As Biodiversity Loss Grows, Rome Talks Urge Nations to Step Up Action

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Climate Change, Conferences, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Europe, Featured, Global, Green Economy, Headlines, Natural Resources, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Biodiversity

A red panda – labelled ‘endangered’ by the IUCN – at an animal sanctuary in the Indian state of West Bengal. As biodiversity loss accelerates, UNCBD is asking countries to take greater action to protect it. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

A red panda – labelled ‘endangered’ by the IUCN – at an animal sanctuary in the Indian state of West Bengal. As biodiversity loss accelerates, UNCBD is asking countries to take greater action to protect it. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

ROME & NEW DELHI, Feb 23 2026 (IPS) – Governments meeting in Rome last week acknowledged that global efforts to protect nature are still not moving fast enough, even as biodiversity loss continues to affect ecosystems, livelihoods, and economies worldwide.

The warning came as the sixth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI-6) under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) concluded after four days of negotiations focused on how countries are putting global biodiversity commitments into practice.

Held at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the meeting is the first major checkpoint in a year of intensive talks leading to the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP17) in October in Yerevan, Armenia. There, governments will carry out the first global review of progress under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

From Promises to Practice

At the centre of discussions in Rome was the challenge of turning global promises into action on the ground. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), adopted in 2022, sets out 23 targets to be achieved by 2030, including protecting and restoring ecosystems, reducing pollution, cutting harmful subsidies, and ensuring fair sharing of benefits from genetic resources.

While most governments have formally endorsed the framework, SBI-6 revealed that implementation remains uneven. Negotiators worked through recommendations on biodiversity finance, national planning, gender equality, capacity-building, international cooperation, and access and benefit-sharing. Many of these were adopted without brackets, suggesting broad agreement.

“This has been a long week for all,” said Clarissa Souza Della Nina, Chair of the meeting, as she closed the afternoon plenary and announced that delegates would meet again in the evening. She noted that turning global ambitions into real action on the ground requires strong systems and institutions, and that this is not an easy process.

“The conclusion of SBI-6 marks an important early milestone in a very demanding year,” said Souza Della Nina, highlighting the efforts made by countries to work together and find common ground.

But behind the consensus language, discussions repeatedly returned to the same concern: global ambition is not yet being matched by national action.

SBI 6 Chair Clarissa Souza Della Nina, Brazil; Asad Naqvi, SBI 6 Secretary; and CBD Executive Secretary Astrid Schomaker celebrating the first conference room paper being approved. Credit: IISD/ENB, Mike Muzurakis

SBI 6 Chair Clarissa Souza Della Nina, Brazil; Asad Naqvi, SBI 6 Secretary; and CBD Executive Secretary Astrid Schomaker celebrate the first conference room paper being approved. Credit: IISD/ENB, Mike Muzurakis

National Plans Show Mixed Progress

A key input to the Rome meeting was an analysis by the CBD Secretariat of national biodiversity strategies and targets submitted so far. These national plans are the main way countries translate the global framework into domestic policies.

The analysis covered 51 National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and 130 sets of national targets. It found that while progress is being made, many plans fall short of the scale of change required.

About 75 percent of Parties have submitted national targets, but fewer have updated their full national strategies. Even among submitted plans, several global targets are only partially addressed. Social and economic aspects of biodiversity loss — including links to livelihoods, equity, and development — tend to receive less attention than conservation measures.

“These findings show clearly where we stand,” said Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the CBD. “They also show that countries still have the opportunity to raise ambition and speed up action before the global review.”

The first global review of progress under the KMGBF will take place at COP17. A major source of information for that review will be the seventh National Reports, which countries are required to submit by 28 February 2026.

By the end of SBI-6, the European Union, Lesotho, Uganda, and Switzerland had submitted their reports. Several other countries said they were close to completion, while others cited difficulties related to limited staff, technical challenges, or delays in accessing funds.

Delegates stressed that timely reporting is essential, not only for transparency but also to ensure that the global review reflects the realities faced by countries at different levels of development.

Gender and Inclusion Lag Behind

Another issue that drew attention in Rome was the limited integration of gender equality into biodiversity action. Under the global framework, countries have committed to ensuring the full and meaningful participation of women and girls, including those from indigenous peoples and local communities.

Yet the Secretariat’s analysis showed that only around 40 percent of national targets refer to gender-related issues, and only about 20 percent address women’s rights to land and natural resources. Even fewer countries reported involving women’s organisations in the preparation of national biodiversity plans.

For many participants, this gap was a reminder that biodiversity loss is not only an environmental issue but also a social one.

“Without addressing inequality, we will not succeed in protecting nature,” said Gillian Guthrie, a delegate from Jamaica, during the discussions, urging governments still updating their plans to take a more inclusive approach.

Money and Capacity Remain Major Hurdles

Financing biodiversity action was another recurring theme. Although the most detailed negotiations on biodiversity finance are scheduled for later this year, talks in Rome were informed by new studies on funding needs, the relationship between debt and biodiversity spending, and opportunities to better align biodiversity and climate finance.

