Africa

Cameroon's Paul Biya, 92, has been power since 1982 and could govern until he is nearly 100.

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

• WFP Deputy Chief Describes Unprecedented Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza
• Post-Earthquake Myanmar Faces ‘Immense’ Suffering, Cannot Be Forgotten

A baby will be placed for adoption in UK after being trafficked from Nigeria. She may never know her real parents.

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
!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');  

By Yasmine Sherif
NEW YORK, Jul 14 2025 (IPS-Partners)

On the first International Day of Hope, we are all responsible to #KeepHopeAlive for the children impacted by the world’s most severe humanitarian crises. Perhaps the strongest responsibilities lie with those entrusted to lead the world and make the right moral and legal choices. This is especially so today, when we have led the world into an abyss of excruciating pain for nearly a quarter of a billion innocent children now suffering brutal conflicts and violence, forced displacement and punishing climate disasters – without quality education.

Now is the time for genuine empathy and profound maturity among all of us who were privileged to access quality education. We are all connected, and we are all responsible for the young generation. We must serve as role models and pave the way for a better future.

Our investment in their education is an investment in peace, an investment in sustainable development, an investment in economic prosperity, and an investment in the unique potential of the world’s children and youth. Just like we once enjoyed such investment or made such investment in our own children.

Our world is changing fast. Across the globe – in Gaza, eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ukraine, Sudan and beyond – children and adolescents have no access to education and are losing hope. To make matters worse, we have a compounding climate crisis directly impacting the education and lifelong trajectories of every girl and boy on Earth.

To keep hope alive, Education Cannot Wait (ECW) and our global strategic partners go full force together to make whatever difference we can make in the life of each child we meet, providing them with safe, quality education that brings them hope, builds self-reliance and an ability to survive and thrive with dignity.

As we actively embrace the UN80 Initiative, we all must work together, comply with the UN Charter and stand by the promises made in 1945. By working together, we can and must ensure that every child and adolescent calling for help to reclaim hope is heard. We cannot turn a deaf ear to their desperate cries.

By investing in their potentials and by recognizing their extraordinary resilience, quality education will change their lives and their entire world view. This is the time to #KeepHopeAlive and not turn away as their hopes crumble. They live through darkness. We must kindle their light.

 

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');  

Excerpt:

International Day of Hope Statement by Education Cannot Wait Executive Director Yasmine Sherif

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jul 14 2025 (IPS)

The extensive plan of action adopted at the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4), held recently in Sevilla, Spain (30 June – 3 July), triggers the question: Where will the money come from?

When I hear of mind-blogging figures of money needed to tackle the most daunting challenges humanity faces, I always ask myself how these resources will materialize.

Developing nations are saddled with debts whose serving is getting more and more onerous. Developed nations are entangled in a dangerous geopolitical downward spiral that is pushing them to invest enormous amounts in defense at the expense of global justice.

Meanwhile climate finance alone is going to be in the surround of trillions American dollars. In addition the recently World Bank published Global Economic Outlook provides another dismal forecast for the days to come.

“Global growth is slowing due to a substantial rise in trade barriers and the pervasive effects of an uncertain global policy environment. Growth is expected to weaken to 2.3 percent in 2025, with deceleration in most economies relative to last year. This would mark the slowest rate of global growth since 2008, aside from outright global recessions”.

This is the bedrock based on which the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development was recently held in Sevilla.

The final outcome of the Conference, the Sevilla Commitment is an extensive plan of actions with potentially groundbreaking measures that could truly support developing nations.

Yet as often happens with such documents, we should ask ourselves how this pledge will be upheld and implemented, especially the ones launched during the conference through the FFD4 Sevilla Platform for Action Initiatives.

The onus is going to be equally on both sides of the equation.

A Universal Peer Review to track the financial commitments of developed nations might be what is needed.

Will developed nations really be serious about raising their developed aid, mobilize the regional and international multilateral financial institutions that they control while being serious at finding ways to relieve developing nations of parts of their debts?

Even more crucially, with the stakes so high and the overall economic situation in such a distressful mode, will developed nations muster the courage to truly reform the international financial system?

On the other hand, will developed nations be committed and determined to root out corruption and malpractices in governance?

