Third LDC Future Forum Concludes with Ambitious Plans to Build Resilience in Least Developed Countries

Civil Society, Climate Change, Development & Aid, Environment, Featured, Global, Least Developed Countries, Small Island Developing States, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

LDC Future Forum Banner. Credit: The Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UNOHRLLS)

LUSAKA, Zambia, May 6 2025 (IPS) – The 3rd LDC Future Forum, held from April 1-3, 2025, in Zambia, brought together global leaders, policymakers, and experts to address the urgent need for resilience in the world’s 44 Least Developed Countries (LDCs).


Under the theme of enhancing resilience, the forum emphasized innovative financing, climate-smart agriculture, sustainable infrastructure, circular economy and multi-stakeholder partnerships to combat systemic shocks.

A Call for Proactive Resilience

The forum opened with a powerful speech by Ms. Rabab Fatima, Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the UN-OHRLLS, who highlighted the vulnerability of LDCs to climate change, economic instability, and ongoing geopolitical crises, underscoring that the theme of this year’s Forum is both timely and urgent.

Ms. Fatima highlighted Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme and Cambodia’s digital IDPoor database that show how timely, targeted, digitally enabled, and shock-responsive mechanisms can break cycles of vulnerability. In this regard, she asserted that “LDCs possess immense potential for transformation, but this requires stronger financing mechanisms, climate-smart agriculture, and inclusive social protection systems.”

Rabab Fatima, Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the OHRLLS. Credit: OHRLLS

Zambia’s Leadership on being proactive and developing Resilience

Mr. Hakainde Hichilema, the 7th President of Zambia, emphasized the need for Zambia and other LDCs to transition from dependence on foreign aid to achieving proactive self-reliance. He highlighted how evolving geopolitical dynamics have led to reductions in aid, signaling that traditional reliance on external assistance is no longer a sustainable strategy for development.

President Hichilema stressed the importance of building resilience by leveraging domestic solutions and greater solidarity among LDCs. The LDC Future Forum, he explained, embodies this shift—preparing Zambia to face emerging challenges internally rather than relying on external aid.

The President highlighted his administration’s efforts in navigating crises, including the pandemic and a severe drought. Key advancements include enhanced irrigation for food security, expanded hydroelectric infrastructure, and greater solar energy adoption—all driving the nation toward self-sufficiency.

He said times have changed, stressing that “resilience is an absolute must.” and underscored the country’s desire to graduate from the LDC category in the years ahead.

Group Photo at 3rd LDC Future Forum, Lusaka, Zambia. Credit: OHRLLS

Finland’s Model for Development

Mr. Ville Tavio, Finland’s Foreign Trade and Development Minister, highlighted Finland’s enduring commitment to supporting LDCs and advancing the SDGs with a focus on inclusivity—ensuring no one is left behind, saying “The Future Forums bolster LDCs in harnessing their full potential to achieve social and economic growth”.

Mr. Tavio noted that Finland has developed a comprehensive model to strengthen resilience at home but acknowledged that this approach may not be universally applicable. Reflecting on his country’s journey, he noted that at independence in 1917, only 5% of its population had more than basic education, and much of the country was rural farmland.

Today, Finland has achieved developed-nation status, with education and social services accessible to all, pointing out that, with the right support and innovation, LDCs can also make fast progress in enhancing their resilience.

Key Highlights of the High-level dialogues and the thematic sessions:

    1. Innovative Financing: Discussions revealed that developing countries including LDCs need $4 trillion annually to meet the SDGs. Blended finance and green bonds were proposed to bridge gaps, with examples like the Nordic Development Fund’s work in a select number of LDCs.

    2. Climate-Smart Agriculture: Digital tools and AI for farmers took center stage, alongside calls for regional cooperation to combat food insecurity. Anticipatory action and resilience-building emerged as critical pillars of climate-smart strategies, including strengthening early warning systems, improving risk analysis, and tailoring solutions to each region’s specific environmental and socioeconomic conditions.

    3. Water management and renewable energy: Participants highlighted scalable, innovative strategies for sustainable water management and renewable energy integration, emphasizing their critical role in enhancing resilience. Discussions also explored pathways to achieving water and energy security, with a particular focus on gender-sensitive approaches.

    4. Circular Economy: Success stories in waste reduction and green industrialization were show-cased for Rwanda, Bangladesh and Ethiopia. These efforts, powered by partnerships, advanced technologies, and integrated approaches, pave the way for resilient and prosperous futures for LDCs.

    5. Social Safety Nets: Tanzania’s TASAF program—which integrates cash transfers with public works—was highlighted as a successful model for supporting vulnerable communities while fostering long-term development. Similarly, Burundi’s use of social protection programs to mitigate the effects of recurring climate shocks, such as droughts and floods, showcased how targeted interventions can both lift people out of extreme poverty and strengthen community resilience.