Developing countries repeatedly pointed to limited financial resources, lack of access to technology, and institutional constraints as barriers to implementation. These challenges were reflected in the meeting itself, where several delegations consisted of a single representative struggling to follow multiple negotiating tracks.

The CBD Secretariat thanked donor countries that contributed to a special trust fund to support participation and called on others to do the same. Without broader support, delegates warned, global biodiversity decision-making risks leaving some voices unheard.

A decisive year ahead

The recommendations adopted at SBI-6 will now be forwarded to COP17, where governments will assess whether collective action so far is enough to meet the biodiversity targets set for 2030.

For many participants, the Rome meeting served as both a progress report and a warning. While cooperation is improving and more countries are engaging with the global framework, biodiversity loss continues to affect food systems, health, and economic stability, particularly in the Global South.

As delegates left Rome, the message was clear: the coming months will be critical. Whether the world can move from commitments to meaningful action will be tested in Yerevan, Armenia — and the stakes, many warned, could not be higher.

Below are some of the highlights of the 4-day meeting:

  • The sixth meeting of the Subsidiary Body (SBI-6) on Implementation under the Convention on Biological Diversity began the first global review of how countries are acting to protect nature.
  • An official analysis of national biodiversity plans showed progress but also revealed wide gaps between global goals and what many countries have committed to do at home.
  • Around three-quarters of countries have submitted national biodiversity targets, but far fewer have updated full national strategies or addressed social and economic aspects of biodiversity loss.
  • Gender equality and the participation of women, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities remain weak in many national plans, despite being central to the global biodiversity agreement.
  • Developing countries highlighted ongoing challenges linked to limited funding, lack of technical capacity, and difficulty accessing resources needed to implement biodiversity actions.
  • The outcomes from Rome will shape how global progress on biodiversity is measured and reviewed, setting the tone for accountability and action in the run-up to 2030.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Ode to U.S. Civil Rights Icon Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr: A Life That Carried the Rainbow

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

Ode to U.S. Civil Rights Icon Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr: A Life That Carried the Rainbow

Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was saddened to learn of the passing of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, a giant of the civil rights movement in the US and a longtime champion of human rights, equality and justice around the world. Credit: United Nations

NEW YORK, Feb 20 2026 (IPS) – When the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. declared, “Keep hope alive,” it was not a slogan. It was a discipline. It was a moral posture. It was a promise to those America had locked out of its prosperity and pushed to the margins of its democracy. And for more than five decades, Jackson kept that promise – organizing, marching, preaching, negotiating, and standing in solidarity with oppressed peoples at home and abroad.

In mourning Jackson, the United States does not simply bid farewell to a towering civil rights leader. It salutes one of the architects of modern American conscience.

The Heir to a Movement, the Builder of a Coalition

Born in Greenville, South Carolina, in 1941, Jackson came of age in the crucible of segregation. As a young activist, he worked alongside the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, absorbing the lessons of nonviolent resistance while sharpening his own gifts for oratory and mobilization. After King’s assassination in 1968, Jackson did not retreat into despair. He stepped forward.

In 1971, he founded Operation PUSH (People United to Save Humanity), later merging it into the Rainbow Coalition. That phrase – Rainbow Coalition – was not rhetorical flourish. It was strategic genius. Jackson understood that America’s power structure thrived on division: Black against white, native-born against immigrant, worker against worker. His coalition sought to transcend those fault lines.

Black, brown, yellow, and poor white Americans; labor unions; family farmers; peace activists; Arab Americans; Jewish progressives; Asian Americans; Latinos; Native Americans—Jackson invited them all into a shared moral project. In the 1980s, when he ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984 and 1988, millions who had never seen themselves reflected in presidential politics suddenly felt visible. He did not win the presidency. But he expanded the boundaries of who could plausibly seek it.

In doing so, Jackson helped pave the road that others would travel – most notably Barack Obama who went on to become the first African American President of the United States of America. Without the Rainbow Coalition, the arc of American political inclusion would have bent far more slowly.

Internationalism as Moral Imperative

Jackson’s courage was not confined to domestic battles. At a time when Cold War orthodoxy and Middle East politics discouraged nuance and punished dissent, he insisted that American moral credibility required consistency.

He extended solidarity to the oppressed people of Palestine long before it was politically fashionable – or safe – to do so. Jackson argued that the dignity and rights of Palestinians were inseparable from the universal principles Americans claimed to cherish. He sought dialogue with leaders across divides, believing that empathy was not endorsement, and that engagement was a prerequisite for peace.

He was equally forthright in condemning South Africa’s apartheid regime. While many U.S. leaders hedged or prioritized strategic interests, Jackson stood with the anti-apartheid movement. He supported sanctions and economic pressure to dismantle a system that codified racial subjugation. When Nelson Mandela emerged from 27 years of imprisonment, Jackson was among those who celebrated not only a man’s freedom but a nation’s rebirth.

