NITERÓI, Brazil, Jan 9 2026 (IPS) – “We moved from a context of socio-environmental exclusion to one of environmental justice,” said Dionê Castro, coordinator of the Sustainable Oceanic Region Program which led Brazil’s largest nature-based solutions project.
Having won national and global awards, the Orla Piratininga Park (POP) built 35,000 square meters of filtering gardens and improved the water quality of the Piratininga lagoon, in the oceanic south of Niterói, a municipality in metropolitan Rio de Janeiro, across the Guanabara Bay.
The project, named after the late Brazilian environmentalist Alfredo Sirkis, began in 2020, and aims to environmentally restore an area of 680,000 square meters on the lagoon’s shores whose waters cover an area of 2.87 square kilometers.
[embedded content]
At the heart of the project are the treatment systems for the waters of the Cafubá, Arrozal, and Jacaré rivers, which flow into the lagoon. Sedimentation and pollution were deteriorating the water resource and the quality of life in the surrounding area.
A weir, which receives the river flow, a sedimentation pond, which removes solid waste, and the filtering gardens make up the chain that partially cleans the water before releasing it into the lagoon, reducing environmental impacts, in a process called phytoremediation.
The gardens are small reservoirs where aquatic plants called macrophytes are planted, which feed on the nutrients from the pollution, explained Heloisa Osanai, the biologist specialized in environmental management of the Sustainable Oceanic Region Program (PRO Sustainable).
Three polluted water treatment stations are in the neighborhoods crossed by the rivers, based on natural resources, “without the use of electrical energy, chemicals, or concrete,” explained Castro, the coordinator of PRO Sustainable.
Furthermore, some macrophytes produce abundant flowers. Only native Brazilian species are planted, with priority given to biodiversity, added Osanai.
Along with these water treatment systems, 10.8 kilometers of bike paths, 17 recreation centers, a 2,800-square-meter Eco-Cultural Center, and other environmental works with social goals were built.
The bike path, generally along a pedestrian sidewalk, caters to physical and leisure activities but is also a factor in protecting the lagoon shoreline by blocking urban occupation and real estate invasions, explain the officials.
The area where the water system was built at the mouth of the Cafubá river was highly degraded by an open-air dump and flooding. A reformed “belt channel,” in some sections also reinforced by macrophyte islands, corrected the waterlogging.
On the other side of the lagoon, 3.2 kilometers of bioswales improve the drainage of rainwater. They are trenches with pipes, stones, and other materials, plus vegetation, that accelerate drainage and prevent pollutants from reaching the lagoon.
The main result, according to Castro, reconciled the local population with the lagoon. The old houses that “turned their backs on the lagoon” are joined by new buildings facing the water, some with balconies overlooking the new landscape, said Mariah Bessa, the engineer in charge of hydraulic aspects of the project.
The local population was highly involved in the design and construction of the new environmental and social facilities that transformed the lagoon shoreline. This led to new attitudes, such as not littering on the ground or in the water and preventing others from doing so, according to Castro.
The Ecocultural Center promotes permanent environmental education, with films, children’s games, audiovisual resources, and a large space for visits and classes.
“We moved from a context of socio-environmental exclusion to one of environmental justice,” said the coordinator of PRO Sustainable.
Food solutions were on display everywhere around COP30—from the 80 tonnes of local and agroecological meals served to concrete proposals for tackling hunger—but none of this made it into the negotiating rooms or the final agreement. —Elisabetta Recine, IPES-Food panel expert
Agriculture is both a challenge and a solution for climate change. Busani Bafana/IPS
BULAWAYO, Jan 9 2026 (IPS) – As they ate catered meals, COP30 negotiators had no appetite for fixing broken food systems, a major source of climate pollution, experts warn.
Food systems are the complete journey food takes—from the farm to fork—which means its growing, processing, distribution, trade and consumption and even the waste.
The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) warns that the final COP30 agreement risks deepening climate and hunger crises. It failed to address global warming emissions from food systems and the escalating damages caused by fossil-fuel-dependent industrial agriculture.
Food appears only once in the negotiated text, as a narrow indicator on ‘climate resilient food production’ under the Global Goal on Adaptation, IPES-Food pointed out.