The Road Ahead

The forum concluded with a consensus on accelerating the Doha Programme of Action (DPoA), prioritizing climate resilience, and strengthening partnerships. USG Fatima closed with a rallying call saying, “by working together, we can ensure that LDCs have the necessary tools and resources to achieve sustainable development and graduate from the LDC category with resilience and stability”.

As LDCs face escalating climate and economic threats, the forum’s outcomes offer a roadmap for sustainable development—one built on collaboration, innovation, and unwavering resolve.

Based on those outcomes, and to advance the Doha Programme of Action and build resilience in LDCs, it is crucial to expand innovative financing, and invest in climate-smart agriculture, sustainable water management, and renewable energy, and enhance monitoring and accountability.

Promoting economic diversification, circular economy models, and adaptable social protection systems-alongside strong multi-stakeholder partnerships-will reduce vulnerabilities and support sustainable growth amid ongoing challenges.

These steps aim to help LDCs build resilience, achieve sustainable development, and progress toward graduation from LDC status.

About the LDC Future Forum
The annual forum convenes leaders to address LDC vulnerabilities and solutions. Zambia’s hosting marked the first time the event was held in an LDC, amplifying local voices in global dialogues.

For more information, click here.

About UNOHRLLS
The Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UNOHRLLS) is dedicated to advocating for the sustainable development of LDCs, LLDCs, and SIDS. It promotes global awareness of their unique challenges and mobilizes international support for their development priorities.

Key Links:
Op-Ed by USG Rabab Fatima
Curtain Raiser Video
Previous editions of LDC Future Forum
Doha Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries
Roadmap to Doha Programme of Action

May Yaacoub is Head of Advocacy and Outreach, Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS)

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Lives at Risk After Some States Withdraw From Landmine Treaty

Active Citizens, Armed Conflicts, Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Development & Aid, Editors’ Choice, Europe, Featured, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Peace, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Armed Conflicts

A HALO de-mining worker carefully probes for mines in Ukraine. Credit: Tom Pilston/HALO

A HALO demining worker carefully probes for mines in Ukraine.
Credit: Tom Pilston/HALO

BRATISLAVA, May 5 2025 (IPS) – As a string of European states announce withdrawals from a global treaty banning antipersonnel landmines, campaigners are warning countless lives could be put at risk as decades of progress fighting the weapons come under threat.


On April 16, Latvia’s parliament approved the country’s withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention. This came just weeks after Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and Finland all announced their intention to pull out of the treaty.

The countries have argued the move is a necessary security measure in light of growing Russian aggression.

But campaign groups have said that pulling out of the treaty is undermining the agreement itself with serious humanitarian implications.

“While far from the end of the treaty, this is a very big setback for the treaty and a very depressing development. Antipersonnel landmines are objectionable because they are inherently indiscriminate weapons and because of their long-lasting humanitarian impact,” Mary Wareham, deputy director of the Crisis, Conflict and Arms Division at Human Rights Watch, which is a co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), told IPS.

“The supposed military benefits of landmines are far outweighed by the devastating humanitarian implications of them,” she added.

The 1997 Ottawa Treaty bans the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines. It has been ratified or accepted by 165 countries—Russia, the United States, China, North Korea, Iran, and Israel are among those that are not signatories.

 A HALO de-mining worker carefully probes for mines in Ukraine. Credit: Tom Pilston/HALO

HALO demining in action. Credit: Tom Pilston/HALO

Campaign groups supporting the ban highlight the devastation landmines cause not just from direct casualties but also from driving massive displacement, hindering the delivery of humanitarian aid and impeding socio-economic recovery from conflict.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of those killed by landmines—80%—are civilians, with children particularly vulnerable.

“The presence of mines and other explosive ordnance continues to cause high levels of fatalities and serious injury, often resulting in life-long disabilities, with disproportionate impacts on children, persons with disabilities, and those forced to return under desperate conditions,” Shabia Mantoo, UNHCR spokesperson, told IPS.

“In addition to the high death toll, injuries and their aftereffects, including psychological damage, the presence of explosive devices hinders access to local livelihoods such as pastures, fields, farms, and firewood, as well as community infrastructure. They also affect the delivery of humanitarian aid and development activities. For humanitarian actors, their ability to safely reach communities with high levels of humanitarian needs and vulnerabilities and deliver life-saving assistance and protection  are often seriously constrained due to risks posed by explosive devices,” Mantoo added.

Humanitarian groups say the treaty has been instrumental in reducing landmine casualties from approximately 25,000 per year in 1999 to fewer than 5,000 in 2023. The number of contaminated states and regions has also declined significantly, from 99 in 1999 to 58 in 2024.

The treaty also includes measures requiring member countries to clear and destroy them as well as to provide assistance to victims, and as of the end of last year, 33 states had completed clearing all antipersonnel mines from their territory since 1999.

But in recent years, landmine casualties have grown amid new and worsening conflicts.