In both Palestine and South Africa, Jackson’s stance reflected a deeper conviction: that civil rights were not an American export but a universal birthright. His faith demanded it. His politics operationalized it.

Faith, Integrity, and the Politics of Presence

Jackson was first and always a preacher. His sermons were political, but his politics were pastoral. He believed that despair was the greatest ally of injustice. To tell the forgotten that they mattered was itself an act of resistance.

He traveled where others would not. He negotiated for the release of hostages in Syria and Cuba. He met with heads of state and with families in housing projects. He listened.

Critics sometimes accused him of courting controversy or of grandstanding. But Jackson understood a hard truth: marginalized communities often need someone willing to occupy uncomfortable space on their behalf. Silence, in his view, was complicity.

His life was not without flaws or missteps. No life of consequence is. Yet what distinguished Jackson was his refusal to abandon the struggle. He endured political setbacks, media caricatures, and internal party resistance. He persisted.

Leadership, he demonstrated, is not about perfection. It is about fidelity—to principles, to people, to purpose.

The Rainbow as a Democratic Blueprint

In an era increasingly defined by polarization, Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition reads less like a relic of the 1980s and more like a blueprint for democratic survival. He recognized demographic change not as a threat but as a promise. He saw in America’s diversity the possibility of moral and economic renewal.

He championed voting rights, labor protections, public education, and economic justice. He opposed apartheid abroad and discrimination at home. He insisted that foreign policy reflect domestic values and that domestic policy reckon with global inequality.

The Rainbow was not naïve about power. It was strategic. It sought to translate moral energy into electoral leverage. Jackson registered voters. He built grassroots networks. He forced party platforms to incorporate issues once dismissed as fringe.

His presidential campaigns altered the calculus of American politics. They demonstrated that Black candidates could compete nationally, that poor and working-class voters could be mobilized across racial lines, and that progressive foreign policy positions had a constituency.

A Hand Extended Across Divides

Perhaps Jackson’s most underappreciated gift was his willingness to extend a hand of friendship where animosity seemed entrenched. He believed in meeting adversaries face-to-face. He believed that even hardened systems could yield to persistent moral pressure.

In Palestine, Rev. Jesse Jackson Senior spoke of human rights and mutual recognition. In South Africa, he, spoke of freedom and reconciliation. At home, he, spoke of multiracial democracy.

When few American leaders dared to articulate solidarity with Palestinians living under occupation, Jackson did. When Washington’s establishment hesitated to confront Pretoria’s apartheid regime, Jackson did not. His courage was not abstract. It was embodied in travel, in speeches, in alliances, in risks taken.

He paid political costs for these positions. But he did not recalibrate his convictions to suit prevailing winds.

The Best of the United States

To commemorate Jesse Jackson is to acknowledge the paradox of America itself. He emerged from a nation scarred by slavery and segregation, yet he believed in its redemptive capacity. He criticized its failures unsparingly, yet he invested his life in its institutions.

He was, in that sense, profoundly patriotic.

The United States at its best is not defined by military might or economic dominance. It is defined by its capacity for self-correction. By its willingness to expand the circle of belonging. By its recognition that justice delayed is democracy diminished.

Jackson embodied that tradition. He did not romanticize America. He challenged it. He called it to live up to its founding ideals – not selectively, but universally.

As debates rage today over voting rights, racial equity, immigration, Middle East policy, and America’s global role, Jackson’s life offers a moral compass. He reminds us that coalitions are built, not assumed. That solidarity is practiced, not proclaimed. That hope is sustained through organization.

Keeping Hope Alive

In the final analysis, Jesse Jackson’s greatest achievement may have been psychological. He taught millions that their voices mattered. That they were not condemned to permanent marginalization. That politics could be an instrument of empowerment rather than exclusion.

For Black Americans who had never seen a serious presidential bid from one of their own, he opened a door. For Palestinians seeking recognition of their humanity, he offered validation. For South Africans resisting apartheid, he offered solidarity. For workers, immigrants, and the poor, he offered a coalition.

He lived the conviction that the struggle for justice is indivisible.

Today, as the rainbow he envisioned faces new storms, the measure of our tribute will not be in words but in action. To honor Jesse Jackson is to organize. To vote. To speak. To stand with the oppressed – whether in Chicago, Johannesburg, or Gaza. To build alliances across lines others insist are permanent.

He demonstrated that leadership grounded in faith, integrity, and courage can alter a nation’s trajectory. He showed that America’s story is not finished – and that its best chapters are written by those who refuse to surrender to cynicism.

Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. kept hope alive.

The question now is whether we will.