How will these nations be able to raise their taxation basis and undertake policy making actions transparently and inclusively?

The Sevilla Commitment does offer a broad framework to raise trillions of dollars to achieve the SDGs, including resources for climate and biodiversity actions.

This is an important aspect of the document that cannot go underestimated.

The document provides, at least in principle, a vision to do away, in matters of financing, with artificial and inefficient silos that the international aid system has created.

Paragraph 8 is key to this ambitious effort.

“National development efforts need to be supported by an enabling international economic environment and effective means of implementation that promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, and prevent external shocks from disproportionately affecting developing countries. We commit to align international support with national strategies, plans and frameworks, such as Integrated National Financing Frameworks (INFFs), and will respect each country’s policy space to pursue sustainable development while remaining consistent with relevant international rules and commitments”.

Annalisa Prizzon, an economist and Principal Research Fellow in the Development and Public Finance Programme at ODI, one of the most renowned development think tanks offered a clear insight.

“We should focus on “how much but also on how financing for development is delivered and reinvigorate the discussions on what makes cooperation for development effective”.

The International Commission of Experts on Financing for Development (FFD4) led by José Antonio Ocampo, a former Minister of Finance and Public Credit of Colombia that also included Prizzon, in its report released in February 2025, there is a proposal of creating a UN Global Economic Coordination Council.

The fact that the whole UN system is under immense pressure of restructuring itself in order to be more of value for money should not imply that it cannot still play an important role.

In a much different way, the UN should especially strengthen its convening and coordination powers among its members.

Yet I found it baffling that the whole text of the Sevilla Commitment does not contain any reference to the concept of “SDGs Stimulus” that have been championed for long by the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. Instead, it was less surprising that in Seville there was a lot of focus on the role of the private sector and blended capitals.

Now there is an overwhelming consensus that public financing cannot do the job alone and finding private resources, often by leveraging complex and abstruse financial mechanisms that only equity investors seem to comprehend, is seen as a must.

While it is certainly true that Multilateral Development Banks can be much more effective at increasing their landing capacities and also incentivizing the mobilization of private capitals, the biggest challenges faced by humanity cannot be tackled through shortcuts.

And centering the international finance for development on private capitals rather than public money in the forms of grants or concessional loans with minimal interests and a lot of flexibility on the receiving nations, developed countries are taking a very convenient route that helps them dodging their moral responsibilities.

At G7 held in Alberta, Canada, it was decided that American multinationals would be exempted from the global minimum taxation regime that was agreed in 2021.

While this decision might hit more the revenues of European governments where many American companies operate, it is a troubling signal. If big chunks of the international finance framework are outsourced and handed out to the private sector, then the international community is abdicating from its moral duties.

The same dynamics is also unfolding in matter of climate negotiations. In the recent held Bonn Climate Talks, officially the SB 62 held in the former capital of Western Germany (16 Jun – 26 Jun), even if financing was not a central topic on the official agenda, it was impossible avoid it.

Developed nations are pushing for a major role of private funding while also, quite correctly, demanding that nations like China and the Gulf Countries step up with new commitments.

In this context, developing nations must be more assertive with a “Show Me the Money” attitude when dealing with developed nations. The former might have some bargaining chips in the form of rare earth materials that the West is so desperately in need of.

Forums like the G20, where developing and developed nations come together, offer a platform to push for changes. There are also now plenty of serious proposals to change the status quo.

On the top of the Sevilla Commitment, the same International Commission of Experts on Finance for Development has come up with a holistic array of proposals that, with political will, can make the difference.

The same can be said with the recently launched “The Jubilee Report: A Blueprint for Tackling the Debt and Development Crises and Creating the Financial Foundations for a Sustainable People-Centered Global Economy”, an initiative of the Vatican based Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences and Columbia University’s Initiative for Policy Dialogue.

Yet even if the flow of development finance from the private sector is tempered and controlled and a new governance system is created, we need some new forms of accountability.

What about a Universal Peer Review, UPR for development finance that could be devised while re-thinking the Post 2030 Development Agenda?

Borrowing from the UPR model in place in the Human Rights Council, such an accountability system could be the only hope to pressurize developed nations to hold to their promises.