Data from the ICBL’s Landmine Monitor (2024) showed that in 2023, at least 5,757 people were killed or injured by landmines in 2023—a rise of 22 percent compared with 2022—in 53 countries.

The highest number of casualties—1,003—was recorded in Myanmar. This was three times the number in 2022. This was followed by Syria (933), Afghanistan (651), Ukraine (580), and Yemen (499).

In a special report on the continuing risks posed by mines and explosive remnants of war (ERW), the presence of which is known as ‘weapon contamination,’ released earlier in April, the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC)  warned that in 2025, the humanitarian impact of weapon contamination would likely continue to rise.

“The increased use of improvised explosive devices, shifting frontlines, and worsening security conditions will make survey and clearance efforts even more complex and therefore leave communities exposed to greater danger,” the report stated.

In two of the world’s most landmine-contaminated countries, Myanmar and Ukraine, the severe humanitarian impact of massive landmine use is being made horrifyingly clear.

In Myanmar, local aid groups say the ruling military junta’s use of landmines has escalated to unprecedented levels, while rebel groups are also deploying them. Roads and villages have been mined—ostensibly for military purposes, although many observers say they are just as often used to terrorize local populations—leading to not just civilian deaths and horrific injuries but also hindering vital medical care and aid efforts. Mines have been used in all 14 Myanmar states and regions, affecting about 60 percent of the country’s townships.

The mines have been an extra problem in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake at the end of March. The International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) said just days after the disaster, which killed more than 3,000 people, that as people relocated to areas less impacted by the earthquake and local and international organizations planned their response, ERWs were threatening not just the lives of those moving but also the safe delivery of humanitarian relief.

A group of HALO deminers with their equipment prepare for work. Credit: Tom Pilston/HALO

A group of HALO deminers with their equipment prepare for work. Credit: Tom Pilston/HALO

In Ukraine there has been extensive landmine use since Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country in February 2022. Russian forces have mined vast swathes of land, while there have been reports that Ukrainian forces have also used anti-personnel mines. It is estimated approximately 174,000 square kilometers, almost 30 percent of Ukraine’s territory, are affected by landmines and ERWs.

“According to NATO, Ukraine is now the world’s most mine-affected country and has seen the most mine laying since World War II.  The humanitarian impact of this contamination has been multifaceted—as well as vast swathes of prime farming land being contaminated, adversely affecting food security, civilian areas are also badly affected, including schools, residential zones, roads, and key infrastructure, leading to widespread displacement,” a spokesperson for the HALO Trust, a major humanitarian NGO carrying out demining operations around the world, including Ukraine, told IPS.

The spokesperson added that the effects of extensive landmine laying in the country may be felt for decades to come.

“HALO deminers are working in liberated areas, but it will take many years—if not decades— to clear Ukraine of landmines. Areas closest to the frontlines, such as Kharkiv and Sumy, are the areas where most people have been displaced, and some parts of these regions may remain uninhabitable until made completely safe. Any additional minelaying will extend the risk to civilian populations, agricultural production, and global trade for decades to come,” they said.

Anti-landmine campaigners also warn that if countries pull out of the Ottawa Convention, there is a risk that the use of landmines will become normalized.

“Increased acceptance [of landmines] could lead to wider proliferation and use, recreating the extensive contamination seen in Ukraine, Myanmar, and other conflict zones. In addition, withdrawal risks normalizing the rejection of humanitarian standards during times of insecurity, potentially undermining other crucial international norms. The ICBL has warned of a dangerous slippery slope where rejecting established norms during tense periods could lead to reconsideration of other banned weapons (e.g., chemical and biological weapons),” Charles Bechara, Communications Manager at ICBL, told IPS.

“Landmine survivors worldwide are shocked and horrified that European countries are about to undermine such progress and make the same mistake that dozens of other countries now regret. When European nations withdraw [from the Ottawa Convention], this sends a problematic message to countries facing internal or external security threats that such weapons are now acceptable,” he added.

However, it is not just withdrawals from the Ottawa Convention that are worrying anti-landmine groups.

Funding for demining efforts as well as services to help victims are under threat.

While the United States is not a signatory to the Ottawa Convention, it has been the largest contributor to humanitarian demining and rehabilitation programs for landmine survivors over the past 30 years. In 2023, it provided 39 percent of total international support to the tune of USD 310 million.

But the current halt to US foreign aid funding means that critical programs are now at risk, according to the ICBL.

“The US funding suspension threatens progress in heavily contaminated countries where casualty rates had been significantly reduced through consistent mine action work,” said Bechara.

He added the stop on funding would have “severe consequences for treaty implementation goals,” including the disruption or cessation of mine clearance operations in over 30 countries, a pause on victim assistance programs providing prosthetics and rehabilitation services, curtailment of risk education initiatives that help communities avoid mines, job losses at demining organizations, and problems implementing other humanitarian and development work because agencies depend on mine clearance to safely access areas.