“There is no mention of food systems, no roadmap to tackle deforestation, and no recognition that industrial agriculture drives nearly 90 percent of forest loss worldwide,” noted the think tank, emphasizing that negotiators also weakened language in the Mitigation Work Programme from addressing the ‘drivers’ of deforestation to vague ‘challenges.’
IPES-Food argued that the omission of food systems in the COP30 agreement was in stark contrast to the summit itself, which was held in the heart of the Amazon. Thirty percent of all food served during COP30 came from agroecological family farmers and traditional communities, and concrete public policy proposals for a just transition of food systems were on full display, IPES-Food said.
By not supporting a transition to environmentally friendly and low-emission agriculture, the agreement has left the global food system—and the billions who depend on it—highly vulnerable to the very climate shocks it helps cause, experts said.
“Food solutions were on display everywhere around COP30—from the 80 tonnes of local and agroecological meals served to concrete proposals for tackling hunger—but none of this made it into the negotiating rooms or the final agreement,” said Elisabetta Recine, IPES-Food panel expert and president of the Brazilian National Food and Nutrition Security Council (Consea), in a statement.
“Despite all the talk, negotiators failed to act, and the lived realities of people most affected by hunger, poverty, and climate shocks went unheard.”
Big Oil and Big Ag, Bigger voice
More than 300 industrial agriculture lobbyists were registered as delegates to COP30. They are blamed for influencing discussions and promoting false solutions to climate change.
“COP30 was supposed to be the Implementation COP—where words turned into action,” Danielle Nierenberg, an expert on sustainable agriculture and food issues and President of Food Tank, told IPS. “But once again, corporate interests won over people, nature, and the future of our food and agriculture systems as part of the solution to the climate crisis.”
Raj Patel, IPES-Food panel expert and professor at the University of Texas, argues that agribusiness lobbyists captured COP30 to influence outcomes favoring industrial agriculture and big oil interests.
“Food systems are second only to oil and gas as a driver of the climate crisis, and unlike oil wells, they are also the first victim of the chaos they create, Patel noted.
Obstacles and Opportunities
Scientists have warned that carbon emissions, including those from agriculture, must be cut considerably if the world is to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 2°C or less.
Even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target, scientists have said.
Selorm Kugbega, a Research Fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute, agrees that despite many promises made to tackle agriculture-linked emissions, COP30 turned out to be a damp squib for agrifood systems.
Initiatives such as RAIZ to restore 500 million hectares of degraded agricultural land by 2030 and TERRA to scale out climate solutions for smallholder farmers through blended finance, which were launched at COP30 omitted to highlight the effects of industrial food systems. Over 300 industrial agriculture lobbyists participated in discussions at COP30, leading to accusations of swaying the outcomes.
Analysts warn the final agreement at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, risks deepening climate and hunger crises. Credit: Raimundo Pacco/COP30
Kugbega observed that after several years of slow progress and momentum in integrating food systems in climate negotiations, COP30 should have been the opportunity to seal agriculture’s centrality in future COPs. However, it ended with no clear agreements on grant-based public finance for adaptation in agriculture or redirection of public funds that subsidize industrial systems.
The climate negotiations demonstrated power inequality in climate negotiations with the implicit protection of industrial agriculture interests, which weakened the credibility of any global efforts at mitigating agriculture-based emissions, Kugbega observed, highlighting that smallholders bear a high burden of climate risks and have little adaptation financing.
Kugbega argued the most powerful countries, which are generally less dependent on agriculture, tend to prioritize sectors such as energy and transport in climate negotiations. However, many least developed countries, particularly in Africa, are highly dependent on agriculture for employment and economic stability and face urgent climate risks.
“Yet these countries often lack the political influence to elevate agriculture and food systems as central issues in COP negotiations,” he said. “COP30 in Brazil presented a major opportunity to shift this imbalance, making the failure to position food systems at the center of the climate agenda particularly troubling.”
Frugal Financing for Food and Farmers
According to the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) and the UN’s Standing Committee on Finance, agriculture receives a small and insufficient share of total global climate finance.
