The Human Consciousness Now...Our World in the Midst of Becoming...to What? Observe, contemplate Now.
PORTLAND, USA, May 5 2026 (IPS) - Throughout human history, reaching the age of 100 was considered an exceptional accomplishment. However, in recent decades, the number of centenarians in the world has been on the rise.
The increases in longevity for both men and women are welcomed developments. This remarkable accomplishment in human longevity, reaching 100 years or more, also poses challenges for the long-living individuals, their families, communities, and societies.
The rise in the number of centenarians can be attributed to a number of key economic, social, and scientific factors. These factors encompass public health initiatives, sanitation, environmental enhancements, medical advancements, improved access to healthcare, enhanced nutrition, medical treatments, vaccines, antibiotics, decline in infectious diseases, higher living standards, education, better management of chronic conditions, preventive care, social connections, and lifestyle choices.
In 1950, there were nearly 15,000 centenarians worldwide, representing a very small fraction of one percent of the global population of 2.5 billion. By 2026, the number of centenarians had increased by 45 times, reaching 672,000. This figure continued to represent a small, but larger fraction of one percent of the world’s current population, which had tripled to 8.3 billion.
The number of centenarians is expected to continue rising. It is projected that by 2050, the number of centenarians will almost quadruple, increasing from today’s 672,000 to 2.6 million. Furthermore, by the end of the century, the number of centenarians is expected to be approximately twenty-seven times greater than it is today, reaching 18 million by 2100 (Figure 1).
Source: United Nations.
Of the world’s 672,000 centenarians, nearly two-thirds reside in the more developed regions. The country with the largest number of centenarians is Japan with 126,000, accounting for nearly one-fifth of the world’s total. Following Japan, the next four countries and their number of centenarians are the United States (77,000), China (53,000), India (43,000), and France (35,000) (Table 1).
Source: United Nations.
In these various countries, the large majority of centenarians are women. For example, in Japan, women make up nearly 90% of centenarians. Similarly in the United States, nearly 80% of the centenarians in 2024 were women.
The oldest, documented centenarian to have ever lived is Jeanne Calment of France. She died at the age of 122 years and 164 days. Her age is verified through reliable birth, marriage, and death records in Arles, France, with her life spanning from 1875 to 1997. Calment’s father lived to the age of 94 and her mother lived to the age of 86.
The longest-lived man in recorded history was Jiroemon Kimura of Japan who died at the age of 116 years and 54 days. He was born in 1897 and died in 2013, making him the only man in history confirmed to have reached the age of 116. Kimura credited his longevity to living an active life and practicing the concept of hara hachi bunme in Japan, which involves eating until he was only 80% full.
Healthy aging and increased longevity in both men and women are influenced by a combination of genetic and non-genetic factors. In addition to genetics, major contributors to long life include access to healthcare, a healthy and nutritious diet, regular physical activity, not smoking, moderate alcohol consumption, maintaining a healthy body weight, strong social connections, managing stress and chronic conditions, getting sufficient quality sleep, maintaining a sense of purpose, and engaging in vigorous exercise (Table 2).
Source: Author’s compilation.
Medical research is continuing to explore ways to extend healthy lifespan and increase human longevity. Some of this research is focused on anti-ageing interventions, which include targeting biological mechanisms of ageing, delaying the onset of chronic diseases, and prolonging the period of healthy life. These interventions aim to enable individuals to live long enough to become centenarians. Unlike in the past, centenarians are no longer exceptional societal outliers. This significant change in human longevity is impacting not only centenarians but also reshaping the ways individuals, families, communities, and societies approach aging, retirement, and healthcare
Some believe that advancements in medicine and biotechnology may further promote the increase in human longevity. However, others argue that humanity has reached an upper limit of longevity, with the maximum reported age at death plateauing at around 115 to 122 years.
Unlike in the past, centenarians are no longer exceptional societal outliers. This significant change in human longevity is impacting not only centenarians but also reshaping the ways individuals, families, communities, and societies approach aging, retirement, and healthcare.