Meanwhile, supporters of the Ottawa Convention are urging the countries currently intending to leave the landmine treaty to rethink their decisions.

“For Latvia and other countries considering withdrawal from the Mine Ban Convention, the ICBL is clear that weapons that predominantly kill and injure civilians cannot safeguard any nation’s security. Military experts, including Latvia’s own National Armed Forces commander, have concluded that modern weapon systems offer more effective defensive capabilities without the indiscriminate harm to civilians,” said Bechara.

“Despite the threats against the Mine Ban Treaty, the ICBL’s message is for countries to immediately cease their withdrawals and stand behind the treaty. Long-term security and safety cannot be ensured by a weakened international humanitarian law, which was conceived specifically to protect civilians in dire security situations,” he added.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Uncertainty Looms for Kenya Following Tense IMF/World Bank Spring Meetings

Civil Society, Climate Change, Environment, Gender, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Janet Ngombalu is Kenya Country Director, Christian Aid

Aerial view of Diff in Wajir South submerged in floodwaters, highlighting the devastating impact of heavy rains on homes and livelihoods – 2024. Credit: Pasca Chesach/Christian Aid Kenya

NAIROBI, Kenya, May 5 2025 (IPS) – Reflecting on this year’s IMF/World Bank Spring Meetings, one word lingers in my mind: uncertainty. The shifting global geopolitical landscape loomed large—none more so than the US administration’s initial threat to withdraw from the Bretton Woods institutions.


Although that threat was later withdrawn, it’s clear the US wants sweeping reforms. What exactly those changes will look like remains unknown, but it’s clear that the US wants the IMF and World Bank to focus more on its biggest shareholders rather than people and the planet. For countries in the Global South, like my own—Kenya—that could be disastrous.

As the world knows, the people of Kenya made their frustrations against the IMF known last year, with protests against IMF fiscal and austerity policies. And this unrest led to President William Ruto withdrawing a finance bill aiming to raise more than $2 billion in taxes.

Then, just last month, a four-year $3.6 billion IMF deal was terminated by mutual agreement. A new deal is now being negotiated—but finding balance will be difficult. The IMF is demanding fiscal consolidation, while the government is under immense pressure to ease the burden on a struggling population.

Without raising taxes, Kenya faces drastic cuts to public spending. But the people have had enough—and they shouldn’t be forced to endure more.

Dead livestock in Bubisa, Marsabit County due to prolonged drought: Credit: Pasca Chesach/Christian Aid Kenya

This is happening at a critical moment. The IMF is undergoing two major reviews this year that will shape its lending and surveillance approach for the next five years. If the Trump administration gains more sway over IMF leadership, civil society fears a regression to the 1990s era of even harsher austerity.

The reality on the ground in Kenya makes this unacceptable. We already face high taxes, and cuts to essential services are tearing the social fabric apart. Our health system is stretched beyond its limits.

Last year, doctors were driven to suicide under the weight of low pay, impossible hours, and the heartbreak of losing patients due to inadequate care.

School feeding programmes – lifelines for many children – have been cut. For some, that was the only meal of the day. Businesses are closing, jobs are vanishing, and those of us still employed are helping family members who are struggling.

A resident of Makueni fetches water from a community booth made possible through Christian Aid Kenya’s sand dam project, offering a reliable water source amid prolonged drought. Credit: Fauzia Hussein/Christian Aid Kenya

Meanwhile, the US is calling on the IMF and World Bank to scale back focus on gender equality and climate change. This is deeply alarming. As Kenya’s country director for Christian Aid, I am currently seeking emergency funds to respond to severe flooding in Marsabit and Wajir in the northeast of the country, which have also been heavily affected by drought.

Kenya loses up to KSh870 billion every year, around 3–5% of GDP, due to climate impacts. Yet we’ve done almost nothing to cause this crisis.

Women in particular continue to bear the brunt of IMF-imposed austerity. They face rising food prices head-on, as the ones more responsible for food shopping. They dominate the informal and public sectors – precisely the sectors most affected by spending cuts.

We had started to make scant progress in getting the IMF to consider these gendered impacts. Now, that progress is under threat.

There’s also growing unease about the politicisation of global financial governance. If the US gains even more influence over the IMF, will there be favouritism in lending decisions? The recent cancellation of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s trip to Kenya, following President Ruto’s visit to China, raises eyebrows.

The rise of this selfish, unilateral approach is troubling—and it’s already hurting us. Massive aid cuts are hitting hard. In addition to the proposed $60 billion USAID budget reduction, the UK, Germany, France, and the Netherlands have announced cuts totalling over $11 billion combined.

It feels as though the Global South is being abandoned in a power struggle we didn’t start. The IMF and World Bank, created in the colonial era, have always tilted toward northern interests. The US holds 16% of IMF voting power and therefore a veto over most important decisions which require 85% agreement. Meanwhile, the entire African continent holds just 4.7%. That imbalance is not only unjust; it’s unsustainable.