Purnaka L. de Silva, Ph.D., is College and University Adjunct Professor of the Year 2022, Best Adjunct Professor 2024-2025 and Nominated Best Adjunct Professor 2026 at the School of Diplomacy and International Relations Seton Hall University; Visiting Professor Sol Plaatje University Faculty of Humanities; Director Institute of Strategic Studies and Democracy (ISSD) Malta; and Strategic Advisor Lead Integrity.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

‘Worrying’ War on Drugs Rhetoric Comes with Human, Financial Costs

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Freedom of Expression, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Crime & Justice

Policing exhibit at the Museum of Weed. An IDPC report paints a picture of an increasingly punitive approach to drugs in some countries, but also highlights reforms. Credit: Bret Kavanaugh/Unsplash

Policing exhibit at the Museum of Weed. An IDPC report paints a picture of an increasingly punitive approach to drugs in some countries, but also highlights reforms. Credit: Bret Kavanaugh/Unsplash

BRATISLAVA, Feb 19 2026 (IPS) – Drug reform campaigners have called for an overhaul of global drug controls amid an increasingly complex and deadly drug situation in the world and as hardline anti-drug approaches are increasingly being used as cover for repression of civil society and human rights defenders.

A report released earlier this month by the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) assessed progress made since the 2016 UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs, widely viewed as a potential turning point in global drug policy.

It found that the promise of UNGASS remains largely unfulfilled – despite notable progress in some areas – and that punitive and prohibitionist approaches continue to dominate global drug control, despite their enormous human and financial cost.

“Punitive approaches [to drugs] are costing lives, undermining human rights and wasting public resources, while silencing the very communities that hold the solutions. This report shows why governments must move beyond rhetoric and commit to real structural reform,” Ann Fordham, IDPC Executive Director, said.

Advocates of drug policy reform have for decades pointed to evidence showing how hardline drug policies have completely failed.

The IDPC report documents how current prohibitive policies have, far from curbing drug markets, contributed to their massive expansion and diversification, while at the same time the number of people who use drugs continues to rise and is now estimated at 316 million worldwide – a 28 percent increase since 2016.

The group says repressive policies are also driving devastating and preventable harms. These include:  2.6 million drug use-related deaths between 2016 and 2021, with projections indicating further sharp increases since; mass incarceration – one in five people globally incarcerated are for drug offences – disproportionately affecting marginalised communities; over 150 countries report inadequate access to opioid pain relief due to overly restrictive controls on essential medicines;  expanding use of the death penalty for drug offences; and the displacement of illegal drug activities into remote and environmentally fragile regions, including Central America and the Amazon basin, as a result of interdiction and eradication efforts.

Despite this evidence, many countries continue to pursue hardline drug policies.

Fordham said this was because of “the vast vested interests in the status quo”.

“The prison industrial complex is a prime example of this. Our report documents that one in five people in prison are incarcerated for drugs globally, while evidence shows that this strategy has done nothing to reduce the scale of the illegal drug markets,” she told IPS.

The group has also highlighted a worrying return to prominence of ‘war on drugs’ rhetoric – popular in the 1970s and 1980s – which it says is increasingly being used to justify militarisation, repression and violations of international law, including the Trump Administration’s weaponising of ‘narco-terrorism’ narratives to legitimise extraterritorial force and roll back rights, health and development commitments enshrined in the UNGASS Outcome Document.

“Punitive and hard-on-drugs narratives serve other interests for populist leaders, with drug policies being used to scapegoat people who use drugs and other people involved in the illegal drug market for broader societal issues, including homelessness and increases in levels of violence.

“Drug control is also increasingly used to restrict civil society space by threatening or attacking civil society and community organisations promoting much-needed reforms and condemning their governments for egregious human rights violations,” said Fordham.

Other drug policy reform advocates and experts have said this trend has become increasingly evident in the last year.

“Over the last year, we can definitely see the emergence of some new [drug policy] trends. First of all, there has been a radical change of rhetoric and narratives under US President Donald Trump’s administration,” Anton Basenko, Executive Director of the International Network of People Who Use Drugs (INPUD), told IPS.

He also highlighted how governments are using drug policy as a cover for breaches of international law to further other political aims, citing the claim by the US administration that the recent abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro by US forces was connected to stopping illegal drugs from coming into America.

“Over the last year, there have been completely different narratives from leading countries [on drug policy], like the U.S. And of course, some countries politically are always looking to the U.S. and listening to what they are saying and they might try to replicate something similar politically, using America’s action as an example,” he said.

Other experts fear there is a real risk this could lead to a worsening of wider human rights problems in other countries.

“The shamelessness with which the US is now trampling on international law, using the war on drugs as cover for some of its most egregious violations, is deeply troubling. There is certainly a risk that it licenses other actors to be even more brazen in their abuses of international human rights law regarding drugs and more generally,” Steve Rolles, Senior Policy Analyst at the UK-based Transform Drug Policy Foundation, told IPS.

The IDPC report draws a set of conclusions emphasising the need for reform and modernisation of current UN drug control treaties as well as, among others, a reconfiguration of the global drug control system so that it is orientated on rights, health and development.