Living to 100 years or more is a goal that many people aspire to achieve. The rising number of centenarians and older individuals raises important questions and issues, such as retirement ages, healthcare, pensions, living expenses, and elder care.
To reach the age of 100 or beyond, long-term planning, including advance care planning, is crucial for individuals, families, and governments. This planning essentially involves ensuring that there are enough resources available for pensions, healthcare, living expenses, and elder care needs.
Unfortunately, individuals, families, and governments tend to neglect long-term planning. As a result, the gaps between retirement funds and the expenses for individuals living longer lives are significant and increasing.
Most older individuals have limited savings, a financial shortfall that is becoming increasingly common among older women and men. This issue is exacerbated by the demographic ageing of populations, with decreasing numbers of people in the workforce able to contribute to pensions and healthcare for retirees.
These financial gaps are not only causing economic challenges for older individuals and families, but also leading to a reevaluation of government policies and programs related to retirement ages, pension benefits, and health care for seniors.
In conclusion, the increase in human longevity and the rise in the number of centenarians are positive trends. However, they also bring about significant challenges for older individuals, communities, and societies.
Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population issues.
KARACHI, Pakistan, May 5 2026 (IPS) - “We’ve abandoned this couple completely; we have not done even 1% of what they did for us all these years!” said journalist Asad Ali Toor.
Arrested on January 23, 2026, two lawyers, also husband and wife – Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chatha – were sentenced the next day to 17 years under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), 2016 (amended in 2025) – a law Mazari had described as even more ‘draconian’ than its original version. Fines of Rs36 million (USD129,261) each were also imposed on the two under Sections 9 (glorification of an offence), 10 (cyber terrorism), and 26-A (false and fake information) under the same law.
“They have not violated PECA, and in my opinion the prosecution failed to prove any of the ingredients of any offence under the law,” said human rights activist and lawyer Jibran Nasir. He added that “the military elite and the new chief justice in the Islamabad High Court have taken a personal dislike to Imaan and Hadi. He noted that “The laws may be inherently flawed, even draconian, but more dangerous is their malicious application by the state.”
The amendments on PECA were pushed through parliament within a week, without debate, and signed into law by President Asif Ali Zardari. The move triggered nationwide protests by journalists and rights groups, who warned that the law lacked safeguards. The government, however, defended it as necessary to regulate social media, arguing that similar frameworks exist globally.
Charges, Judgment and Allegations
The judgment stated that Mazari was accused of “disseminating and propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations”, while Chatha was charged with reposting her content. The police report also alleged her social media content portrayed the armed forces as ineffective against groups such as the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan.
Protestors gather outside the Islamabad Press Club to mark 100 days of the two lawyers’ continued detention. Credit: Rana Shahbaz
For Toor, who runs the YouTube channel Asad Toor Uncensored, the case is deeply personal. In 2024, he spent 20 days in Federal Investigation Agency custody and 12 in solitary confinement at Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail, the same prison where the couple is now held.
Arrested on February 26, 2024, on “digital terrorism” charges linked to his coverage, among other things, of a Supreme Court ruling stripping the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf of its election symbol, he was granted bail on March 17, 2024.
He credits Mazari and Chatha with securing his release. “They argued that journalists should not face criminal charges for “honest criticism” of court judgments, citing then Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa and Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan.”
But journalists like Toor are not alone in feeling what he describes as “a certain vacuum.”
Rana Shahbaz’s milk stall was demolished by the city administration. Credit: Rana Shahbaz
‘It Feels Like I’ve Lost My Right Arm’
The two lawyers had built a reputation for taking on cases few lawyers would touch.
“Imaan and Hadi have always taken up cases most lawyers shy away from due to their controversial or dangerous nature — including blasphemy accusations, enforced disappearances, and press freedom cases — often representing the most marginalised people, without charging anything,” said rights activist Usama Khilji, director of Bolo Bhi, an advocacy forum for digital rights.
“It feels like I’ve lost my right arm,” said a woman, who requested anonymity, as she struggles to secure the release of her brother and more than 400 others accused of blasphemy, languishing in jail across Pakistan.