And now, it could get worse. But there is hope.

The upcoming Financing for Development Conference in Seville this June offers a rare and crucial opportunity. It is the only global forum where all countries negotiate economic governance on equal terms.

We must seize this moment to push for meaningful reform—debt relief, fairer international tax rules, and real climate finance. These are the changes we need to unlock a future where all countries have the tools and autonomy to shape their own development.

We cannot afford more uncertainty. We need control over our economic destiny, not to be tossed around by the shifting whims of the Global North.

Bring on Seville. It’s time for change.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

A Feminist Future for the UN: Why the Next Secretary-General Must Champion Civil Society

Civil Society, Featured, Gender, Gender Identity, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Jesselina Rana is the UN Advisor at CIVICUS’s New York office. Mandeep S. Tiwana is Interim Co-Secretary General of CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance.

NEW YORK, May 5 2025 (IPS) – Climate change is threatening to engulf small island states such as Maldives and the Marshall Islands. Gender apartheid is still practiced in theocratic states such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. War crimes and genocide are taking place in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Sudan.


Hunger looms large in the Congo and Yemen. People continue to be arbitrarily imprisoned in places as far apart as El-Salvador and Eritrea. Russia continues to violate Ukraine’s territorial integrity while China and the United States look the other way despite being permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Even a casual observer can concede that the UN’s mission to maintain peace and security, protect human rights and promote social progress along-with respect for international law is in crisis.

As the United Nations approaches its 80th anniversary this October, a pivotal question looms: Who should lead it into its next era? Surely, in a world impacted by multiple intersecting crises, the answer cannot be business as usual. After nearly eight decades, nine Secretary-Generals, and zero leaders from civil society—let alone a woman—the time for a transformative shift is now.

A movement is underway to demand a visionary Secretary-General who embodies feminist, principled, and courageous leadership. We need a world leader who will boldly stand up for human rights and ensure the inclusion of voices that have for too long been pushed to the margins, even as the UN faces questions about its financial sustainability.

Members of the Sub-commission on the Status of Women, from Lebanon, Poland, Denmark, Dominican Republic and India, prepare for a press conference at Hunter College in New York on 14 May 1946. Credit: UN Photo

Notably, since its inception the UN has been presided over by men, which is less than representative of the global community that the UN serves. Appointing a woman as Secretary-General would not only break this historical pattern but signal a commitment to gender equality and inspire women and girls worldwide, demonstrating that the highest levels of international leadership are accessible to all, regardless of gender. 92 states have already expressed support for a woman Secretary General.

The current Secretary General, Antonio Guterres is due to step down at end of December 2026 upon completion of his second term. The UN Charter mandates the appointment of the head of the UN by the General Assembly following the recommendation of the Security Council. Essentially, 9 out of 15 members of the Security Council must agree on the final recommendation to the General Assembly which then makes a decision on the final candidate through a majority vote.

All permanent members of the UN Security Council have the right to veto any candidate before a recommendation is made to the UN General Assembly. A lot of behind the scenes political wrangling takes place at this stage to select a candidate who will be acceptable to powerful states that seek to exert control over the UN, which is why the 1 for 8 billion campaign are demanding a process that is fair, transparent, inclusive, feminist and rigorous.

It’s no secret that the UN’s overly bureaucratic approaches and the inclination of its leadership to play safe in the face of multiple intersecting crises, including glaring violations of the UN Charter by powerful states are pushing the institution from being ineffective to becoming irrelevant.

Although many within the UN lay the blame on powerful states for co-opting the institution to assert narrow national interests and for not paying their financial dues, the problems run much deeper.

Ironically, civil society actors who work with the UN to fulfill its mission are being sidelined. In last year’s negotiations on the UN’s Pact for the Future and in current Financing for Development conversations, civil society delegates have struggled to find space to have their voices adequately included.

Many of us in civil society who have supported the UN through decades in the common quest to create more peaceful, just, equal and sustainable societies are deeply concerned about the current state of affairs.

Civil society actors have been instrumental in shaping some of the UN’s signature achievements such as the Paris Agreement on climate, the universal Sustainable Development Goals and the landmark Treaty on Enforced Disappearances. But diplomats representing repressive regimes are increasingly seeking to limit civil society participation.

These tactics are not isolated acts. They represent a coordinated, global assault on civic space and democratic norms. They are also contributory factors to the erosion of public trust in multilateral bodies which is threatening the legitimacy of the UN itself.

Tellingly, the long-standing demand for the appointment of a civil society envoy at the UN to streamline civil society participation across the UN system and to drive the UN’s outreach to civil society beyond major UN hubs has gone unheeded by the UN’s leadership.

Over the last decade and a half, civil society organisations and activists have faced a relentless assault from authoritarian-populist governments. The situation is alarming: latest findings of the CIVICUS Monitor, a participatory research collaboration, affirm that over 70% of the global population now live under repressive civic space conditions.