The group says this is especially important now as the United Nations prepares to implement system-wide reforms and an independent expert panel begins reviewing the international drug control regime, providing a rare opportunity to “correct course”.

But that call also comes at a time when, as the IDPC points out, the work of organisations which have been successful in driving drug policy reform, as well as the implementation of life-saving harm-reduction programmes, community advocacy and civil society are battling funding crises.

Cuts to foreign aid funding by major donor states, especially the US, over the last year have been devastating for civil society, including groups working  to combat HIV and help vulnerable communities, including drug users, around the world. Funding for harm reduction, which has historically been low, is now in crisis, campaigners say.

“In 2022, available harm reduction funding amounted to just 6% of the USD 2.7 billion needed annually. The Trump administration’s decision to halt funding for HIV and harm reduction in 2025 has turned the harm reduction funding crisis into a catastrophe,” said Fordham.

“State-funded and third-sector voluntary services are all feeling the pinch, and even services funded by philanthropy are seeing priorities shift towards emerging crises. Many services will struggle on as best they can, but inevitably there is a terrible cost when services proven to save lives are starved of funds or closed down,” added Rolles.

However, it is precisely because of these funding constraints that it is vital, IDPC argues, that its recommendations are taken on board by global policymakers.

“The funding constraints and current challenges faced by the UN and multilateralism more broadly make our recommendations all the more important. The current system is clearly outdated and harmful, only serving to undermine health, human rights, development, human security, and environment protection – all the key objectives that the UN was created to uphold in the first place,” said Fordham.

But while the IDPC report paints a picture of an increasingly punitive and prohibitive approach to drugs in some countries, it also highlights significant progress in the introduction of more progressive policies in a number of countries.

These include important policy shifts in many jurisdictions towards decriminalisation and the legal regulation of cannabis, both for medical and recreational purposes.

Hundreds of millions of people now live in jurisdictions where recreational cannabis is legal, with markets having been created in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. The IDPC report also suggests a renewed interest in psychedelics may soon drive a new wave of regulatory innovation.

“Just over 10 years ago, nowhere in the world had legally regulated adult-use cannabis. Today more than 500 million people live in over 40 jurisdictions with some form of legally regulated adult access… for me, this demonstrates how reforms that seemed impossible just a few years ago are now being realised on every continent,” said Rolles.

He added that there had been “notable progress [on drug policy reform] across the last decade, including the continuing wave of cannabis reforms across the Americas, the EU and much of the world; the spread of innovative harm reduction in response to the opioid epidemic; progress on decriminalisation in other jurisdictions; and an increasingly sophisticated reform narrative gaining traction in high-level forums – including endorsements for reform, including regulation of all drugs”.

“An increase in jurisdictions legalising and regulating cannabis feels inevitable. There are strong movements and political support for change in a number of Latin American and European countries,” Rolles said.

These reforms were driven in large part by non-state and civil society organisations – those same organisations which are seeing their funding and the freedom to press their case increasingly shrinking in many states.

But drug policy reform advocates are not expecting progress to stop despite the challenges such groups face.

“Almost all of the [cannabis legal regulation] reform has been driven by civil society advocacy, rather than top-down leadership from governments. Just as with harm reduction and decriminalisation reforms over the past decades, civil society is showing the leadership where elected politicians so often fall down. This will doubtless continue to be the case going forward. This is the moment to step up the fight, not to cower in the face of rising authoritarianism,” said Rolles.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

International Humanitarian Law is at Breaking Point – but not Beyond Repair

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: UNICEF/Eyad El Baba

 
What is international humanitarian law? Families flee their shattered homes in Tal al-Hawa neighbourhood in Gaza city. While aid workers serving conflict-affected civilian populations depend on a set of laws to protect them, some warring parties violate these global agreements, from targeting hospitals and schools to blocking aid workers from reaching civilians with lifesaving goods and services. Source: UN News

GENEVA, Feb 17 2026 (IPS) – International humanitarian law is at a breaking point, as rampant impunity for serious violations is enabling even greater abuses against civilians and detainees.

Across today’s wars, violations are no longer concealed or exceptional. They are increasingly open, systematic, and unpunished, with catastrophic consequences for those whom the law is supposed to protect.

New analysis of 23 situations of armed conflict between July 2024 and the end of 2025 reveals a consistent pattern: civilians are being killed, abused and starved at scale, while accountability mechanisms either falter or are actively undermined. Genocidal violence in Gaza, a renewed risk of genocide in Sudan, and mass atrocities elsewhere are not isolated horrors. Taken together, they point to a deeper failure – the collapse of meaningful restraint in the conduct of hostilities.

Conflict-related sexual violence has reached epidemic levels. Rape, sexual slavery, and sexual violence used as punishment or as a tool of territorial control have been documented across multiple conflicts, including in Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, and Sudan. Particularly alarming is the growing number of cases involving attacks children, including victims as young as one.