“In the past three years, I have met countless lawyers and even judges, but no one fought like Imaan. She missed nothing – every detail mattered; she was relentless,” said the woman, talking to IPS.
Leading the campaign, she said most of the accused came from poor backgrounds. “She didn’t even charge for the photocopying of documents submitted to the court – she paid out of her own pocket.”
An Amnesty International poster protesting the 100 days since Hadi Ali Chatha and Imaan Hazir Mazari were jailed. Credit: Amnesty International
The sense of loss extends well beyond individual cases.
Rahat Mehmood, mother of missing poet and writer Mudassir Naru, who disappeared in 2018 described the couple’s arrest as devastating.
“It’s like my support system has collapsed,” she said over the phone from Faisalabad. “Not just for me—these two were a ray of hope, an anchor for hundreds of mothers, especially Baloch mothers.”
Mazari’s work, she said, was not limited to legal representation.
Her grandson, Sachal, was just six months old when his father was taken and later lost his mother in 2021. Court hearings, Mehmood recalled, became rare moments of relief. “They played hide-and-seek, raced around, and she would bring him toys and candy. Tell me—who does that?”
Although her son’s case has not been heard in over a year, Mehmood said that, with Mazari by their side, they had always had hope. “But now,” she added, “it’s all darkness.”
At the wedding of Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chatha, Sachal (son of Mudassir Naru) sits between the two, on the far right; in black, Rahat Mehmood, Naru’s mother, sits. Credit: Rahat Mehmood
Mazari’s advocacy extended beyond the courtroom. She appeared in two of the three press conferences held by families of the blasphemy accused, which drew “huge crowds and media attention”. Today, more than 120 people are out on bail. “It’s because of the efforts of these two,” said the sister of the accused.
Their absence is being felt acutely among many others with the least protection.
A week after the lawyers’ arrest, Rana Shahbaz, a street vendor, went to visit Mazari in jail but was turned away. “I was told by jail authorities no one was allowed to meet her.” He had brought dry fruits, juices and clothes, which authorities refused to accept.
Shahbaz, president of the Anjuman Rehri Baan, Islamabad (association of street vendors), which represents over 20,000 street vendors, said Mazari had been instrumental in securing relief for them. Despite holding licences from the Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad, they routinely face raids and eviction by city administrations.
“Last year because of Madam Imaan, the Islamabad High Court stopped authorities from removing our stalls. She presented video evidence showing stalls being dismantled despite having permits,” Shahbaz said.
Since their arrest, he added, the pressure has returned.
“The day they were arrested, an official told us, ‘Call your lawyers now — I’ll see who stops me.’ She was right — only Madam Imaan had the courage to stand up for us,” said Shahbaz, whose stall has been destroyed thrice in the past two years.
“It costs Rs150,000 (USD 538) to set up these makeshift stalls – financed through a bank loan with a monthly instalment of Rs7,000 ($25). Each time authorities dismantle them, repairs cost up to Rs40,000 (US$144), making it impossible to keep up with repayments and pushing me toward default,” he said. Last week, despite having a valid licence, his lassi (yoghurt drink) and fresh milk stall were demolished.
The pretext for crackdowns can be anything—from late-night vending to fines for not displaying price lists or even refusing to offer “freebies” to the police. “Madam Imaan knew well that vendors are exempt from the curfew time for regular shops or that we can only display the price list once it comes from the city authorities and it doesn’t until midday,” he pointed out.
Like many others, Shahbaz said, the two lawyers worked for vendors for free. “We didn’t even know what the basic legal processes cost,” he said.
Muted Response
Despite the breadth of their work, support beyond affected communities has been limited.
“I hold both the journalist and legal fraternities responsible for doing virtually nothing,” said Toor. “Individual voices may struggle, but unions and bar councils have the power to pressure the government.”
Toor’s assessment is shared by lawyer Nasir. He acknowledged that the legal fraternity, with “many lawyers, like judges, appear to be motivated by self-preservation as opposed to the preservation of the constitutional and fundamental freedoms” and which has “blunted its effectiveness” and left it “equally vulnerable” in the long run.