Across continents, activists are being illegally surveilled, arbitrarily imprisoned, and physically attacked. The right to peaceful protest is being quashed even in democracies. In far too many countries, independent civil society organisations are being dismantled and prevented from accessing funding. Just in the last two months, countries as diverse as Peru and Slovakia have introduced repressive anti-NGO laws.

As civic space closes, major financial supporters —from the US and UK to several EU states—are slashing official development assistance, thereby depriving civil society of crucial resources to resist these restrictions. A recent CIVICUS survey confirms that frontline efforts in health, civic engagement, and human rights are among the hardest hit.

The next Secretary-General must meet the crisis head-on. They must make the defence of civic space a strategic imperative. That means speaking out against governments that silence dissent and ensuring safe and meaningful participation for civil society at all levels. An effective way to do this would be to report on the implementation of the 2020 UN guidance note on civic space and accelerate its mainstreaming across the UN’s agencies and offices around the world.

Civil society remains a resilient engine for global progress. From climate justice and anti-corruption work to feminist organising, civil society groups often lead where governments and multilateral institutions falter. The UN would be well served by a Secretary General who sees civil society less as an after-thought and more as a co-creator of global policy who embodies feminist leadership principles and who understands that multilateralism cannot function without grassroots engagement—that justice, sustainability, and peace are not top-down aspirations, but bottom-up imperatives.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

World Press Freedom Day 2025 Global Press Freedom Index Falls to Critical Low

Active Citizens, Civil Society, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Freedom of Expression, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Press Freedom

Sea of red indicates the parlous state of press freedom in the world. Credit: Reporters Without Borders

Sea of red indicates the parlous state of press freedom in the world. Credit: Reporters Without Borders

BRATISLAVA, May 2 2025 (IPS) – Global press freedom across the world is at a “critical moment,” campaigners have warned, as a major index mapping the state of global press freedom hits an unprecedented low.


In the latest edition of the annual press freedom index produced by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which was published on May 2, the average score of all assessed countries fell below 55 points, falling into the category of a “difficult situation” for the first time in the index’s history.

More than six out of ten countries (112 in total) saw their overall scores decline in the index, while the conditions for practicing journalism are for the first time classified as poor in half of the world’s countries and satisfactory in fewer than one in four.

In 42 countries—harboring over half of the world’s population (56.7 percent)—the situation is “very serious,” according to the group. In these zones, press freedom is entirely absent and practicing journalism is particularly dangerous.

RSF says that while there has been a downward trend in press freedom globally for some time, the latest index scores are a distressing “new low.”

“Our index has been warning of this for the last ten years—the trajectory for press freedom has been a downward one—but this is a new low. Sixty percent of countries saw their scores [in the index] drop last year and the environment for media freedom globally has worsened. We are now at a critical moment for press freedom globally,” Fiona O’Brien, UK Bureau Director for RSF, told IPS.

Experts and campaigners have in recent years warned of growing threats to press freedom amid a rise of authoritarian regimes looking to muzzle dissent, as well as  growing economic pressures affecting the ability of independent media outlets to function.

RSF’s index is compiled using measurements of five different indicators—political context, legal framework, economic context, sociocultural context, and safety—to form an overall score. It says that this year the overall global index score was dragged down by the performance of the economic index.

It says that economic pressure is an often underestimated but major factor seriously weakening media in many countries. This pressure is being largely driven by ownership concentration, pressure from advertisers and financial backers, and public aid that is restricted, absent, or allocated non-transparently.

The group warns this is leaving many media trapped between preserving their editorial independence and ensuring their economic survival.

“The pressure on media sustainability is as bad as it has ever been,” said O’Brien.

The effects of this economic pressure have been severe. Data collected for the index indicates that in 160 out of the 180 countries assessed (88.9 percent), media outlets achieve financial stability “with difficulty” or “not at all.” Meanwhile, news outlets are shutting down due to economic hardship in nearly a third of countries globally.

While the struggles of media economies in some countries have been exacerbated by political instability, general lack of resources, and war, media in other rich, ostensibly more stable countries are also facing significant economic pressures.

RSF points out that in the US, a majority of journalists and media experts told the group that “the average media outlet struggles for economic viability.”

Meanwhile, independent media that rely heavily or exclusively on foreign funding have come under increasing pressure.

A freeze on funding for the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which halted US international aid earlier this year plunged hundreds of news outlets in different countries around the world into economic uncertainty or forced others to close.

This was particularly acute in Ukraine, where nine out of ten outlets receive international aid and USAID is the primary donor.

“The US cuts have had a profound effect there,” Jeanne Cavalier, head of RSF’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk, told IPS. “Independent media is vital in any country that is at war. It’s a real blow to press freedom in the country,” she said.