Of the available approximate total global climate finance of USD 1.3 trillion per year on average, agriculture gets around USD 35 billion per year. This is a huge shortfall given that food systems are estimated to be responsible for roughly one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions and are one of the sectors most vulnerable to climate impacts, according to the CPI. Worse still, smallholder farmers, who produce up to 80 percent of food in developing countries, only receive 0.3 percent—a striking imbalance, yet they feed the world and are more exposed to climate impacts.
Will COP31 Deliver?
While COP30 highlighted the need to tackle climate change impacts through the transformation of food systems, such as highlighted in the Belém Declaration on Hunger, Poverty and Human-Centered Climate Action, it remains to be seen if COP31 will deliver a positive outcome on food systems.
Waiting for COP31 to save the world is surrendering because agribusiness lobbyists do not take holidays, argues IPES-Food panel’s Raj Patel.
“The test is not whether diplomats can craft better language in Antalya, but whether farmers’ movements, indigenous movements, and climate movements can generate enough political pressure to make governments fear inaction more than they fear confronting corporate power,” he said.
COP31, to be hosted by Turkey with Australia as negotiations president in 2026 , is expected to prioritize an action agenda centered on adaptation finance, fossil fuel phase-out, adaptation in Small Island Developing States, and oceans.
While this agenda aligns with broader climate justice goals, it means food systems risk becoming indirectly addressed rather than explicitly championed, Kugbega said.
Given the stalled negotiations on financing sustainable agriculture transitions and the postponement of the Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work on Agriculture, Kugbega said COP31 will likely focus more on developing new roadmaps and agreements than on full-scale implementation.
COP32 could be a greater opportunity for the implementation of the work program under Ethiopia’s COP32 presidency, given the country’s direct exposure to climate risks in agriculture, he noted.
“COP31 will likely shape whether the world arrives at COP32 ready to implement and operationalize sustainable food systems or once again be forced to renegotiate what is already known.”
This feature is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.
DHAKA, Bangladesh, Jan 8 2026 (IPS) – As many of you know, out of the blue, I have been called in to assist the Interim Government led by Nobel Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus in stabilising the economy left in ruins by the fallen autocratic-kleptocratic regime that looted the banks, stole public money and robbed small investors in the capital market to siphon off billions of dollars out of the country. I had never served in a government; neither had I ever expected this opportunity. However, my UN experience and political economy understanding have been handy.
Anis Chowdhury
Reflecting back the year that we have just passed, I trust, you have been well as we wished each other at the start of 2025 the best of our health and spirit. Unfortunately, despite our earnest wish, the world was not peaceful during 2025.
Hopes and global disorder
Hopes kindled briefly for justice for the Palestinians as the European powers, including Australia (a European settler colony) were forced to recognise the Palestine State, and Narcissist Trump pushed for some peace in both Ukraine and Gaza in his mad desperation for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Yet Gaza is still being bombarded with Israel’s genocidal intent, making a mockery of deranged Trump’s rhetorical claim of achieving “peace in the Middle East for the first time in 3,000 years”, and the illegal occupation of the West Bank along with settler violence continues unabated with complete immunity in blatant violations of international laws.
Narcissist Trump sanctioned the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ) in his desperate attempt to save Israeli war criminals, including Benjamin Netanyahu and justify Israel’s genocide and settler violence. Trump upended his assault on the rule-based order with arbitrary so-called ‘reciprocal tariff’.
Bangladesh
As for the post-fascist Hasina Bangladesh, the year 2025 began with high expectations. And as for me, the year 2025 has been extra-ordinary.
Today, I am pleased to say that we have been able to avert a full-blown crisis. Heart-felt thanks to our ‘remittance fighters’ who whole-heartedly trusted the Interim Government’s various reform initiatives. Expatriate Bangladeshis sent a record $30.04 bn in remittances in the 2024–25 fiscal year, the highest amount ever received in a single fiscal year in the country’s history. Forex reserves surged to $33 bn, hitting 3-year high as December remittances crossed $3bn. You can get a report card by Finance Advisor, Dr. Salehuddin and myself, published in the Daily Star on 18 August 2025.