Yet, even as this institutional weakness is laid bare, others frame the duo’s actions less as miscalculation and more as conscious defiance. Media development expert Adnan Rehmat argued that while some may see them as having paid a heavy price for their stance, the two have a long history of public-interest resistance. “They consciously chose to risk themselves to highlight state abuses, and their courage should be lauded—and we must continue raising our voices in their favour.”
As a result, sporadic protests have failed to shift the situation. With public pressure waning, the battle has moved to the courts.
An Uncertain Path
But even there, justice has remained elusive.
The Islamabad High Court refused interim relief. “Everyone knows the 17-year sentence is the product of a sham trial. No superior court in any modern judicial system would uphold it,” said senior advocate Faisal Siddiqi, the lawyer representing them.
Undeterred, the defence has moved the Supreme Court of Pakistan after the IHC failed to fix an early hearing for nearly two months – a delay which Siddiqui called “unheard of” and a ploy to “deny Imaan and Hadi their deserved liberty”.
The bail petition has since been accepted by the Supreme Court, offering a glimmer of hope. “It is our only and last hope,” said Siddiqi.
One hundred days on, that hope remains uncertain.
What is clearer, however, is the void left behind – felt in courtrooms, in protest spaces, and in the lives of those who had come to rely on the two lawyers willing to take risks few others would.
For many, it is not just their absence that is being measured in days but also the growing silence it has left behind.
“I cannot fathom why people like Imaan and Hadi are being punished—and for what,” said Mehmood. “They deserve to be saluted, not jailed!”
IPS UN Bureau Report
Excerpt:
One hundred days after their arrest, lawyers Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chatha remain behind bars. For many of Pakistan’s most vulnerable, their absence has left a growing legal and moral vacuum.
UNITED NATIONS, May 5 2026 (IPS) - Africa is on the frontlines of the climate crisis, warming faster than the global average and facing disproportionate climate impacts, despite contributing the least to global greenhouse gas emissions.
This is particularly evident in the growing pressures that climate change is placing on water resources and systems across the continent. As water underpins agriculture, livelihoods, ecosystems, and energy production, water-related climate impacts are deepening inequalities and threatening sustainable development across Africa.
At the forefront of this year’s ECOSOC Youth Forum – the largest annual UN gathering of young people – four African climate youth leaders led a dynamic discussion spotlighting the key role that African youth play in driving climate solutions across the continent, building community resilience, strengthening water security, and advancing locally led adaptation efforts.
Their insights highlighted how young people are not only responding to the climate crisis but reshaping the development agenda through innovation, advocacy, and community rooted action.
African youth are charting bold new pathways for climate leadership and proving that the future of climate action is being shaped by their vision and determination.
Learn more about the speakers:
Eugenia Boateng is an African diaspora strategist and founder of the African Diaspora Youth Hub (ADYH) and FABA, a production strategy lab building systems to make African economies more visible, structured, and investable.
Her work focuses on translating informal economies into institutional intelligence, connecting diaspora resources to African production, and designing systems that enable value retention on the continent.
Jabri Ibrahim is a climate and energy policy expert with an extensive network across Africa, connecting youth movements, policymakers, and private sector leaders. Jabri has played a central role in mobilizing African youth for climate action, particularly through the African Youth Initiative on Climate Change (AYICC).
Sibusiso Mazomba is a climate justice activist, advocate, and researcher. He leads youth advocacy at the African Climate Alliance, driving initiatives to ensure meaningful youth participation in decision-making.
A junior negotiator for South Africa’s UNFCCC delegation since COP26, he has contributed to negotiations on adaptation, oceans, and loss and damage, representing youth and national interests on the global stage.
Damon Hamman is a Master of Science candidate in Global Affairs at New York University, concentrating in transnational security, intelligence, and conflict analysis. His work centers on the intersection of human security, diplomacy, and data-driven policy research.