She added, though, that the cuts to US funding were “an existential threat to press freedom in all countries with authoritarian governments under Russian influence,” highlighting that exiled media in particular provide a vital service to people living under such regimes.

The Meduza news outlet is one of the most prominent exiled Russian media organizations. While more than half of its financing comes through crowdfunding, until earlier this year a part of its funding came via US grants.

The group said that the combined impact of the cut and previous financial problems presented a significant challenge to its operations. It was forced to cut its workforce by 15 percent and salaries were reduced.

Speaking to IPS at the time, Katerina Abramova, Head of Communications at Meduza, said the moves would “influence the diversity of our content.” But speaking this week after the release of RSF’s index, she said the group had managed to continue its work but admitted, “it is even more challenging now.”

“Our main goal is to maintain the quality of our reporting and to keep delivering news inside Russia,” she said.

However, she said she was concerned for the future of other organizations like Meduza as press freedom and the economic health of independent media wane globally.

“I hope that there will not be a complete loss of independent reporting on countries where free speech has become illegal. But I know that many independent newsrooms are suffering and are on the edge of closing. When you are in exile, you are in a vulnerable position, so such newsrooms face the most difficult challenges,” she told IPS.

“I am also worried that the USAID cuts may be seen as a ‘good sign’ for many authoritarian regimes around the world. They might say, ‘look, the USA also doesn’t like journalists anymore.’ It would be like a validation of what they are doing to independent media [in their own countries],” she added.

Meanwhile, other organizations have also raised the alarm over growing threats to press freedom, even in countries regarded as among the strongest democracies in the world.

While in the RSF index the European Union (EU)-Balkans zone had the highest overall score globally, and its gap with the rest of the world continued to grow, a report released this week by the Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties) group highlighted how some EU governments were attacking press freedom and undermining independent media.

The report, based on the work of 43 human rights groups from 21 countries, warned that press freedom was being eroded across the bloc. It said EU media markets “feature high media ownership concentration, with these owners remaining obscured behind inadequate ownership transparency obligations, the continued erosion of public service media’s independence, ongoing threats and intimidation against journalists, and restrictions on freedom of expression and access to information.”

“The findings of this report should put EU officials on high alert: media freedom and pluralism are under attack across the EU, and in some cases they are in an existential battle against overtly undemocratic governments,” according to the group.

Liberties also warned that “EU legislation to bolster media freedom is being greeted with hostility, making enforcement efforts in 2025 and beyond decisive in protecting the free and plural media that European democracy depends on.”

However, it is this legislation, including the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which is designed to guarantee the protection of journalists and sources, independence of regulatory bodies and full ownership transparency, and the Anti-SLAPP Directive (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) to protect journalists and human rights advocates from abusive legal proceedings, that experts see as providing hope that some of the threats to media freedom can be dealt with.

“At the individual country level within the EU, there are some problems. Where there has been a recent change in government away from authoritarianism, there has been some positive progress, e.g., in Poland. But in other countries, like Slovakia, we are seeing the reverse,” Eva Simon, Senior Advocacy Officer at Liberties, told IPS.

“But at the EU level, we see positive prospects for media freedom in new legislation. The EU Media Act is coming into force soon and the anti-SLAPP directive will come into effect next year.

“The EU has the power to intervene in countries where there are persistent problems and we have high hopes that the EU will use its powers to enforce the European Media Freedom Act. The EU has more tools than ever at its disposal to ensure media freedom in member states,” she added.

On April 30, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ) issued a damning report on how, since the start of US President Donald Trump’s second term in January, press freedom has come under attack.

The report warned that press freedom is no longer a given in the United States as journalists and newsrooms face mounting pressures that threaten both their ability to report freely and the public’s right to know.

It said the executive branch of the government was taking “unprecedented steps to permanently undermine press freedom” through restricting access for some news organizations, increasingly using government and regulatory bodies against media, and launching targeted attacks on journalists and newsrooms.

In a statement, CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg said, “This is a definitive moment for U.S. media and the public’s right to be informed. Whether at the federal or state level, the investigations, hearings, and verbal attacks amount to an environment where the media’s ability to bear witness to government action is already curtailed.”

The current threats to press freedom in the US are among the most worrying anywhere, many media experts say.

“There is a head-on attack on media freedom in the US. If you look at the scores for the US [in the index], the social indicator has dropped hugely, which shows that within the US the press is operating in a hostile environment. The economic situation there has deteriorated too, which makes things difficult for them,” said O’Brien.

“But also, a lot of people look to America as a bastion of press freedom, with its constitution’s First Amendment, and what is happening there to independent media is an absolute gift to authoritarian rulers around the world. If the rest of the world just sits back and watches this and lets press freedom be restricted and attacked and does nothing, other regimes will look and just think, ‘oh, it’s OK to do this.’”