These are not by-products of war, but violations long prohibited under international humanitarian law, now committed with near-total impunity. This occurs with the complicity of many other States, which have a duty to respect and ensure respect international humanitarian law.

This erosion of civilian protection is not primarily the result of gaps in legal knowledge. The rules exist. The problem is political choice – and a persistent failure to enforce, clarify and update the law where it no longer offers meaningful restraint.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the global arms trade. The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has been widely ratified, including by major exporters such as China, France, and the United Kingdom. In theory, it requires its member States to deny arms transfers where there is a clear risk that weapons will be used to commit serious violations of international law. In practice, legal risk assessments are all too often overridden by strategic and political considerations.

Continued arms exports to Israel, Russia, and others, despite overwhelming evidence of civilian harm, have had devastating consequences on the ground.

Closing this gap does not require a raft of new rules in the short term. It requires the consistent application of existing ones: enforceable, evidence-based export controls; independent scrutiny of licensing decisions; and real accountability where transfers are authorised despite a clear risk that the law will be breached by the recipient.

Certain categories of weapons are though incompatible with the protection of civilians, but do not necessarily violate the already permissive standards. Repeated firing into populated areas of gravity ordnance from the air and inaccurate long-range artillery from the ground has been a major driver of civilian casualties across multiple conflicts.

There is a fundamental lack of clarity on two key rules: first, how close an attack may be launched to a military target while still complying with the law; and second, how much incidental civilian harm is permissible when targeting a military objective.

On both issues, the law urgently requires clarification. Restricting air-delivered weapons to precision-guided munitions alone would already make a measurable difference to civilian survival. Achieving this, however, requires States to clarify and update the rules of international humanitarian law that were drafted in the 1970s.

In State-on-State conflicts such as in Kherson province in Ukraine, drones have been used by Russian forces – and others – to target civilians, sometimes with real-time video footage disseminated online by the perpetrators.

At the same time, armed drones are no longer the preserve of States. Their use by non-State armed groups is increasing rapidly, including by JNIM in the Sahel, Islamic State in Somalia, and the Arakan Army in Myanmar. There is an urgent need for stronger mechanisms to attribute, investigate, and prosecute unlawful drone and autonomous weapon attacks.

Impunity on this scale is not inevitable. It is the product of sustained political and financial neglect. Institutions designed to promote compliance with international humanitarian law – including domestic courts and international tribunals – are under severe strain, with some facing paralysis or closure due to lack of resources.

Judges at bodies such as the International Criminal Court have even been sanctioned simply for carrying out their mandates. If States are serious about protecting civilians, political and financial support for these institutions must be treated as a core obligation and a policy priority, not an optional gesture.

The current moment represents a critical test for international humanitarian law itself. The international lawyer Hersch Lauterpacht once warned that the law existed at the “vanishing point” of international law. That warning is no longer theoretical.

Whether humanitarian law continues to function as a real constraint on warfare, or recedes into symbolic rhetoric, will depend on the political choices states make now – and on whether civilian protection is treated as a legal duty rather than a discretionary one.

Stuart Casey-Maslen is an international lawyer and lead author of War Watch: International Humanitarian Law in Focus at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

The Veto May be the Weapon of Elimination in the Election of Next UN Chief

Posted on by admin

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

The Security Council armed with veto powers. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

UNITED NATIONS, Feb 17 2026 (IPS) – As the campaign for the next Secretary-General gathers momentum – at a relatively slow pace – there is widespread speculation that any candidate running for the post of UN chief will have to abide by the dictates of a politically hostile White House or face a veto in the Security Council.

So far, there are only two declared candidates: former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and former Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi from Argentina—with more candidates expected to join the race.

The winning candidate, who will take office in January 2027, will be elected by the 15-member Security Council and subsequently ratified by the 193-member General Assembly (UNGA).

Annalena Baerbock, the president of UNGA, said the selection process is already underway, and the interactive dialogues with candidates have been scheduled for the week of 20 April, where they will present their “vision statements”.

Meanwhile, the US has publicly declared its opposition to some of the basic goals in the UN’s socio-economic agenda, including gender empowerment and policies relating to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), while dismissing climate change as “a hoax” and a “giant scam.”
The Trump administration has also downplayed human rights and adherence to international laws—two concepts ingrained in the UN system.

In an interview with the New York Times last January, President Trump said he does not “need international law” to guide his actions, arguing that only his own “morality” and “mind” will constrain his global powers.

So, what would be the fate of any candidate— male or female—who advocates these UN goals? Will there be a battle of the vetoes – as it happened in a bygone era?

Richard Gowan, Program Director, Global Issues and Institutions, International Crisis Group (ICG), who oversees ICG’s work on geopolitics, global trends in conflict and multilateralism, told IPS nobody knows how this race will end.

Obviously UN-watchers will be tracking the initial candidates’ vision statements and public appearances over the coming months, he pointed out.