As the international community will soon start discussing what will happen to the Agenda 2030 and the SDGs, we need some strongest mechanisms to hold nations answerable to their pledges.

While this is itself far from being a perfect mechanism (after all there are is no way of punishing or sanctioning the not complying governments), sometimes some shame is what is needed to give a jolt and ensure rich nations walk the talk.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

 

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

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
SAN FRANCISCO, California / APEX, North Carolina, US, Jul 14 2025 (IPS)

“Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Winston Churchill’s famous maxim feels very relevant today, when multilateralism and many environmental causes seem to be in retreat. We now face a triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.

Yet, the existing international environmental agreements and science bodies are not addressing these interconnected crises as effectively as they could. Can we turn the current situation into an opportunity for positive change and progress?

Despite the rise in geopolitical fragmentation-or perhaps because of it—many countries appear to be as invested as ever in international cooperation and diplomacy as a means to achieve progress. To take a recent example, last month, negotiators at a meeting in Uruguay agreed to establish a scientific panel on chemicals, waste, and pollution.

Not all bad news

This new panel, which will be known as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (ISP-CWP) will become the third scientific panel of its kind, joining the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was set up in 1988, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), established in 2012.

Both IPCC and IPBES have been hugely important in informing and driving international policy development around climate change and biodiversity. Now, ISP-CWP has an opportunity to do the same for chemicals, waste, and pollution.

The creation of the third science body also provides a much-needed link to public health concerns such as the quality of our air, water and soil. Having access to better scientific information and analysis could be a game-changer.

Even the ever-fractious climate negotiations saw some progress recently. The latest UN climate meeting in Bonn experienced just as many difficult moments as its predecessors, with arguments over seemingly trivial matters, such as the agenda. On the other hand, there was genuine progress on how to manage adaptation funding in the future, and apparently a very positive event on oceans and climate change on the margins of the meeting.

Speaking of oceans, another sign of multilateralism’s resilience was evident last month at the UN Ocean Conference in France, where 18 countries announced that they had ratified the High Seas Treaty. The agreement, which aims to protect marine life in international waters, now has 49 ratifications, only 11 short of the number needed for it to enter into force.

Meanwhile, a working group on the Montreal Protocol is meeting in Thailand this week to continue its ongoing, long-term work on protecting the ozone layer. Early signs indicate that the collaborative and positive spirit that has often characterized these talks shows no signs of abating.

It is also hoped in August that the negotiations to conclude the plastics convention will be finalized.

Funding Fights

At the same time, the growing geopolitical tensions of today are undeniable. This is set to fundamentally alter the political and sustainable development landscape, with distinct roles emerging for the US and China.

The US is choosing to pull back or limit its global presence in certain areas, which may open up opportunities for others, particularly China, India, Brazil, and South Africa and other emerging economies such as Türkiye and Indonesia.

Some prominent governments led by the United States have recently voiced skepticism about both the UN’s effectiveness and environmental causes like climate change. Furthermore, the UN’s funding is falling for the first time in its 80-year history, with the US as of the end of 2024 owing $668 million.

Clustering as a Vision

What should be the response to the daunting challenges facing the multilateral system, from funding cuts to growing scepticism from some key actors? In the environmental realm, clustering key conventions and bringing scientific bodies together would be good steps, offering opportunities to strengthen international environmental governance, while also offering potential cost savings.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is an obvious choice for such clustering. UNEP is tasked with being: “The leading global authority on the environment. It unites 193 Member States in an effort to find solutions to climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste, collectively known as the triple planetary crisis.” (UNEP, 2025)

Furthermore, UNEP has played a long-established role in advancing both scientific and policy linkages. It already produces the flagship UN report on the environment, the Global Environment Outlook (GEO), with GEO-7 scheduled for release later this year.

Currently, however, other key science groups, such as the IPCC, IPBES, and ISP-CWP, operate independently. These different groups should not operate in silos. Is there a benefit to bringing the science bodies closer to UNEP – with them playing a facilitating role?

UNEP is the policy and normative body of the UN system, utilising its convening power to bring together the various bodies working on environmental issues. And yet, there is a feeling among some involved in this world that UNEP is not fully empowered to play this role effectively.

