Development Effectiveness & the Quality of Financing: Towards a More Holistic Approach at Seville

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Change, Development & Aid, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are off track. Decades of progress on poverty and hunger have stalled, and in some cases, been thrown into reverse. Many developing economies are mired in debt, with financing challenges preventing the urgently needed investment push in the SDGs, according to the United Nations. But amid these challenges there lies opportunity. The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) – 30 June to 3 July 2025–provides a unique opportunity to reform financing at all levels, including to support reform of the international financial architecture. Credit: United Nations

STOCKHOLM Sweden / MILAN, Italy, Feb 14 2025 (IPS) – When world leaders gather in Seville for the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) in June, they will be meeting at a pivotal moment: one defined by mounting systemic risks, a multiplication of crises, and proliferation and fragmentation of development co-operation actors and funds.

International development co-operation is also threatened by the ongoing erosion of funding, including through unilateral decisions of unparalleled magnitude. While momentum for reform and transformative change to the financial and development architecture is growing, it is crucial not to lose sight of the fundamentals.

To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), increases in the quantity of development financing, be it official development assistance (ODA), private finance, or South-South co-operation, must be complemented with boosting the quality of all types of financing so that they are delivered and used in the most effective way.

Credit: Nuthawut Somsuk

Efforts to increase the quality of financing are embodied by the development effectiveness agenda and its internationally agreed principles: country ownership, focus on results, inclusive partnerships, and transparency and mutual accountability. The principles are tried and tested, and more relevant than ever.

They build on and reflect decades of global experience and are increasingly crucial for addressing the challenges that characterize today’s development co-operation landscape, such as fragmentation and misalignment with country priorities. They are also key for mobilising different types of finance from a growing array of development partners and partnerships.

Yet, as the development landscape has increased in complexity in the years after the 2015 Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the systematic focus on development effectiveness at country level has not been adequately integrated into country ecosystems and ambitions. For instance, Integrated National Finance Framework (INFF) processes could be better utilized as opportunities to talk about development effectiveness.

As Co-Chairs of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, we believe that development effectiveness is essential to mobilising financing for sustainable development, across all types of international co-operation for development. The FfD4 Outcome Document must clearly stress this point.

A stronger, more systematic focus on the benefits of development effectiveness – and on addressing the bottlenecks and trade-offs that hinder progress on the 2030 Agenda and SDGs – is essential to reinstate trust, increase financing for development, and achieve long-term positive impacts.

The four principles of effective development co-operation remain the core enablers of development effectiveness. We welcome the focus of the recently released FfD4 Zero Draft Outcome Document on country leadership, coherence, and mutual accountability, but reiterate the need to uphold past commitments originating from the long-lasting aid effectiveness and development effectiveness processes.

It is important for the Outcome Document to stress the continued validity and intertwined nature of the four effectiveness principles, including the role of inclusive partnerships and of civil society organizations in particular.

The involvement of all stakeholders – partner countries, development partners, the private sector, civil society, parliamentarians, philanthropies, and trade unions – remains central to the effectiveness agenda. It is also important to focus on the effectiveness of partnerships with the private sector, in particular by creating enabling environments for a local private sector to thrive, an area monitored by the Global Partnership through the Kampala Principles Assessment.

Effective private sector partnerships are key for ensuring transparency and accountability and for combatting corruption. A whole-of-society approach is key to achieving true country ownership, which has emerged as a central theme in the FfD4 negotiations.

How can the Global Partnership and development effectiveness contribute to FfD4 and its follow-up?

First, the Global Partnership Monitoring Exercise provides evidence to inform how development actors can improve their policies, practices and partnerships, insights into progress in implementing the agreed effectiveness commitments, as well as opportunities for learning, dialogue and sharing of experiences on emerging effectiveness challenges.

The monitoring is a partner-country led tool holding development stakeholders to account for their implementation of the commitments, and a starting point for concrete action and behaviour change. Since 2011, 103 partner countries have led the monitoring exercise one or more times in collaboration with over 100 development partners and other actors. The ongoing global monitoring round will bring new evidence into the discussions on effectiveness, including in the lead-up and follow-up to FfD4.

(Read preliminary observations from the first 11 countries to complete data collection: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nepal, the Philippines, Uganda, Yemen and Zambia).

The fresh insights from the monitoring round are one important source of evidence which will feed into country-led multi-stakeholder action for how to enhance effectiveness.