He has served with the United Nations Office of the Special Adviser on Africa, where he built an AI-assisted thematic analysis pipeline for Voluntary National Reviews, contributed to policy briefs aligned with Agenda 2030 and AU Agenda 2063, and supported diplomatic engagement with African missions.
Source: Africa Renewal, United Nations
IPS UN Bureau
BRUSSELS, Belgium, May 4 2026 (IPS) - In January, the government of Algeria succeeded in locking two civil society groups out of access to the United Nations (UN). It raised questions at the UN Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, known as the NGO Committee, about two civil society groups with accreditation. It alleged that Italian organisation Il Cenacolo was making politically motivated statements at the UN Human Rights Council and the Geneva-based International Committee for the Respect and Implementation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (CIRAC) was selling UN grounds passes. Four days later, it called a vote to revoke their status. Other states urged delay, but the no-action motion failed, and 11 of the body’s 19 members voted to recommend that the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) revoke Il Cenacolo’s accreditation and suspend CIRAC’s for a year.
As the primary gatekeeper for civil society participation at the UN, the NGO Committee controls ECOSOC consultative status, which allows organisations to attend UN meetings, submit written statements, make oral interventions, organise side events and access UN premises. Its mandate, set out in ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31, is straightforward: to facilitate civil society access to the UN system.
Such access is particularly valuable for organisations working in repressive contexts, where domestic advocacy is suppressed. It can mean the difference between a community’s concerns being silenced or becoming a matter of international record. In practice, however, the Committee has so consistently worked to obstruct rather than enable access that it is widely known as the ‘anti-NGO Committee’.
On 8 April, in an almost entirely uncompetitive vote, ECOSOC members elected 19 states to serve on the NGO Committee for four-year terms. Only 20 candidates ran for the 19 seats. UN states are organised into five regional blocs, and four of them presented closed slates, putting forward only as many candidates as the number of seats available.
As a result, the Asia-Pacific group selected China, India, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), states with consistent track records of silencing civil society. Latin America and the Caribbean is represented by the likes of Cuba and Nicaragua, which suppress dissent and routinely detain critics. Four of the five African states elected have repressed or closed civic space. Two states elected from the Western European and Other States group, Israel and Turkey, have also recently intensified their repression of civic space.
The one exception was the Eastern European group, where Estonia and Ukraine won seats in a three-way contest, keeping out authoritarian Belarus, which received only 23 votes against Estonia’s 44 and Ukraine’s 38. As in 2022, when Russia lost a similar race, the result showed that competitive elections open up scrutiny and produce better outcomes. The problem is they rarely happen.
Overall, 13 of 19 newly elected states are rated as having closed or repressed civic space by the CIVICUS Monitor, our research initiative that tracks the conditions for civil society around the world. Only one, Estonia, has open civic space. Fourteen of the 20 candidates had been named as carrying out reprisals against people engaging with the UN.
In the run-up to the election, the International Service for Human Rights published scorecards assessing all 20 candidates against eight criteria; 12 of the 20 met none. Over 80 civil society organisations called on ECOSOC member states to hold competitive elections and vote for candidates committed to civil society access. Forty independent UN human rights experts, including special rapporteurs on human rights defenders and on countries including Afghanistan, Iran and Russia, issued a statement warning that Committee members were abusing the accreditation process to block access for human rights organisations. All these warnings went unheeded.
The withdrawal of accreditation from Il Cenacolo and CIRAC, which awaits ECOSOC confirmation, was unprecedented, but it sits within a long pattern of obstruction. At the Committee’s latest regular session in January, 618 applications were under consideration, 381 of which had been deferred from previous sessions.
The backlog is no accident. States ask repetitive questions about minor details and make short-notice requests for complex documentation to repeatedly delay applications until future sessions. States that repress civil society at home do the same in the international arena, targeting organisations that work on issues they deem controversial or opposed to their interests. Three states – China, India and Pakistan– stand out as the worst abusers of this mechanism, having asked almost half of the 647 questions posed to applicants during the January session. Repeated deferrals raise the costs for civil society organisations, draining financial resources and time.