The UN Environment Assembly plays a valuable role, yet it convenes only once every two years with the world facing such environmental challenges. Is it time to reinstitute the Global Ministerial Forum in the other year?

It could play a role as a forum for addressing the interlinkage between various environmental treaties and offer a place for scientific bodies to inform member states collectively about the challenges we are facing.

We suggest strengthening UNEP as part of the broader “UN80” reform process, launched recently by UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

Currently, there are hundreds of different multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in force but perhaps only 20-30 core global MEAs with broad international participation. Although many were established under UNEP, as they were ratified, they developed their governing bodies and operated independently from UNEP.

This is particularly noticeable when it comes to treaties addressing the triple planetary crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste. Arguably, UNEP is not at the center of any of these issues. But it should be.

Today, we have a fragmented set of environmental conventions with overlapping work, increased inefficiencies, and gaps, even though the issues they address are often interconnected. This fragmentation makes it more challenging to see the benefits that could occur from synergies and linkages between the various conventions. It reduces the UNEP’s ability to be the global voice for the environment, which is so sorely needed.

Arguments for consolidating and coordinating our global policy response to environmental challenges are not new. Klaus Toepfer, who ran UNEP from 1998-2006, was one of the first to call for clustering the key environmental conventions. In fact, he and his successor, Achim Steiner, made some progress on this, with a decision to link the work and meetings of three chemicals-related treaties—the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions. They now operate through a common meeting often referred to as a ‘Super COP’. So, we have a model to use learning both the positive and negative to help clustering in the areas of climate change and biodiversity.

As early as 2001, a UNEP working group on governance identified the potential for closer cooperation in areas such as capacity-building and information sharing. In 2002, UNEP’s Governing Council specifically supported clustering measures and pilot projects to test their effectiveness. This move aimed to facilitate an integrated life-cycle approach to managing substances covered by these conventions.

It found that the “clustering approach to multilateral environmental agreements holds some promise, and issues relating to the location of secretariats, meeting agendas and also programmatic cooperation between such bodies and with UNEP should be addressed.” (UNEP, 2002)

Synergies and linkages in the field of scientific assessments also hold some potential. UNEP could help ensure that the IPCC, IPBES, and the new ISP-CWP do not operate in silos.

Stronger Together?

The recent report for the UN Secretary General on reform suggested bringing the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) under UNEP’s purview.

Currently, the UNFCCC is a “big dog” in the environmental sphere, over which UNEP has no administrative responsibility, as the UNFCCC originated from a General Assembly resolution rather than a UNEP process.

A move to bring the UNFCCC under UNEP might meet with considerable resistance and objections. But there could well be benefits. Clustering the secretariats and science bodies of climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste, could potentially lead to:

enhanced policy coordination
greater resource efficiency
streamlined reporting and compliance
improved stakeholder engagement
a stronger focus on cross-cutting issues
coordinated monitoring and evaluation
increased political momentum

In short, a stronger UNEP, positioned at the heart of the treaties and the science dealing with the triple planetary crisis, could offer both synergies and cost savings but more important it would give a huge opportunity for a stronger environmental voice in this increasingly insecure world.

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN negotiations on the environment and sustainable development since the 1990s. Their new book, Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet, is out now (Routledge, 2025).

Felix Dodds is an Adjunct Professor at the University of North Carolina’s Water Institute and has advised stakeholders on their UN engagement for 30 years.

Chris Spence is an environmentalist, writer, and former leader of nonprofits in New York, New Zealand, and California. He has consulted for the UN and other international organizations over many years.

Dodds and Spence also co-wrote and edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy in 2022.

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');  

Nigeria win Group B at the 2024 Women's Africa Cup of Nations and Algeria finish second after the two sides play out a goalless draw in Casablanca.

Senzo Mchunu - who denies the claims - has been put on an immediate "leave of absence" by President Cyril Ramaphosa.

It is the first time RSF fighters have entered el-Fasher in such numbers since a siege began in May 2024.

The former military ruler was "converted" to democracy and won the historic 2015 elections.

The former military ruler was "converted" to democracy and won the historic 2015 elections.

The former military ruler was "converted" to democracy and won the historic 2015 elections.