Second, the Global Partnership’s 4th High-Level Meeting (HLM4) in 2026, where the monitoring results will be presented, is the next crucial moment after FfD4 to take stock of development effectiveness, accelerate progress, drive accountability, and inform policy dialogue on international development co-operation trends.

We invite all development stakeholders to contribute to HLM4, and to act on the dilemmas, tensions and trade-offs we are all facing to expedite delivery of the 2030 Agenda. Strengthening and streamlining the development co-operation architecture must be a collaborative, inclusive process.

The Global Partnership offers a proven, multi-stakeholder platform to ensure that all voices are heard in shaping the future of development co-operation.

We invite you to join forces with us: raise the profile of development effectiveness in the lead-up and follow-up to FfD4, and use the monitoring findings for learning, dialogue and action at country level.

Recognizing that development effectiveness is a key enabler for sustainable development by 2030 (and beyond) and fully embracing and recognizing the effectiveness principles in their integrity, is a prerequisite for an impactful and action-oriented outcome at FfD4.

Annika Otterstedt is Assistant Director General, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency and Luca De Fraia is Co-Chair, CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness.

Annika Otterstedt and Luca De Fraia are also Co-Chairs of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Not an Option. A Call for Action

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Change, Education, Education Cannot Wait. Future of Education is here, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies

NEW YORK, Feb 11 2025 – A global alert is not an option. It requires global action. Over the past three years, the number of crisis-impacted school-aged children in need of urgent quality education support has grown by an alarming 35 million, according to Education Cannot Wait’s new Global Estimates Report.

The recently published report offers a stark and brutal alert for the future of 234 million girls and boys enduring the frontlines of the world’s most dire humanitarian crises. Their access to a quality education is non-existent. We cannot stand by and let the consequences avalanche into a total collapse. They desperately need our urgent collective global action, now.

The complex and horrific disruption of education in Gaza, the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Ukraine and beyond are utterly dangerous and harmful to them and all of us. Without action, we are pushing even more children into harm’s way. Without a quality education, we risk repeating cycles of displacement, instability, insecurity, uncertainty, chaos and mayhem. We risk leaving an entire generation behind. This will have severe impact on their lives, as well as all our lives.

Education Cannot Wait (ECW) and all our partners – be it strategic donors, the private sector, ministries of education, UN agencies, civil society and local communities – have proven again and again that it is indeed possible to make a difference and a bold impact. It is indeed possible to extinguish the fire, reduce the speed of the avalanche and turn challenges into opportunities. In just a few years, we jointly and collectively delivered a continued quality education to over 11 million children and adolescents in the harshest circumstances on earth.

With more funding, we could double that number in just over a year. With even more funding, we can and will eventually become a collective force of nature that makes sure that every child and young person in crises reaches their potential. When they reach their potential through a quality education, they will be the force of nature for their societies and the world at large, be it in science, in business, as highly-qualified teachers, or any other profession that every society needs to thrive and make an impact.

The needs have never been greater. At the same time, the evidenced-based model for success has never been stronger. This is not the time to fear to fail, nor for closing our eyes to the reality, or the power of education to resolve it.

This is an investment in the human potential at its best. It is an investment in stronger economies and greater stability across the globe. No one loses. All are winners.

According to the United Nations, there is a US$100 billion annual financing gap to achieve the education targets in low- and lower-middle income countries. ECW is calling for a tiny part of that figure to make a major impact. That is US$600 million to deliver on the goals outlined in our four-year strategic plan: to reach 20 million crisis-impacted children and adolescents.

The need for collaboration has never been more important. In January, ECW and our close strategic partner the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) issued a Complementarity Note that underscores the value-addition of our individual organizations and charts a path toward increased results, impact, coordination and collaboration. We ensure that there is no duplication, nor double funding. Rather, we provide a holistic approach based on each other’s comparative advantage. The same applies for the third funding mechanism of IFFEd, the International Finance Facility for Education. With the resources required, these three funds work with all our partners to deliver comprehensively and completely. It is possible.

In Sudan, for example, recent analysis from OCHA indicates that of the 4.2 million targeted through the humanitarian response toward education, only 777,000 have been reached thus far, and of the US$131 million humanitarian funding ask for education, only US$22.8 million has been funded thus far. That is an 83% funding gap.

It is astonishing considering that education is both lifesaving and has the power to reduce aid-dependency in the long run. Now, more than ever, we need to step up funding for education in emergencies and protracted crises. Humanitarian, development, public and private sector funding can make a huge contribution to address the vicious cycle of humanitarian crises.