The UN’s current financial crisis is compounding the problem. The consequences of funding cuts were visible at the latest session, when the question-and-answer session was cancelled following an early adjournment. The loss of the only opportunity for organisations seeking accreditation to engage directly with the Committee fell hardest on smaller organisations that had travelled to New York to take part.
The UN’s current cost-cutting drive could at least be used as an opportunity to push for online participation and other efficiency reforms to reduce the bureaucratic burden of repeated requests for information. Beyond this, there’s a need to reassert that the Committee’s function is supposed to be that of an enabler rather than an obstructor.
The NGO Committee determines whether the voices of communities facing repression and violence can be heard in the UN system, and it’s been hijacked by states with every interest in ensuring that they cannot. The floor can’t be left clear for states that repress civil society to act as gatekeepers. States that claim to support civil society must be willing to put themselves forward.
Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation.
For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org
SUVA, Fiji, May 4 2026 (IPS) - For generations, Pacific people have understood the ocean not as a resource but as identity, sustenance, and survival. Today, that relationship is being tested in ways science is only just beginning to fully capture.
For the first time in the region’s history, every Pacific Island country now has a clear, data-driven picture of what climate change will mean for its waters and its own Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
This shift marks more than just a scientific milestone. It is a turning point in how the Pacific can understand, manage, and defend its ocean in a rapidly changing climate.
From Regional Averages to National realities
The updated assessment, “Climate Change Implications for Fisheries and Aquaculture in the Pacific Island Region”, builds on a 14-year-old vulnerability study. But unlike its predecessor, this version moves beyond broad regional trends.
It goes deeper into country-specific realities.
In a region where ocean territories dwarf landmass, this matters. The Pacific controls around 27 million square kilometres of ocean, yet only about 2 percent of that is land. Fisheries are not just an industry – they are the backbone of economies, cultures, and food systems.
“This is quite amazing,” says SPC Climate Change Project Development Specialist Marie Lecomte, referring to the ability to assess climate impacts at the EEZ level. “The ocean is so big, and land masses are so tiny… it has always been very difficult to downscale ocean models to something meaningful for countries.”
Now, that gap is beginning to close.
Rising ocean temperatures and changing chemistry are reshaping marine ecosystems, impacting people’s livelihoods and national economies. Credit: Douglas Picacha/IPS
Why This Science Matters Now
For Pacific leaders, the climate crisis is not abstract. It is negotiated in global forums, defended in policy rooms, and lived daily in coastal communities.
Yet one persistent challenge has been the lack of evidence.
This report begins to change that.
It provides:
Updated scientific data on ocean conditions Country-level projections of fisheries decline A clearer understanding of how climate change cascades from ocean systems into economies and livelihoodsIn doing so, it transforms science into something actionable:
A diagnostic tool showing what lies ahead A planning guide for adaptation A negotiation tool for global advocacyFor a region often described as the moral voice of climate negotiations, this evidence adds weight to that voice.
The Pacific controls around 27 million square kilometres of ocean, yet only about 2 percent of that is land. Now each country in the region will have a data-driven picture of the effects of climate change in its waters. Credit: Francisco Blaha/SPC
What the Science Reveals
The findings are sobering.
Rising ocean temperatures and changing chemistry are already reshaping marine ecosystems. The report maps, with unprecedented clarity, a chain reaction: warming waters alter fish biology, leading to fish stocks’ decline, which will ultimately result in the impact on people’s livelihoods and national economies.
At the centre of this crisis are coastal ecosystems, i.e. coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds, the ecological foundations of Pacific fisheries.
These systems are under intense pressure from both climate change and human activity.
“For mangroves, they are also constrained by infrastructure development,” Lecomte explains. “If you build a new hotel, then you get rid of the mangrove.”
For scientists, the assessment Climate Change Implications for Fisheries and Aquaculture in the Pacific Island Region offers the most comprehensive dataset for policymakers and communities. Credit: John Nihahuasi/SPC
Across the Pacific, the risks are not evenly distributed.