Of course, not everything has been rosy. The much-hoped systemic transition remains full of uncertainty. I see systemic transition as the process of total transformation of a caterpillar inside a cocoon. We still do not know whether the ‘caterpillar in the cocoon’ will turn out to be a butterfly or a moth. People are genuinely worried as the past systemic transition opportunities were wasted.
I myself found road-blocks at every turn. Bureaucratic inertia and resistance have frustrated my efforts for genuine reforms. It has been a real-life experience of the classic British political satire, “Yes, Minister”. Like Sir Humphrey Appleby, the bureaucrats will display outwardly extra-ordinary humbleness, but will politely defy citing rules of business. Bureaucratic resistance is the main stumbling block for achieving coordination, coherence and integration in policy making and implementation, thus, causing wasteful duplications, inefficiency and lack of effectiveness.
Nevertheless, I achieved some success. One of them is the agreement to expand the voluntary Bangladesh National Cadet Corps programme to cover ALL youths (aged 18) in 10-12 years, so that we can have a disciplined workforce to be readily deployed during any national emergency. Needless to say, that this is an imperative to realise demographic dividend. We are hoping to roll out the programme from July 2026 to coincide with the July Revolution anniversary.
Despite frustrations and uncertainties, I am hopeful as I can see a seismic shift in the political dynamics of the country. This coincides with the demographic shift – the youth (15-30 years) representing nearly 30% of the population. These youths have a different vocabulary of politics; they want justice, inclusion, self-respect, and dignity – they are fiercely nationalist.
Recently martyred Hadi is their embodiment. The establishment is understandably threatened and tried to silence the youth by assassinating Hadi; but they failed to extinguish the flame, instead, everyone has become a Hadi, standing unwavering in their commitment to carry out Hadi’s mission of building a just nation where citizens can live with dignity, free from fear, subjugation, and oppression. Hadi re-centred our national conscience on Insaf: justice, dignity, and fairness not as rhetorical slogans, but as non-negotiable ethical foundations of the State and society.
In an era of moral drift, Hadi reminded the nation that no political order can last without justice at its core. He ignited a generation with civic courage and moral responsibility. Free from fear, patronage, or transactional politics, young people saw in Hadi a new model of leadership: ethical, principled, and accountable. In doing so, he reshaped the future political character of Bangladesh and moved national thinking beyond entrenched legacy power structures toward people-centric, principled governance. He challenged the inevitability of corruption and coercion, insisting instead that politics could be reclaimed as a moral vocation. His life poses an enduring question to those who seek power: Will you serve justice, or merely rule?
Let me end this year-end message with my personal tribute to Khaleda Zia, who has recently passed away after a long illness imposed on her by the vindictive Hasina regime, falsely convicting her and imprisoning in a substandard cell. Like her husband, Shaheed President Zia, she was thrust into the whirlpool of history. They never sought power; but when the responsibility fell on their shoulders, they carried out their duties to the nation whole-heartedly and selflessly; thus, they became a true statesman (woman), winning hearts and minds of their people.
Perhaps Khaleda Zia’s most enduring legacy lies in her extraordinary restraint and dignified disposition, even under severe and prolonged adversity. Her self-restraint, rooted in grace rather than weakness, distinguished her from many of her contemporaries and offers a powerful lesson for today’s often abrasive and confrontational political culture.
A man walks past a campaign poster for the military’s proxy party USDP ahead of strictly controlled elections in Myanmar. Credit: Guy Dinmore/IPS
YANGON, Myanmar and BANGKOK , Jan 6 2026 (IPS) – With thousands of civilians killed in years of civil war and over 22,000 political prisoners still behind bars, no one was surprised that early results from Myanmar’s first but tightly controlled elections since the 2021 coup show the military’s proxy party speeding to victory.
“How can you hold elections and bomb civilians at the same time?” asked Khin Ohmar, a civil rights activist outside Myanmar who is monitoring what the resistance forces and a shadow government reject as “sham” polls.
The junta had already cleared the path towards its stated goal of a “genuine, disciplined multi-party democratic system” by dissolving some 40 parties that refused to register for polls, which they regard as illegitimate, with their leaders and supporters still in prison.