We should make no mistake: the children and adolescents in crises are extremely resilient due to their soul-shattering experiences. Once they get an education, they will certainly tap into extraordinary innovation, unbreakable courage and a limitless source of creativity. Then, they will show us how to make the impossible possible.

In conclusion, we need to connect the dots and see the whole picture. Climate change is no less of a major factor in disrupting education than conflict. Indeed, conflicts, climate change and forced displacement are all interconnected humanitarian crises. In this month’s high-level interview, we discuss the connection between education and climate change with ECW’s Climate Champion Adenike Oladosu. Funding climate change demands funding education, too. We cannot afford to separate the two.

Or, as the multi-faceted Leonardo da Vinci once said: “Learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.”

The 234 million children and adolescents deprived of a quality education are connected to 8 billion people, our future as a human species and the progress of our world. Making an investment requires us to see the whole picture. It is not an option. It is a call for action.

Yasmine Sherif is Executive Director of Education Cannot Wait

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Still Hopes for a Future Plastic Treaty– But it Won’t be Easy

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Change, Environment, Global, Headlines, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

A 30-foot- high monument entitled Turn off the plastics tap by Canadian activist and artist Benjamin von Wong was exhibited at the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi, Kenya, in 2022. Credit: UNEP/Cyril Villemain

KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jan 20 2025 (IPS) – The last few weeks of 2024 were a disappointment for those who strongly believed that planet Earth is in need of bold actions.

First, there were the frustration stemming from what could be defined at minimum as unconvincing outcomes of both COP 16 on Biodiversity and COP 29 on Climate.

Then all hope was resting on a successful conclusion of the 5th and final round of negotiations held in Busan to reduce plastic pollutions, at the Inter-governmental Negotiating Committee INC-5. (25 November -1 December 2024)

Instead also in this case, at the end, it was a letdown because no consensus had emerged on some of the key elements of the negotiations. Yet, flopping this more gloomy and dark view, I am learning that activists for a strong treaty are not giving up.

They are not ready to concede defeat and, rightly so. The fight must go on.

At least at Busan, the gap between the parties involved in the discussions came at the fore, providing clarity on their own desired outcomes, this time, each showing their cards, without hesitancy. On the one hand, a diverse coalition of more progressive nations.

Within it, both members of the Global South and a part of the Global North worked very hard to press for the best possible outcome, a treaty that would also include targets to reduce plastic production, especially the most nefarious type of it.

On the other hand, governments representing strong petro-chemical establishments had the overt mission to trample and block any attempts of reducing plastic production. Their mantras were conveniently focused on recycling and circularity as the best remedy to reduce plastic pollution.

To have a better assessment of INC-5, I approached the Plastic Pollution Coalition, a US civil society organization advocating an ambitious treaty. The group has also pressurized Washington to take a bolder stance in the fight against plastic pollution.

The resulting conversation with members of the Coalition, carried out via e-mails, was also an opportunity to identify the next goalposts for future negotiations and what scenarios might emerge in the months ahead.

They key messages are that, despite the final outcomes of the negotiations were not what many had hoped for, those, who want bold actions towards reducing plastic pollution, should not despair.

First of all, my interest was on assessing the level of disillusionment among activists advocating for a strong and ambitious treaty.

“Plastic pollutes throughout its existence, and a strong globally binding treaty is critical for a healthy future for humanity. While we are disappointed with the outcome of INC-5—little to no progress on the treaty text—we remain hopeful and are very inspired by the growing collaboration and efforts of a majority of ambitious countries” said Dianna Cohen, Co-Founder and CEO of the Plastic Pollution Coalition.

The commitment from the members of the Coalition is not diminished but rather it is growing ad with it also a sense of optimism.

“The fight is far from over. Talks will resume in 2025, and Plastic Pollution Coalition and allies continue to call on the US government to adopt a stronger position in the treaty negotiations” said Jen Fela, Vice President, Programs and Communications at the Plastic Pollution Coalition.

“The work won’t be easy. While necessary to protect the planet and human health, there will likely be even less support for a strong and legally binding global treaty by the incoming US administration”.

“The good news is that the talks in Busan demonstrated that more and more countries are willing to be bold and tell the world to get on board with what UN Environment Programme Executive Director Inger Andersen called a ‘once-in-a-planet opportunity’ for a treaty that will end the plastics age once and for all”, Fela further stressed.

But what next? Balancing realism with ambition, what activists should aim in the next negotiations?