Low-lying island nations, already facing sea-level rise and extreme weather, are doubly exposed. Their dependence on fisheries for food and income leaves little buffer against decline.
The consequences are stark:
Reduced food security Declining incomes Increased vulnerability of coastal communitiesYet even in this “doom and gloom” narrative, the report resists fatalism. Instead, it offers a framework for adaptation and resilience.
However, in the Pacific, the situation is not starting from zero.
For centuries, communities have managed fisheries through customary practices like tabu areas, seasonal closures, and community governance.
The report reinforces these approaches while introducing new strategies:
Climate-smart aquaculture Diversifying target species Improving value chains (earning more from less catch) Protecting and restoring coastal/blue ecosystemsIt also highlights a critical but often overlooked dimension, which is women’s contributions across fisheries and aquaculture systems, from harvesting to trade work that remain under-recognised despite their central role.
Science, Power, and the Politics of Survival
Perhaps the most powerful implication of the report lies beyond science — in politics.
Despite being one of the most climate-impacted sectors, fisheries are largely absent from global climate negotiations.
This is where the findings become more than a report. It becomes leverage.
With pre-COP discussions and COP31 on the horizon, Pacific countries now have something they have long needed.
“If Pacific delegations can come to pre-COP saying we have the latest science… and we all agree on how we want to act with the regional climate change strategy for coastal fisheries being pre-endorsed,” Lecomte says, “it’s a unique chance to showcase fisheries as part of the ocean–climate nexus.”
Beyond the Data: A Call to Act
This report does not just document change but also demands a response.
It bridges worlds:
Between science and storytelling Between policy and lived experience Between global negotiations and village shorelinesFor scientists, it offers the most comprehensive dataset yet when it comes to the Pacific and its EEZ; for policymakers, it is a roadmap; for communities, it is a validation of what they already know.
That the ocean is changing and so must we.
But in that change lies something powerful. For the first time, the Pacific is not just speaking from experience. It is speaking with scientific evidence.
IPS UN Bureau Report
KATHMANDU, Nepal, May 4 2026 (IPS) - Migration is a strange thing, hard to pin down. It is a complex phenomenon that transforms communities while shaping people’s identities and it is so multifaceted that individuals perceive it and live it in different ways.
It can turn to be a vehicle to security and prosperity for some but, on other hand, it can be also experienced with anguish and fear.
In short, migration is something personal that intimately affects both those settling into a new land and those communities that are supposed to co-exist with them.
A German’s state, Baden-Württembergwill soon will have its first state premier from Turkish origin, Cem Özdemir, a veteran green politician. In the past, Mr. Özdemir, according to DW report, has rejected the idea that he should be considered a “successful model of integration” because he always felt at home.
Özdemir’s unwillingness to be boxed into a fixed category of migrant contrasts those narratives that simplify and demean migration.
As we know, migration has been a toxic and divisive issue in many parts of the West, a dangerous problem that must be stopped at any cost. It is being portrayed through the lens of illegality as an open door that only invites violations of the law, including dangerous criminal activities.
While it is undeniable that security concerns can arise especially when there are massive flows of foreigners enter without papers into a new country, much less discussions are about the positive impact of migrants in the local economy.
But the level of politicization is so high that it ended up defining the whole issue. Migration has become something to be fixed, controlled in many parts of the Global North.
Such a framing ignores the fact that migration also occurs in large quantities also between developing nations and is not only about hordes of people from the Global South pushing their way into richer North.
It is unsurprising that the same logic also disregards the multiple and diverse “push factors” that bring individuals to migrate.
Poverty, discrimination and climate change are forcing millions of individuals to search for better places to live. This view has become so pervasive that it has delegitimized a different conversation, one based on exploring legal pathways to migration.
A different way of talking, discussing and regulating migration is possible.
The United Nations, over the last decades, have been trying to offer a venue to promote an approach leading to safe migration based on human rights, conducive, at least on paper, to a multilateralism centered governance of migration.
While far from being perfect, these mechanisms underpinning it, address migration in a way that goes past the deafening rhetoric that generally characterizes the debate on migration.