These include the National League for Democracy (NLD) and its leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, who won a landslide second term in the 2020 elections – only for the results to be annulled by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, a coup leader and self-appointed acting president. Mass street protests were crushed in early 2021 and war spread across Myanmar.
Although these elections will deliver just a façade of the legitimacy craved by some of the generals, they did succeed in projecting a power and authority that was quickly slipping away just two years ago as long-standing ethnic armed groups and newly formed People’s Defence Forces (PDFs) inflicted a series of humiliating defeats on the junta.
“The tide has turned in favour of the military,” commented a veteran Myanmar analyst in Yangon, crediting China, which reined in the ethnic groups on its shared border, fully embraced Min Aung Hlaing and, along with Russia, delivered the arms, technology and training needed to peg back the resistance.
Campaigners for the pro-military USDP canvas residents and check voters lists in Yangon ahead of the December 28 parliamentary election that excluded major anti-junta parties. Credit: Guy Dinmore/IPS
The regime’s air power and newly acquired drones have been deployed to ruthless effect, often hitting civilian targets in relatively remote areas where the resistance has grassroots support. Air strikes were stepped up as the elections approached. Major cities like Yangon were calm; people subdued.
Bombs dropped on Tabayin township in the Sagaing Region on December 5 killed 18 people, including many in a busy tea shop, AFP reported. On December 10, air strikes on a hospital in the ancient capital of Mrauk-U in Rakhine State were reported to have killed 10 patients and 23 others. The regime accused the insurgent Arakan Army and PDFs of using it as a base.
“I don’t think that anyone believes that those elections will be free and fair,” UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres stated while visiting the region ahead of the polls. He called on the junta to end its “deplorable” violence and find “a credible path” back to civilian rule.
In contrast, the Trump administration declared in November that the junta’s election plans were “free and fair” and removed Temporary Protected Status from Myanmar refugees in the US, saying their country was safe for them to return to.
“I’ll be jailed if I don’t vote,” said Min, a Yangon taxi driver, only half-joking on the eve of voting in Yangon, the commercial capital. “And what difference does it make? We are ruled by China and Xi Jinping, not Min Aung Hlaing,” he added.
With the polls spread over three stages, the first 102 townships voted on December 28. Others will follow on January 11 and January 25 to make a total of 265 of Myanmar’s 330 townships scheduled to vote for the bicameral national parliament and assemblies in the 14 regions and states.
Residents in downtown Yangon check their names on the electoral register and then cast their votes in a polling station on December 28. Credit: Guy Dinmore/IPS
No voting is to be held at all in the remaining 65 townships that the election commission deemed too unsafe.
Voting in the first round in Yangon, an urban and semi-rural sprawl of seven million people, proceeded calmly and slowly on a quiet Sunday – despite intense efforts, and sometimes threats, by the regime to boost the turnout.
In 2020 and 2015 – when Myanmar arguably held the region’s most open and fair elections and the military’s proxy Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), was soundly defeated – people gaily posted images of their ink-stained little fingers on social media as evidence of their vote after weeks of packed rallies and vibrant campaign rallies.
But not this time. Social media posts hurled insults, some comic and vulgar, at the regime. Those eager to support the resistance’s boycott but who were afraid of reprisals were relieved if they found their names had been omitted by mistake on electoral lists. Electronic voting machines in use for the first time made it impossible to leave a blank.
But as in past elections, a solid core of people close to the military and its web of powerful economic interests turned out to vote for the USDP.
“We are choosing our government,” declared one man exiting a polling station in central Yangon with his family, apparently USDP supporters. One proudly waved his little finger dipped in indelible ink.
How can you hold elections and bomb civilians at the same time? – Khin Ohmar, civil rights activist
Turnout for the first round was put by regime officials at 52 percent. This compares with about 70 percent in the past two elections. China’s special envoy – sent as an official observer, along with others from Russia, Belarus, Vietnam and Cambodia – praised the elections.
On January 2, the election commission unexpectedly issued partial results: the USDP, led by retired generals, had won 38 of 40 seats in the lower house where votes had been tallied to date. No one blinked.
The USDP campaign message focused on two main elements – get out and vote with all your family, and back a USDP government to restore stability and progress to Myanmar.