“We will keep pushing for a treaty that caps plastic production and prioritizes health, centers frontline and fence-line communities, acknowledges the rights of Indigenous Peoples and rights holders, restricts problematic plastic products and chemicals of concern, and supports non-toxic reuse systems”, Cohen, the Co-Founder and CEO of the Coalition told me.

“We are proud to stand with our incredible community of allies and continue our work toward a more just, equitable, regenerative world free of plastic pollution and its toxic impacts”,

Indeed, signs of hope are not misplaced”.

“Despite Member States being unable to reach a deal at INC-5, there was promising ambition and growing collaboration among the majority of countries, and we’re hopeful for the additional round of talks at INC-5.2 next year”, she further added.

“Ultimately, a delay is better than settling for a weak agreement that fails to meaningfully address the problem now, and the silver lining is that in the meantime, we can gain even more support for a strong treaty that cuts plastic pollution”.

Moreover, it is important to remember that despite there was no agreement, a new consensus is emerging.

“Despite pressure from a handful of petrostates, the majority of countries are rallying together for a strong treaty, with more than 100 countries backing Panama’s proposal to reduce plastic production, 95 supporting legally binding targets to regulate harmful chemicals, and over 120 nations calling for a treaty with robust implementation measures” reads a summary of INC-5 published by the Coalition.

A new coalition got cemented in Busan with countries like Panama and Rwanda working with European nations and others in the so called High Ambition Coalition to end Plastic Pollution.

I also wanted to better understand the key elements that can either make a future treaty at least acceptable for those advocating for plastic reductions and which are the “red lines” for them.

“Signs of a weak Plastics Treaty include voluntary measures to address plastic pollution, failure to commit to a significant global reduction in the total production of plastics, failing to identify and cease production of “chemicals of concern” known to harm frontline communities—a major environmental justice issue, a focus on recycling plastic as a solution, and omitting a full and strong range of actions that address plastic pollution throughout its endless toxic existence—from the extraction of its fossil fuel ingredients through plastic and plastic chemical production, shipping, use, and disposal” explained Erica Cirino, Communication Manager at the Coalition.

“The key is a mandated and significant reduction in plastic and plastic chemical production”.

“Signs of a strong treaty include mandatory caps on plastic and plastic chemical production, identification and further regulation of especially hazardous chemicals of concern, and including a full and strong range of actions that work to end plastic pollution throughout its endless toxic existence, starting with the extraction of its fossil fuel ingredients through plastic and plastic chemical production, shipping, use, and disposal” she further said.

“A binding commitment that reduces especially “problematic” plastic products and chemicals of concern would not be acceptable without a cap in overall production. All plastics pollute, and all plastic production must be reduced”, Cirino further explained.

The point raised by Cirino is one of the most contentious. “Those of special concern must especially be eliminated and regulated, but taking action to mitigate their harm should only be expedited—and not stand in place of mitigating harm of all plastics”.

Would it be still acceptable, in case there will be no breakthrough at all in the next round of negotiations, the most progressive nations, say the members of The High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, would come up with their own, alternative binding agreement, even if not a fully-fledged global treaty as we are envisioning now?

Could this “extreme” and until now unimaginable ‘last” option make sense even if plastic polluters would continue with their “business as usual approach”?

“It’s certainly not an ideal solution, as plastic pollution is a global issue perpetuated by a global set of governments; investors; and industrial players, activities and infrastructure. That said, it potentially would be better than nothing if more progressive nations were to devise their own binding agreement, so long as it focused on curbing plastic pollution”, Cirino shared.

“The main issue is, many of the biggest plastic producers in the world (namely, the US and China) are absent from the high-ambition talks for now. It’s crucial that levels of plastic production drop globally. It would be all for naught if some countries reduce production, only for other nations to increase it”.

Meanwhile having some countries going “solo” carries risks and these they are crystal clear.

Indeed, there are palpable concerns in places like Europe on this regard.

There, the plastic lobbying is worried that a decline of plastic production in Europe means that other nations like China are taking advantage by ramping up their production.

We are in a conundrum. At this moment, I can’t imagine how the petro states will change their key negotiating positions. “If passed, hopefully an agreement among progressive nations would push other nations to also reduce their plastic production or, such an agreement may not help at all” concluded Cirino.