“World leaders have to now stand up for press freedom. Independent journalism is fundamental to democratic societies,” she added.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

The Vietnam and Gaza Wars Shattered Young Illusions About US Leaders

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Middle East & North Africa, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Protestors gather in front of the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue in 1966 to protest the Vietnam War. Credit: White House Historical Association

SAN FRANCISCO, USA, May 2 2025 (IPS) – Eight years before the U.S.-backed regime in South Vietnam collapsed, I stood with high school friends at Manhattan’s Penn Station on the night of April 15, 1967, waiting for a train back to Washington after attending the era’s largest antiwar protest so far.


An early edition of the next day’s New York Times arrived on newsstands with a big headline at the top of the front page that said “100,000 Rally at U.N. Against Vietnam War.” I heard someone say, “Johnson will have to listen to us now.”

But President Lyndon Johnson dashed the hopes of those who marched from Central Park to the United Nations that day (with an actual turnout later estimated at 400,000). He kept escalating the war in Vietnam, while secretly also bombing Laos and Cambodia.

During the years that followed, antiwar demonstrations grew in thousands of communities across the United States. The decentralized Moratorium Day events on October 15, 1969 drew upward of 2 million people. But all forms of protest fell on deaf official ears. A song by the folksinger Donovan, recorded midway through the decade, became more accurate and powerful with each passing year: “The War Drags On.”

As the war continued, so did the fading of trust in the wisdom and morality of Johnson and his successor, Richard Nixon. Gallup polls gauged the steep credibility drop. In 1965, just 24 percent of Americans said involvement in the Vietnam War had been a mistake. By the spring of 1971, the figure was 61 percent.

The number of U.S. troops in Vietnam gradually diminished from the peak of 536,100 in 1968, but ground operations and massive U.S. bombing persisted until the signing of the Paris Peace Accords in late January 1973. American forces withdrew from Vietnam, but the war went on with U.S. support for 27 more months, until – on April 30, 1975 – the final helicopter liftoff from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon signaled that the Vietnam War was indeed over.

By then, most Americans were majorly disillusioned. Optimism that public opinion would sway their government’s leaders on matters of war and peace had been steadily crushed while carnage in Southeast Asia continued. To many citizens, democracy had failed – and the failure seemed especially acute to students, whose views on the war had evolved way ahead of overall opinion.

At the end of the 1960s, Gallup found “significantly more opposition to President Richard Nixon’s Vietnam policies” among students at public and private colleges than in “a parallel survey of the U.S. general public: 44 percent vs. 25 percent, respectively.” The same poll “showed 69 percent of students in favor of slowing down or halting the fighting in Vietnam, while only 20 percent favored escalation.

This was a sharp change from 1967, when more students favored escalation (49 percent) than de-escalation (35 percent).”

Six decades later, it took much less time for young Americans to turn decisively against their government’s key role of arming Israel’s war on Gaza. By a wide margin, continuous huge shipments of weapons to the Israeli military swiftly convinced most young adults that the U.S. government was complicit in a relentless siege taking the lives of Palestinian civilians on a large scale.

A CBS News/YouGov poll in June 2024 found that Americans opposed sending “weapons and supplies to Israel” by 61-39 percent. Opposition to the arms shipments was even higher among young people. For adults under age 30, the ratio was 77-23.

Emerging generations learned that moral concerns about their country’s engagement in faraway wars meant little to policymakers in Washington. No civics textbook could prepare students for the realities of power that kept the nation’s war machine on a rampage, taking several million lives in Southeast Asia or supplying weapons making possible genocide in Gaza.

For vast numbers of Americans, disproportionately young, the monstrous warfare overseen by Presidents Johnson and Nixon caused the scales to fall from their eyes about the character of U.S. leadership. And like President Trump now, President Biden showed that nice-sounding rhetoric could serve as a tidy cover story for choosing to enable nonstop horrors without letup.

No campaign-trail platitudes about caring and joy could make up for a lack of decency. By remaining faithful to the war policies of the president they served, while discounting the opinions of young voters, two Democratic vice presidents – Hubert Humphrey and Kamala Harris – damaged their efforts to win the White House.

A pair of exchanges on network television, 56 years apart, are eerily similar.

In August 1968, appearing on the NBC program Meet the Press, Humphrey was asked: “On what points, if any, do you disagree with the Vietnam policies of President Johnson?”

“I think that the policies that the president has pursued are basically sound,” Humphrey replied.

In October 2024, appearing on the ABC program The View, Harris was asked: “Would you have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years?”

“There is not a thing that comes to mind,” Harris replied.

Young people’s votes for Harris last fall were just 54 percent, compared to 60 percent that they provided to Biden four years earlier.

Many young eyes recognized the war policy positions of Hubert Humphrey and Kamala Harris as immoral. Their decisions to stay on a war train clashed with youthful idealism. And while hardboiled political strategists opted to discount such idealism as beside the electoral point, the consequences have been truly tragic – and largely foreseeable.

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. The paperback edition of his latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, includes an afterword about the Gaza war.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source