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 12th 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
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById({js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Women and War: Victims of Violence and Voices of Peace
• Increased Demand for Cobalt Fuels Ongoing Humanitarian Crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Carl Skau, Deputy Executive Director of World Food Programme (WFP) briefs media at the UN. Credit: Naomi Breuer/IPS

By Naomi Myint Breuer
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 13 2025 (IPS)

Carl Skau, Deputy Executive Director of the World Food Programme (WFP), described the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza following his recent visit, speaking at a press briefing at the UN Headquarters on July 11.

“The situation is worse than I’ve ever seen it before,” he said. Skau has visited Gaza four times since the war with Israel began.

Skau said the situation entails the desperate humanitarian needs, particularly the spreading starvation, and the fact that the WFP’s ability to respond to the crisis has “never been more constrained.”

An Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) report published in May found that half a million people were starving in the Gaza Strip. The report projected that Gaza would classify as Emergency from May 11 through the end of September 2025. According to Skau, the situation has deteriorated since the report was published.

Recent UNICEF data highlights that malnutrition is widespread, with 5,119 children between 6 months and 5 years of age admitted for treatment for acute malnutrition in the month of May, a 50 percent increase from April. Basic commodity prices have soared. On Skau’s visit, a kilo of wheat flour was priced at USD 25. Oftentimes, when people get food to eat, it is just hot soup with a few lentils or pasta.

During his visit, Skau also met with families who have been displaced multiple times in the past 10 days, some as many as 30 times since the war began. During each move, they are able to bring less with them in order to survive.

“The fact that people are now dying every day trying to get food, I think, is the starkest demonstration of how desperate the situation is,” Skau said.

He reported that conditions for the WFP team are far from ideal. They are only able to bring in a fraction of what is needed in the region, and their teams often get stuck waiting for 15-20 hours for clearances or at checkpoints. He said it is “unacceptable” for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to interfere with their deliveries. Some Israeli officials he met with on his visit agreed that the IDF must allow the UN to carry out its work in the region.

On July 11, the WFP was able to conduct a delivery through the north of the Gaza Strip for the first time in several days, which Skau said is the more orderly route to deliver food through.

But WFP vehicles do not have enough fuel or spare parts. Most of the windows of armed vehicles have been damaged, and they are only able to communicate with each other within a 20 meter range.

The staff is under immense pressure, and the WFP cannot provide the amount and variety of food an operation like this would usually require.

“Our national staff who are living in the midst of this crisis are the true heroes here, in terms of getting up every day and doing their work,” Skau said.

During the 42 days of the last ceasefire, the WFP was able to open 25 bakeries and hundreds of soup kitchens, bring in over 8,000 trucks, deliver food packages to over 1.5 million people, and stock up warehouses, which allowed them to continue operating for half of the duration of the blockade.

However, for the humanitarian situation to vastly improve, Skau said a ceasefire is “urgent.” All entry routes into Gaza need to be opened, and trucks need to be allowed to enter every day in order for the UN to deliver at the same level as before. Half of the deliveries should go to the north, he said, to stabilize the situation and bring prices down.

Currently, none of the WFP bakeries are running since owners are uncomfortable operating under the current level of desperation. The WFP is unable to provide fresh produce, which must come from the private sector. Skau did not see any markets open during this visit.

The beach in northern Gaza was covered in tents. He spoke to the women at the encampment, who are experiencing, worse than ever before, a “disheartening” experience.

“They’re telling their kids not to play [to conserve energy], and they speak about the frustration and the anger their husbands and their sons have,” he said. “They were talking about going and standing in queues to these soup kitchens, coming back, sometimes, with nothing.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

• Post-Earthquake Myanmar Faces ‘Immense’ Suffering, Cannot Be Forgotten
• What the Ceasefire Between Israel and Iran Means for Israel-Palestine Conflict

The US wants rights to DR Congo's minerals, but one vital mine is still in rebel hands.

The US wants rights to DR Congo's minerals, but one vital mine is still in rebel hands.

The US wants rights to DR Congo's minerals, but one vital mine is still in rebel hands.

Morocco and Zambia both seal 1-0 wins to secure passage to the quarter-finals at the 2024 Women's Africa Cup of Nations.

Reigning world champions South Africa make light work of an early red card for forward Jasper Wiese to thump Italy 45-0 in Gqeberha.