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

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

A Renewed Vision for Prosperity for Landlocked Developing Countries

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Change, Climate Change Justice, Development & Aid, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Least Developed Countries, Natural Resources, Small Island Developing States, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Trade & Investment

Opinion

OHRLLS Office Banner. Credit: The United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS)

UNITED NATIONS, Jan 3 2025 (IPS) – Over 570 million people live in the world’s 32 Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs), spanning across Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America. These nations face unique and complex development challenges. Their lack of direct access to the sea, geographical isolation, limited infrastructure, and difficulty integrating into global trade and value chains hinder sustainable development and progress.

The lingering impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, rising vulnerability to external shocks, climate change, and mounting debt burdens have further compounded these challenges, eroding progress achieved under the last developmental roadmap for LLDCs—the Vienna Programme of Action.

However, a pivotal moment for LLDCs is at hand. In the lead-up to the Third United Nations Conference on LLDCs (LLDC3), to be held next year, the international community has adopted a new Programme of Action (PoA) to guide LLDCs’ development from 2025 to 2035.

UN Under-Secretary-General (USG) and High Representative, cr. Credit: OHRLLS

A new decade of opportunity and progress

The new PoA is a landmark achievement designed to address the structural challenges of LLDCs and accelerate their socio-economic integration into the global economy. This vision focuses on five priority areas critical to transforming LLDCs into resilient and competitive economies:

Structural Transformation and Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI)

Economic diversification is crucial for LLDCs. Their dependence on a narrow range of commodities leaves them highly vulnerable to external shocks. The new PoA prioritizes value-added industries and leveraging technology and innovation to help LLDCs integrate more effectively into global value chains and build more resilient economies.

Digital connectivity, which is pivotal for sustainable development, is also an important focus of the PoA. In 2023, only 39% of LLDC populations used the internet, compared to the global average of 67%. The PoA aims to create regional digital platforms for peer learning and capacity building while increasing support to LLDCs to leverage technology for sustainable growth.

Trade, Trade Facilitation, and Regional Integration

Trade drives economic growth, yet LLDCs account for just 1.1% of global merchandise exports. High trade costs—averaging 30% more than coastal countries—significantly hamper their competitiveness.

The new PoA highlights LLDCs’ interest in establishing a dedicated work programme at the World Trade Organization (WTO) to address their unique needs. It also recommends developing a high-level panel of experts to examine the application of existing international laws on freedom of transit for LLDCs, ensuring that LLDCs can engage in international trade under fairer conditions.

Transit, Transport, and Connectivity

Transport infrastructure is a critical link for LLDCs to global markets. Bridging the current gap—nearly 200,000 km of paved roads and over 46,000 km of railways—will require over half a trillion dollars.

To address this, the PoA proposes an Infrastructure Investment Finance Facility (IIFF) for LLDCs to mobilize resources for sustainable transport infrastructure, thereby reducing trade costs and enhancing connectivity.

Enhancing Adaptive Capacity and Resilience to Climate Change and Disasters

LLDCs face significant vulnerabilities to climate-related disasters. Between 2012 and 2022, 447 such events affected 170 million people in LLDCs—double the global average.

The PoA emphasizes climate-resilient infrastructure, sustainable agriculture, and improved access to climate finance. It also notes LLDCs’ interest in developing a dedicated work programme under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Lastly, but more importantly,

Means of Implementation

The success of the new Programme of Action depends on robust means of implementation, including adequate resources, technical support, and strong partnerships. The PoA calls for increased development assistance and emphasizes the role of public-private partnerships in realizing its ambitious goals.

Driving Progress through Partnerships – a call for global solidarity and action

The adoption of the new Programme of Action is more than a commitment—it is a renewed call to action. Global solidarity is essential to provide LLDCs with the financial, technical, and capacity-building support they need. Strengthened partnerships and concerted efforts will enable LLDCs to leverage their potential and contribute meaningfully to the global economy.

The upcoming LLDC3 Conference in 2025 will serve as a critical platform to build this momentum and strengthen international collaboration and multi-sectoral partnerships for the implementation of the PoA.

With political resolve, enhanced partnerships, and tangible actions, LLDCs can emerge as dynamic contributors to the global economy, charting a path toward sustainable prosperity over the coming decade.

Ms. Rabab Fatima, United Nations Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Civil Society Trends for 2025: Nine Global Challenges, One Reason for Hope

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Crime & Justice, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Labour, LGBTQ, Migration & Refugees, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

LONDON / MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Dec 24 2024 (IPS) – It’s been a tumultuous year, and a tough one for struggles for human rights. Civil society’s work to seek social justice and hold the powerful to account has been tested at every turn. Civil society has kept holding the line, resisting power grabs and regressive legislation, calling out injustice and claiming some victories, often at great cost. And things aren’t about to get any easier, as key challenges identified in 2024 are likely to intensify in 2025.

