro- and nanoplastics are now entering human bodies. These particles have been detected in bloodstreams, lungs, feces, testes and placentas. While the full health implications are still being studied, early concerns suggest these particles may disrupt hormone regulation, immune response, and cellular function.

Each year, it is estimated that 9 to 14 million metric tons of plastic waste escape into aquatic ecosystems, including rivers, lakes, and oceans (Pew Charitable Trusts & SYSTEMIQ, 2020). Moreover, it is not just our oceans or bodies at risk; microplastics have been found in terrestrial soils, affecting agricultural productivity and soil health. They hinder the activities of key organisms like earthworms, which are vital for nutrient cycling. At every level, from soil to sea to self, microplastics are infiltrating our ecosystems.

The story does not end with pollution. Plastic’s contribution to climate change spans its entire life cycle from fossil fuel extraction and chemical manufacturing to transportation and disposal.

The Hidden Culprit: Synthetic Textiles

Amid this crisis, one significant contributor remains relatively overlooked: textiles. Textiles are estimated to account for 14 percent of global plastics production (Manshoven et al., 2022). Synthetic fibres like polyester, nylon and acrylic ubiquitous in fast fashion shed tiny plastic particles during production, daily use, and washing. These particles escape wastewater treatment systems and flow directly into natural water bodies.

Claire Egehiza Obote

In fact, microplastics from textile washing are estimated to make up 8% of primary microplastics in the oceans, making textiles the fourth-largest source globally. The implications are far-reaching, affecting marine life, food security and human health.

But it was not always this way.

In 1960, 95% of textile fibres were natural and biodegradable. Today, demand for textiles has skyrocketed by over 650%, while the share of synthetic fibres has ballooned from 3% to 68% (Carus & Partanen, 2025). Fast fashion’s dependence on cheap, fossil-fuel-based synthetics has turned the textile industry into one of the planet’s most polluting sectors.

This intertwined crisis of microplastic pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss and food insecurity calls for a comprehensive rethinking of how we produce and consume textiles. A critical part of that solution lies in rebuilding the natural fibre markets we once relied on.

Reviving Natural and Renewable Fibres

Research scientists Michael Carus and Dr. Asta Partanen of the German nova-Institute have called for a significant increase in renewable fibre production.

Bast fibres from flax, hemp, jute, kenaf and ramie are promising but remain expensive due to complex processing needs. Investments in their scalability could help them rival synthetics.

Man-made cellulosic fibres (MMCFs) such as viscose, lyocell and modal are biodegradable and scalable but rely on virgin wood and chemical-intensive processes, posing threats to forests and ecosystems. Recycled MMCFs make up only 0.5% of the market, but they could grow significantly with the right incentives.

Bio-based polymers (or “biosynthetics”) offer alternatives to fossil-based synthetics, yet adoption is still low. Marine biopolymers from seaweed for textiles may provide yet another source of natural fibre.

In the Global South, informal textile economies provide livelihoods for millions and often operate outside formal regulation. In addition to technological innovations, traditional knowledge systems and indigenous fibre cultivation practices such as the use of sisal, coir, or abacá can offer scalable, low-impact alternatives.

What Can Be Done?

Governments, industries and consumers all have roles to play in turning the tide:

Policy Action: Governments could implement Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes that require manufacturers to cover the full lifecycle costs of textile waste. The European Union has recently taken steps towards this by introducing harmonised EPR rules for textiles and incentivising producers to design products that promote sustainable design.

Market Incentives: Public and private investment should prioritize R&D into preferred cotton and bast fibres to reduce costs and improve competitiveness with synthetics. Supporting transitions to natural fibres in the Global South through microgrants, capacity building, and market access can help reduce plastic leakage at scale while enhancing socio-economic resilience.

Regulatory Levers: Boosting the proportion of sustainably sourced MMCFs is critical. Regulators should further encourage the shift to certified forestry and recycled content. 60 to 65% of MMCFs are now FSC and/or PEFC-certified, an upward trend since at least 2020 that should further be encouraged (Carus & Partanen, 2025).

Innovation in Waste Processing: Converting post-harvest waste from bast fibres like kenaf, flax, hemp, jute, and sorghum into textile-grade yarn could be a game-changer for local economies and sustainability.

Corporate Transparency: Mandatory disclosures under frameworks like the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the International Sustainability Standard Board (ISSB) IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 can guide investors away from carbon-intensive fashion and toward more sustainable alternatives. Once risks from unsustainable production are baked into market valuations, investment flows into more sustainable production will inevitably follow.

Consumer Choices: Individuals can help shift demand by buying natural fibres, choosing durable apparel, and consuming less overall. Consumer pressure has historically influenced corporate behavior textile sustainability is no exception.

Community-led initiatives: Supporting community-led initiatives that revive local textile production not only reduces reliance on synthetics but also preserves cultural heritage and supports sustainable rural development. These models are often more circular and regenerative by design.

The Global Plastics Treaty: The ongoing negotiations for a global plastics agreement offer an opportunity to recognize and prioritize the shift toward biodegradable natural fibres as part of international plastic pollution solutions.

If governments, industries and consumers work in concert to rebuild natural fibre markets, the share of synthetics in clothing could decline to 50% from today’s 67%, according to nova-Institute’s analysis (Carus & Partanen, 2025).

Without such action, we risk a future defined by escalating microplastic contamination, irreversible biodiversity losses and a worsening climate crisis. The ongoing global plastics treaty negotiations also offer a timely opportunity to recognize natural fibre transitions as part of systemic plastic pollution solutions. But an alternative future, one that is more sustainable, biodiverse and resilient, is still within reach. We must act to reclaim natural fibres and reject a plastic-saturated future.

Michael Stanley-Jones, Environmental Policy and Governance Fellow United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health

Claire Egehiza Obote, Graduate Student in Sustainable Development University West, Sweden

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

Joseph Kabila denies backing the M23 rebels, who have seized large parts of the mineral-rich east.