Its underlying message was a reminder that the last USDP administration, led by President Thein Sein introduced socio-economic and political reforms and ceasefire negotiations with ethnic groups after securing a large majority in the 2010 elections when the NLD and other opposition groups were also absent.
Aung San Suu Kyi, then under house arrest, was released just after the 2010 polls and went on to contest and win a seat in a 2012 by-election ahead of the NLD’s own sweeping victory in 2015. Aung San Suu Kyi governed in a difficult power-sharing arrangement with the military for the next five years and was thrown back into prison in the coup.
For now a large proportion of Myanmar’s population lives in areas under junta control, including all 14 of the state and regional capitals, swollen by an influx of people fleeing conflict. The military also holds major seaports and airports and – to varying degrees – the main border crossings for China and Thailand.
But in terms of territory, over half of Myanmar is in the hands of disparate ethnic armed groups and resistance forces. Alliances are fluid and negotiable.
The shadow National Unity Government is trying to establish its own authority over liberated territory, looking to cement a consensus around the concept of a democratic and federal Myanmar free of the military’s interference – something that has eluded the country since independence from British colonial rule in 1948.
Front lines shift back and forth as the military struggles to regain control over the Bamar heartlands of central Myanmar, once considered their bastion, while stretched elsewhere after losing vast tracts of border areas since the coup. Several million people have fled the country or are internally displaced.
Once again there is some speculation that a “smooth” election and the formation of a USDP government in April will lead to a gesture signalling the military’s confidence, such as a possible ending of forced conscription and the release of some political prisoners. Project power, then collect legitimacy.
“Political prisoners are used as bait,” said Khin Ohmar, the civil rights activist in Bangkok. “The world would at least have to applaud.”
Pro-Democracy protesters gather in front of the headquarters of the Sudanese army in the capital, Khartoum. Credit: Masarib/Ahmed Bahhar via UN News
VIENNA, Austria, Jan 5 2026 (IPS) – Consider our political systems not merely as battlegrounds of passions, ideologies and economic interests, but as systematically functioning arrangements of interactions, akin to game theory. In recent decades, we have witnessed the dissolution of large homogeneous groups into numerous subgroups — a patchwork of minorities.
This fragmentation, compounded by individualisation and the resulting weakening of strong political bonds, has profound consequences for democratic governance.
In nations with majority voting systems, this process fragments the party system itself. As dissatisfaction with political parties grows – initially quietly but eventually becoming pronounced – new parties emerge, further splintering the political landscape.
This increasing fragmentation complicates government formation and makes majorities more precarious. Often, only coalitions that can agree on the lowest common denominator are formed. Consequently, the outcomes of politics do not necessarily improve; in most cases, they worsen.
A vicious circle
Decisive action, bold moves and clear leadership have become increasingly elusive. This reinforces dissatisfaction and the prevailing sentiment among voters that politicians are failing to achieve meaningful results. Doubts about the effectiveness of the political system become self-perpetuating, creating a situation where decisive politics is nearly impossible.
The rise of populists and right-wing extremists is both a consequence of this stagnation and a further catalyst — a ratchet effect. Right-wing agitators stoke discontent, transforming it into anger and outrage while exploiting negative emotions.
As they gain strength, democratic politics becomes more paralysed, often preoccupied with defending against radicalism, preventing the worst outcomes, and forming coalitions whose members can agree on little more than a lacklustre commitment to ‘more of the same’.
When social cohesion erodes, the radical right gains ground — which then leads to even more division. The perceived polarisation and alienation that accompanies the rise of right-wing extremism increases the perception of social disintegration and decay.
Democracy gives rise to its own threats
In a sense, right-wing radicalism is itself the problem that it then laments in a subsequent cycle. It is the disintegration that it denounces. In this way, it contributes to the chain of evidence that reinforces authoritarian reflexes. Authoritarianism feeds authoritarianism.
These framework conditions of political systems – fragmentation and the resulting weakness of action – lead German democracy theorist Veith Selk to diagnose that modernisation and social change are increasingly putting democracy under stress, making a reversal unlikely.
This presents a rather depressing diagnosis of decline: democracy gives rise to its own threats.