“But diplomats in New York have a suspicion that the veto powers in the Security Council may suddenly announce support for a new candidate at the last minute to circumvent the entire public process. There is a strong sense that the U.S., China and Russia don’t want to be boxed in by the General Assembly.”

There is also a scenario, he said, where the veto powers cannot agree on a candidate, and the Council ends up grinding out discussions of a candidate right through to December.

“UN officials have even done some contingency planning for what happens if there is not an agreed candidate on 1 January 2027. It is possible that the Security Council might ask Guterres to hang on for a few months, although I don’t think either diplomats or Guterres want that outcome.”

There are definitely a few senior UN officials and ambassadors in New York who wonder if the Council could call on them at the very last minute, said Gowan.

Thomas G. Weiss, Presidential Professor Emeritus, Political Science, and Director Emeritus, Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center, told IPS it is hard to imagine anyone running for UNSG who would not run into a veto from Washington in a candidacy necessarily addressing the values of cooperation (multilateralism of any shape) as well as honestly discussing such issues as climate, gender (male or female), nuclear proliferation, Palestine, and sovereignty—all “hoaxes” or “con jobs” according to DJT (President Trump) and his junta.

Both the 1996 and 1981 elections, he said, provide “models.”

“The Chinese vetoes probably are the most relevant precedent for Washington going to the mat indefinitely until an “acceptable” candidate emerges. Let’s hope that person is as competent as the compromise of 1996, Kofi Annan”, he declared.

In 1981, Salim Ahmed Salim of Tanzania, was backed by the Organization of African Unity, the Non-Aligned Movement and China. But his bid was blocked by a US veto.

In 1996, a second five-year term for Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt was vetoed by the US – even though he received the support of 14 of 15 members in the Security Council.

In 1981, China cast a record 16 vetoes against Kurt Waldheim to prevent a third term, leading to his withdrawal and the selection of Javier Pérez de Cuéllar.

Meanwhile, there has been an intense campaign for a female UN chief, the first in the 81-year history of the UN. But the US has remained tight-lipped on the widely supported proposal.

The last 9 secretaries-general, all males, include:

António Guterres (Portugal), who took office in January 2017;
Ban Ki-moon (Republic of Korea), from January 2007 to December 2016;
Kofi A. Annan (Ghana), January 1997 to December 2006;
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt), January 1992 to December 1996;
Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (Peru), January 1982 to December 1991;
Kurt Waldheim (Austria), January 1972 to December 1981;
U Thant (Burma, now Myanmar), who served from November 1961, when he was appointed acting Secretary-General (he was formally appointed Secretary-General in November 1962), to December 1971;
Dag Hammarskjöld (Sweden), from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in Africa in September 1961; and
Trygve Lie (Norway), who held office from February 1946 to his resignation in November 1952.

As for the U.S., said Gowan, “I don’t believe that Washington has settled on a candidate yet. But the Trump administration is definitely conscious that they have the power to reshape the political culture of the organization if they find someone who aligns with their views”.

He said U.S. diplomats have told other veto powers that they will hold back on various reform proposals and cuts until they have their own candidate as Secretary-General.

A lot of UN members assume that the U.S. won’t accept a female Secretary-General but I think that Washington could back a woman if she was a strong social conservative and willing to make large cuts to the UN system, he argued.

“Right now, there is not an obvious female candidate meeting those criteria, though. I think some candidates who could never align with the U.S. on things like development and diversity are already stepping out of the race.”

Meanwhile, there is a reason that Mia Mottley has gone from being the putative front runner to refocusing on domestic politics.

“I also think that all candidates recognize that they are going to have to talk a lot more about how they will advance the UN’s work on peace and security, which is a priority not only for the U.S. but a lot of member states.”

“That said, one senior UN diplomat recently told me that they cannot see Global South countries accepting another Western candidate after Guterres, regardless of gender. The non-Western members of the Security Council could create a blocking minority in the Security Council to keep candidates from U.S. allies out,” declared Gowan.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

From Pledges to Proof: UN Biodiversity Meeting Begins First Global Review of Nature Action

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Climate Action, Conferences, Development & Aid, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Gender, Global, Headlines, Indigenous Rights, Natural Resources, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Biodiversity

The 6th meeting of the Subsidiary Body of Implementation (SBI-6) is in progress in Rome. Credit: Mike Muzurakis | IISD/ENB

The 6th meeting of the Subsidiary Body of Implementation (SBI-6) is in progress in Rome. Credit: Mike Muzurakis | IISD/ENB |

ROME & DELHI, Feb 17 2026 (IPS) – Governments convened in Rome on Monday (February 16) for a critical round of UN biodiversity negotiations, launching the world’s first global review of how countries are acting to protect nature.

The sixth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI-6) of the Convention on Biological Diversity opened at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), drawing government negotiators, technical experts and civil society observers from around the world. It will continue until February 19.