Andrew Firmin

1. More people are likely to be exposed to conflict and its consequences, including humanitarian and human rights disasters, mass displacement and long-term trauma. The message of 2024 is largely one of impunity: perpetrators of conflict, including in Israel and Russia, will be confident they can resist international pressure and escape accountability. While there may be some kind of ceasefire in Gaza or halt to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, those responsible for large-scale atrocities are unlikely to face justice. Impunity is also likely to prevail in the conflicts taking place largely off the global radar, including in Myanmar and Sudan. There will also be growing concern about the use of AI and automated weapons in warfare, a troublingly under-regulated area.

As recent events in Lebanon and Syria have shown, changing dynamics, including shifting calculations made by countries such as Iran, Israel, Russia, Turkey and the USA, mean that frozen conflicts could reignite and new ones could erupt. As in Syria, these shifts could create sudden moments of opportunity; the international community and civil society must respond quickly when these come.

Inés M. Pousadela

2. The second Trump administration will have a global impact on many current challenges. It’s likely to reduce pressure on Israel, hamper the response to the climate crisis, put more strain on already flawed and struggling global governance institutions and embolden right-wing populists and nationalists the world over. These will bring negative consequences for civic space – the space for civil society, which depends on the freedoms of association, expression and peaceful assembly. Funding for civil society is also likely to be drastically reduced as a result of the new administration’s shifting priorities.

3. 2025 is the year that states are required to develop new plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change under the Paris Agreement. The process will culminate in the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, likely the world’s last chance to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels. This will only happen if states stand up to fossil fuel companies and look beyond narrow short-term interests. Failing that, more of the debate may come to focus on adaptation. The unresolved question of who will pay for climate transition will remain central. Meanwhile, extreme weather events such as heatwaves and floods can be expected to continue to devastate communities, impose high economic costs, drive migration and exacerbate conflicts.

4. Globally, economic dysfunction is likely to increase, with more people struggling to afford basic necessities, increasingly including housing, as prices continue to rise, with climate change and conflict among the causes. The gap between the struggling many and the ultra-wealthy few will become more visible, and anger at rising prices or taxes will drive people – particularly young people deprived of opportunities – onto the streets. State repression will often follow. Frustration with the status quo means people will keep looking for political alternatives, a situation right-wing populists and nationalists will keep exploiting. But demands for labour rights, particularly among younger workers, will also likely increase, along with pressure for policies such as wealth taxes, a universal basic income and a shorter working week.

5. A year when the largest number of people ever went to the polls has ended – but there are still plenty of elections to come. Where elections are free and fair, voters are likely to keep rejecting incumbents, particularly due to economic hardship. Right-wing populists and nationalists are likely to benefit the most, but the tide will eventually turn: once they’ve been around long enough to be perceived as part of the political establishment, they too will see their positions threatened, and they can be expected to respond with authoritarianism, repression and the scapegoating of excluded groups. More politically manipulated misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and anti-migrant rhetoric can be expected as a result.

6. Even if developments in generative AI slow as the current model reaches the limits of the human-generated material it feeds on, international regulation and data protection will likely continue to lag behind. The use of AI-enabled surveillance, such as facial recognition, against activists is likely to increase and become more normalised. The challenge of disinformation is likely to intensify, particularly around conflicts and elections.

Several tech leaders have actively taken the side of right-wing populists and authoritarians, putting their platforms and wealth at the service of their political ambitions. Emerging alternative social media platforms offer some promise but are likely to face similar problems as they grow.

7. Climate change, conflict, economic strife, repression of LGBTQI+ identities and civil and political repression will continue to drive displacement and migration. Most migrants will remain in difficult and underfunded conditions in global south countries. In the global north, right-wing shifts are expected to drive more restrictive and repressive policies, including the deportation of migrants to countries where they may be at risk. Attacks on civil society working to defend their rights, including by assisting at sea and land borders, are also likely to intensify.

8. The backlash against women’s and LGBTQI+ rights will continue. The US right wing will continue to fund anti-rights movements in the global south, notably in Commonwealth African countries, while European conservative groups will continue to export their anti-rights campaigns, as some Spanish organisations have long done throughout Latin America. Disinformation efforts from multiple sources, including Russian state media, will continue to influence public opinion. This will leave civil society largely on the defensive, focused on consolidating gains and preventing setbacks.