Additionally, globalisation necessitates ‘global governance’, which, even under favourable circumstances, has historically produced solutions at an unbearably slow pace and is now reaching its limits amid chaotic multilateralism.
Conversely, ‘de-globalisation’ – through national power politics, tariffs and trade wars – provides no relief and instead creates new problems, such as the loss of sales markets, disrupted supply chains and a consequent decline in economic growth, potentially destroying whole economic sectors.
Europe’s mounting crises
The emergencies of the future are already on the horizon. The climate catastrophe threatens not only our livelihoods but also has tangible economic repercussions. Crop failures due to droughts and floods are already contributing to rising inflation in the cost of living, particularly for vegetables and fruit.
This situation is certain to become much more severe. Even if successful, socio-economic transformation will be costly. Insurance companies may face financial difficulties, asset portfolios could lose value rapidly, and if we are unfortunate, a sudden ‘Minsky moment’ could trigger a downward spiral leading to a financial crisis.
Ageing populations are already straining public finances, with healthcare and care systems becoming increasingly expensive, pushing European welfare states to their financial limits.
Government debt is rising, and under current conditions, it will be more challenging to “grow out” of debt than it was in the past. Growth will be harder to mobilise, and austerity is not a viable alternative, as contraction strategies lead to dire consequences. These are all concerning prospects.
Here are a few highlights:
Germany’s economy has stagnated for six years, and private investment remains weak. France is facing a budget deficit of 5.8 per cent and a public debt ratio of 113 per cent of GDP, while sliding from one government crisis to another. Political actors are unable to achieve a socially just change of course that would reconcile savings in the pension system with additional revenue from wealth taxes.
Austria was projected to have a budget deficit of six per cent, prompting left-wing Keynesian Finance Minister Markus Marterbauer to assemble a package of tightening measures aimed at reducing the deficit to 4.5 per cent by 2025.
Ensuring that large fortunes contribute to costs through higher taxation is not only a matter of fairness but also an economic necessity — yet there is a lack of parliamentary majorities for decisive measures nearly everywhere.
There is a growing desire for politics to provide sensible solutions instead of getting bogged down in petty details.
A whole panorama of emergencies is unfolding before us. As noted earlier, most of those in power have little energy or flexibility to think and act beyond daily problems. This situation has tangible and psychopolitical effects: citizens feel that things are deteriorating and that serious trouble is brewing, while simultaneously sensing that those in power are merely tinkering with details.
For many, this leads to outright fear and a generally pessimistic mood, which in turn fuels the rise of right-wing radicals.
The political forces of the left and the conservative centre must, above all, demonstrate their ability to act together. A few years ago, the prevailing view was that various political camps should dare to engage in more conflict to make democratic life more vibrant.
At that time, there were complaints about everyone crowding into the centre and becoming interchangeable. However, we find ourselves in a different situation today.
There is a growing desire for politics to provide sensible solutions instead of getting bogged down in petty details or wasting time on pointless culture wars. The left may need to acknowledge that states are reaching their financial limits, while conservatives must recognise that clientele politics, which ensures free rides for the super-wealthy, is no longer viable. Urgent issues require swift action, and all of this comes at a high cost.
Rhetoric is no longer effective, and pandering to the extreme right leads nowhere. Conservatives, in particular, need to understand this, as they sometimes give the impression that they view fascists as merely slightly more radical conservatives (or conservatives as moderate fascists).
This perception is not only misguided; it also highlights a significant identity crisis within traditional conservatism. Fortunately, some are beginning to realise that authoritarianism is not a relative; it is the enemy. The best way to undermine it is to demonstrate a commitment to action.
Robert Misik is a writer and essayist. He publishes in many German-language newspapers and magazines, including Die Zeit and Die Tageszeitung.
This is from a joint publication by Social Europe and IPS Journal.
Source: International Politics and Society (IPS), Brussels, Belgium
Dec 29 2025 (IPS) – CIVICUS discusses environmental accountability in Zambia with Christian-Geraud Neema, Africa editor at the China Global South Project, an independent journalism initiative that covers and follows China’s activities in global south countries.