Although considered a technical gathering, the four-day session is expected to play a decisive role in shaping how progress under the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework will be assessed and whether political promises can be translated into measurable, on-the-ground action.

“This is a moment to move from commitments to delivery,” said Clarissa Souza Della Nina of Brazil, Chair of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation. “The task before us is to help countries accelerate action to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.”

Clarissa Souza Della Nina of Brazil, Chair of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation. Credit: Mike Muzurakis | IISD/ENB

Clarissa Souza Della Nina of Brazil, Chair of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation. Credit: Mike Muzurakis | IISD/ENB

A Global Stocktake for Nature

The Rome talks come two years after countries completed the first global stocktake under the Paris Agreement, which confirmed the world remains far off track on climate goals.

Now, a parallel exercise begins for biodiversity.

Under the CBD, governments will undertake the first global review of progress in implementing the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), adopted in 2022. The framework includes 23 targets spanning conservation, finance, equity and economic transformation, with the overarching objective of halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030.

Biodiversity tracking is more complex than emissions accounting, but, according to CBD leadership, it is urgently needed.

“The time has come to make peace with nature… the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the Paris Agreement in a synergistic fashion will make peace with nature within reach,” said Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Why Rome Matters

SBI-6 plays a central role in preparing for the upcoming global biodiversity review by examining implementation progress, highlighting gaps, and proposing ways to accelerate action. Negotiators will submit the outcomes directly to COP17 in Yerevan, Armenia, later this year.

“One year after COP16 concluded here in Rome, we must ensure these meetings deliver real progress. Submitting national reports on time is essential for a strong and credible global review in the race to 2030,” Schomaker said.

A major focus of SBI-6 is the Secretariat’s analysis of national biodiversity strategies and action plans submitted since 2022. But despite growing momentum, significant gaps persist. Many strategies still do not adequately integrate Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, youth, or the private sector. Crucial targets relating to economic and social transformation — including sustainable consumption, equity and benefit sharing — remain underemphasised.

Inger Andersen, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), underscored the stakes at the launch of the State of Finance for Nature 2026 report:

“Whether investments flow into nature’s destruction or into its protection will determine if we live in climate-vulnerable concrete jungles or in climate-resilient green cities,” she warned, stressing that financial and policy decisions made today will shape countries’ ability to meet biodiversity goals.

An indigenous woman and biodiversity defender from the Amazon is pictured holding a forest coconut. Women are asking for better implementation of article 23 of the KMGBF. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

An indigenous woman and biodiversity defender from the Amazon is pictured holding a forest coconut. Women are asking for better implementation of article 23 of the KMGBF. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Gender, Finance and Capacity Challenges

Delegates are also reviewing progress under the CBD Gender Plan of Action (2023–2030). Early assessments show that only a quarter of countries involved women’s groups in shaping biodiversity strategies, and just 12 percent plan to do so in the future.

“Ensuring the full, effective and meaningful participation of women and other rights holders is fundamental to accountability, inclusivity and the effectiveness of biodiversity action, and to achieving the full ambition of the global framework,” the CBD Women’s Caucus stated in its official submission.

Finance remains another major point of discussion. While major funding decisions are expected later this year, Rome’s deliberations draw heavily on new research on biodiversity finance, sovereign debt, and the connections between climate and nature funding.

“If we want to mobilise the finance and resources that nature critically needs, business, finance and governments must confront the reality that persistent gaps in reliable data, incentives and institutional capacity are holding back meaningful action — and unless these barriers are addressed, many countries and sectors will continue to struggle to turn agreed goals into results,” said Matt Jones, Co-Chair of the IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment 2026.

Countdown to National Reports

The Rome meeting comes just weeks before countries must submit their Seventh National Reports under the CBD, due on 28 February 2026.

These national publications will serve as a principal source of information for the global biodiversity review, alongside national strategies and targets.

However, many countries remain unprepared to submit on time. On day one, Brazil, one of the most influential players in global biodiversity policy, stressed the need for flexibility.

“Ensuring the quality, consistency and internal validation of data and indicators requires additional time. In this context, Brazil suggests that SBI recommendations prioritise technical guidance, operational flexibility and targeted capacity-building support to enable high-quality reporting, rather than focusing solely on reinforcing deadlines,” the country’s delegate said.

A Test of Accountability

While SBI-6 is unlikely to produce headline-grabbing announcements, it will shape how global biodiversity action is evaluated over the next decade.

For Indigenous Peoples and local communities—who steward a significant share of the world’s remaining biodiversity—the meeting represents a critical test of whether rights, participation and lived realities will be meaningfully reflected in the global assessment process.

“This process must lead to accountability, not just documentation,” emphasised Pirawan Wongnithisathaporn, the Environment Program Officer at the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP), calling for tangible action rather than reporting alone.

SBI-6 will conclude on Thursday, February 19. Negotiations will continue at SBI-7 in August 2026 as governments move steadily toward the first global biodiversity review at COP17.

IPS UN Bureau Report