9. As a result of these trends, the ability of civil society organisations and activists to operate freely will remain under pressure in the majority of countries. Just when its work is most needed, civil society will face growing restrictions on fundamental civic freedoms, including in the form of anti-NGO laws and laws that label civil society as agents of foreign powers, the criminalisation of protests and increasing threats to the safety of activists and journalists. Civil society will have to devote more of its resources to protecting its space, at the expense of the resources available to promote and advance rights.

10. Despite these many challenges, civil society will continue to strive on all fronts. It will continue to combine advocacy, protests, online campaigns, strategic litigation and international diplomacy. As awareness grows of the interconnected and transnational nature of the challenges, it will emphasise solidarity actions that transcend national boundaries and make connections between different struggles in different contexts.

Even in difficult circumstances, civil society achieved some notable victories in 2024. In the Czech Republic, civil society’s efforts led to a landmark reform of rape laws, and in Poland they resulted in a law making emergency contraception available without prescription, overturning previous restrictive legislation. After extensive civil society advocacy, Thailand led the way in Southeast Asia by passing a marriage equality law, while Greece became the first predominantly Christian Orthodox country to legalise same-sex marriage

People defended democracy. In South Korea, people took to the streets in large numbers to resist martial law, while in Bangladesh, protest action led to the ousting of a longstanding authoritarian government. In Guatemala, a president committed to fighting corruption was sworn in after civil society organised mass protests to demand that powerful elites respect the election results, and in Venezuela, hundreds of thousands organised to defend the integrity of the election, defeated the authoritarian government in the polls and took to the streets in the face of severe repression when the results weren’t recognised. In Senegal, civil society mobilised to prevent an attempt to postpone an election that resulted in an opposition win.

Civil society won victories in climate and environmental litigation – including in Ecuador, India and Switzerland – to force governments to recognise the human rights impacts of climate change and do more to reduce emissions and curb pollution. Civil society also took to the courts to pressure governments to stop arms sales to Israel, with a successful verdict in the Netherlands and others pending.

In 2025, the struggle continues. Civil society will keep carrying the torch of hope that a more peaceful, just, equal and sustainable world is possible. This idea will remain as important as the tangible impact we’ll continue to achieve despite the difficult circumstances.

Andrew Firmin is Editor-in-Chief and Inés M. Pousadela is Senior Research Specialist at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation. The two are co-directors and writers for CIVICUS Lens and co-authors of the State of Civil Society Report.

  Source

Targeting Transformative Disaster Risk Reduction in Asia-Pacific Subregions

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Climate Change, Development & Aid, Environment, Featured, Headlines, Natural Resources, Small Island Developing States, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

A volcano in Vanuatu was active in 2023. The county was affected by a 6.6 M earthquake in March 2023 and 7.4 M earthquake in December 2024. Credit: Unsplash/Sebastian Lio

BANGKOK, Thailand, Dec 23 2024 (IPS) – In December 2024, Vanuatu experienced yet another harrowing reminder of its vulnerability to disasters—a powerful 7.4 magnitude earthquake struck the Pacific nation’s capital, Port Vila, leaving 14 dead, over 200 injured, and thousands more affected.

The devastating earthquake, compounded by overnight aftershocks and disrupted essential services, highlights the precarious situation faced by countries already grappling with the impacts of climate change and natural disasters.

Vanuatu is emblematic of the cascading disasters that Pacific Island nations increasingly endure, where frequent earthquakes intersect with the escalating impacts of climate-induced hazards such as cyclones, rising sea levels, and coastal erosion accompanied by staggering loss and damage experienced by vulnerable populations and ecosystems.

With every fraction of a degree of warming, the region’s diverse subregions—from the icy peaks of the Third Pole to the low-lying islands of the Pacific—are encountering unparalleled climate risks.

Recognizing these unique challenges, ESCAP launched the 2024 Asia-Pacific Subregional Disaster Reports to customize the insights and recommendations from the flagship Asia-Pacific Disaster Report 2023 to the distinct vulnerabilities and opportunities within each subregion.

Transformative insights: Shaping climate resilient futures

The 2024 subregional reports reveal escalating disaster risks across Asia and the Pacific, stressing that incremental actions are insufficient against intensifying climate impacts. East and North-East Asia has faced $2 trillion in economic losses and nearly half a million fatalities over five decades, with 2°C warming expected to exacerbate droughts, heatwaves, and floods in China, Mongolia and Korea, threatening urban centers and critical systems.