Christian-Geraud Neema
A group of 176 Zambian farmers has filed a US$80 billion lawsuit against a Chinese state-owned mining company over a major toxic spill. In February, the collapse of a dam that was supposed to control mining waste released 50 million litres of toxic wastewater into the Kafue River system, killing fish, destroying crops and contaminating water sources for thousands of people. The compensation demand highlights broader questions about mining governance, environmental oversight and corporate accountability.
What’s this lawsuit about, and why are farmers seeking US$80 billion?
The farmers are suing Sino-Metals Leach Zambia, a subsidiary of the Chinese state-owned China Nonferrous Metal Mining Group, because on 18 February, the company’s tailings dam collapsed, releasing an estimated 50 million litres of acidic, toxic wastewater and up to 1.5 million tonnes of waste material into the Kafue River. This led to water pollution affecting communities in Chambishi and Kitwe, far beyond the immediate mining area.
The lawsuit reflects real harm and frustration. From the farmers’ perspective, the company is clearly responsible. Their livelihoods have been destroyed, their land contaminated and their future made uncertain. In that context, seeking accountability through the courts is a rational response.
That said, the US$80 billion figure is likely exaggerated. It shows the absence of credible damage assessments rather than a precise calculation. When no one provides clear data on losses, communities respond by anchoring their claims in worst-case scenarios.
This case also highlights a broader accountability gap. Mining companies should be held responsible, but governments must also be questioned. These projects are approved, inspected and regulated by state authorities. If a dam was unsafe, why was it authorised? Why was oversight insufficient?
It should be noted that Zambia’s legal framework allows communities to bring such cases domestically, which is a significant step forward compared to earlier cases where affected communities had to sue foreign companies in courts abroad.
What caused the toxic spill?
There is no single, uncontested explanation. There were clear structural weaknesses in the tailings dam. Reports from civil society and media suggest the dam was not built to the required standards under Zambian regulations. But the company argues the dam complied with existing standards and that it was encroachment by surrounding communities that weakened the structure over time.
These two narratives are not mutually exclusive. Even if community interactions with the site occurred, the primary responsibility still lies with the company. Mining operations take place in complex social environments, and companies are expected to anticipate these realities and design infrastructure that is robust enough to withstand them. Ultimately, this incident reflects governance and regulatory failures. It was not an isolated accident.
What were the consequences of the spill?
The impacts have been severe and multidimensional. The spill polluted large sections of the Kafue River, reportedly extending over 100 kilometres. It killed large numbers of fish, contaminated riverbeds and disrupted ecosystems. Agriculturally, farmers using river water for irrigation saw their crops destroyed or rendered unsafe. Livestock and soil quality were also affected. Acidic and toxic substances entered water sources used daily for cooking, drinking and washing, and communities were exposed to serious health risks.
What makes the situation particularly troubling is the lack of reliable and independent data. There has been no transparent and comprehensive assessment released by the government, the company or an independent body. This absence has left communities uncertain about long-term environmental damage and health effects, and fuelled emotionally charged debates instead of evidence-based responses.
Was the disaster preventable?
Absolutely. At a technical level, stronger infrastructure, better-quality materials and stricter adherence to safety standards could have significantly reduced the risk. At an operational level, companies know mining sites are rarely isolated, and community proximity, informal access and social dynamics must be factored in when designing and securing tailings dams.
But prevention also depends heavily on governance. Mining companies are profit-driven entities, and in weak governance environments, the temptation to cut costs is high. This is not unique to Chinese firms. The main difference in how companies operate is not their origin but their context: the same companies often operate very differently in countries with weak or strong regulatory oversight. Where rules are enforced, behaviour improves; where oversight is weak, shortcuts become the norm.
The key issue here is enforcement. Zambia has good environmental laws and standards on paper. The problem is their implementation.
Could this case set a precedent?
This case has the potential to strengthen existing accountability mechanisms rather than create a new precedent. Zambia has seen similar cases before, including lawsuits involving western mining companies. What is different now is the increased legal space for communities to act locally.
If successful, the case could reinforce civil society advocacy for responsible mining, greater transparency and stronger enforcement of environmental regulations. It could also raise awareness among communities living near mining sites about their rights and the risks they face.