North and Central Asia faces growing multi-hazard risks in the Aral Sea Basin, where droughts, heatwaves, and floods will endanger agriculture and energy systems. In South-East Asia, nearly 100 per cent of the population is at risk of floods under 2°C warming, with the Mekong River Basin emerging as a persistent multi-hazard hotspot.

Pacific island nations face rising seas and stronger cyclones that erode coastlines, threaten biodiversity, and force communities to relocate, while South and South-West Asia grapples with glacial melt from the Third Pole, jeopardizing water security for 1.3 billion people.

Economic and social costs are mounting, with average annual losses (AAL) projected to rise under warming scenarios. East and North-East Asia’s AAL of $510 billion could increase further under 2°C warming, while the Pacific’s AAL exceeds $20 billion, with small island developing states like Vanuatu and Tonga suffering losses of over 21 per cent of GDP.

Despite these dire projections, the reports emphasize that investments in transformative adaptation—such as early warning systems, resilient infrastructure, and integrated climate policies—can mitigate risks and protect livelihoods across the region.

Early warning systems: A lifeline for resilience

A critical takeaway from the subregional reports is the transformative role of early warning systems (EWS) in disaster risk reduction. By providing timely and actionable information, these systems save lives and reduce economic losses. In South-East Asia, effective EWS could prevent $8.7 billion to $13.1 billion annually, while in the Pacific, they could avert $4 billion to $6 billion in damages each year.

EWS are especially vital in regions with complex multi-hazard risks, such as the Pacific small island developing States, where cyclones, floods, and sea-level rise intersect, and in South-East Asia, where urban flood risks are rapidly escalating.

For EWS to be fully effective, they must encompass four key pillars: risk knowledge, detection and monitoring, dissemination of warnings, and preparedness. Investments in these areas, combined with robust regional cooperation, can ensure that warnings reach the most vulnerable populations in time to act.

The reports highlight examples like impact-based forecasting in South and Southwest Asia and AI-powered risk assessments in China and Japan as transformative advancements in EWS implementation. These systems not only save lives but also help governments and communities reduce disaster recovery costs and safeguard economic stability.

Transboundary solutions: Collaborative action for shared risks

Transboundary risks like ocean-based hazards, inland water stress, and desertification demand collaborative solutions across regions.

1. Ocean-Based Climate Action:

Rising sea levels, intensified cyclones, and coastal erosion require collective efforts such as mangrove restoration and integrated coastal management. In the Pacific SIDS, ASEAN, and South-West Asia, platforms like the Pacific Resilience Partnership and Mekong Basin initiatives foster nature-based solutions to protect ecosystems and livelihoods.

2. Inland Water Systems:

The drying of the Aral Sea Basin in North and Central Asia highlights the importance of transboundary water-sharing agreements to combat drought and degradation. For Third Pole glacial melt, collaboration through the Third Pole Climate Forum is vital to safeguard water security for 1.3 billion people in South, South-West, and East Asia.

3. Desertification and Sand and Dust Storms:

Desertification and sand and dust storms (SDS) are accelerating across Asia. Countries like China, Mongolia, and Iran are advancing afforestation and land restoration, while regional frameworks promote sustainable land management to mitigate downstream impacts.

By prioritizing transboundary cooperation, countries can tackle shared risks, protect vulnerable communities, and build scalable solutions for resilience.

A call for transformative change

The 2024 subregional reports make it unequivocally clear: transformative, not incremental, adaptation is needed to combat the growing threats of climate change and disasters. This means embedding climate resilience in every sector—agriculture, energy, urban planning, and biodiversity conservation—while fostering regional cooperation to address transboundary risks.

By aligning local action with global frameworks like the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Paris Agreement, the Asia-Pacific region has an opportunity to lead the way in building a sustainable and resilient future. As ESCAP’s subregional reports demonstrate, the tools and knowledge are at hand. The time to act is now—before the risks become irreversible and the costs unmanageable.

Madhurima Sarkar-Swaisgood is Economic Affairs Officer, ESCAP & Sanjay Srivastava is Chief of Disaster Risk Reduction Section, ESCAP. Other co-authors include Leila Salarpour Goodarzi, Associate Economic Affairs Officer, ESCAP, Rusali Agrawal, Consultant, ESCAP, Naina Tanwar, Consultant, ESCAP, Madhurima Sarkar-Swaisgood, Economic Affairs Officer, ESCAP and Sanjay Srivastava, Chief of Disaster Risk Reduction Section, ESCAP.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source