Because, as we know, migration if managed properly, taking into account the rights of migrants and bringing on board local communities in the destination countries with investment in social integration, instead offers a potent instrument to fight poverty while contributing to the economies of the Global North.
The International Migration Review Forum 2026 is one of these tools at the disposal of the UN to reframe the conversation about migration.
The United Nations in New York will host, from 5-8 May an essential conversation aimed at reviewing the Global Compact on Migration, GCM adopted on 19 December 2018.
Instead of being seen as an opportunity to reboot the conversation about immigration, this non-binding global blueprint, intended to offer a 360 degree approach to foster international cooperation to effectively and inclusively manage migration, ended up being instrumentalised by cunny politicians.
Since then, unfortunately the GCM has been overshadowed by the relentless politics of immigration based on the logic of “control” that has become more and more mainstream in the European Union and in the United States.
Making things more complicated is the fact that it is fitting for demagogues to conflate the issues of migrants with those of refugees. While these two categories often overlap, legally, they remain different concepts, a fact conveniently ignored by politicians.
It has not always been like this.
The international community, thanks also to a more favorable politics in the USA, on September 19, 2016, had successfully managed to create a united policy framework that would bring together both migration and the refugee’s related policies.
The New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants led the foundations not only to the Global Compact on Migration but also to another tool, the Global Compact on Refugees approved just two days before the GCM.
These are two examples of soft law designed to ignite international support and cooperation even if they were criticized as attempts by the Global North of watering down the international human rights framework.
Yet in order for them to remain useful without diluting the international obligations of nations, they must remain as close as possible in terms of implementation.
The central question is if they revitalize and re-balance the conversation on immigration and refugee protection with practical cooperation and synergies among nations.
I doubt that IMRF 2026 can do much to elevate a new discussion about migration and challenge the status quo. After all, GCM has been designed to be structurally weak in terms of its governance.
For example, there is no mandatory reporting for its signatories.
A silver lining in the GCM’s framework is the existence of the United Nations Network on Migration that “coordinates system-wide, timely and practical support to Member States implementing the GCM.
Yet this is the only mechanism where the international community can holistically discuss immigration. No matter how battered the United Nations are amid drastic funding cuts and ongoing discussions about its re-organization and restructuring, multilateralism is needed more than ever in the areas of migration and refugees.
Yet it appears that the UN is not fighting the fight at political levels.
Reading the Report of the Secretary General on the Global Compact on Migration, you do not find a strong, vigorous push back against the politics that tackle immigration as a problem to be controlled.
There is only a small section on Dispelling Misleading Narratives and you could have expected a more punchy style and more space to counterattack this mainstream narrative on migration based on fear.
Perhaps the “immigration as a problem” approach has already metastasized and, inevitably, it adversely influences and restrains the United Nations. The International Migration Organization, the guardian of the GCM, remains a marginal institution within the UN system.
The Office of the High Commissioner on Refugees faced substantial funding cuts and underwent in 2025 a profound restructuring despite its essential role in many humanitarian situations.
At least the former Higher Commissioner, Fillippo Grandi who stepped down at the end of 2025, did not mince his words in criticizing the ways many governments in the West have been dealing with immigration.
“Building walls, sending boats back, offloading refugees and migrants on to other countries –, populists assure voters that controlling everything from borders and immigration numbers to job markets and national security will make their lives better” he wrote for The Guardian in 2024
“Few political tactics succeed like fear. But I can also tell you such claims of control are illusory”. he continued. It is not only the USA which has embraced this tactics.
Civil society organizations across Europe have been recently criticizing the European Union for the way it is drafting its Return Directive that, once approved, would streamline the return of non-EU nationals staying irregularly, including those whose asylum requests have been denied.
Yet amid this gloom, there are some best practices emerging.
Local governments have an important role to play.
The Local Coalition for Migrants and Refugees is showing an interest model to promote a bottom approach to migration. Moreover, some countries are stepping up.
For example, in 2025, Brazil approved a National Plan on Refugees, Migrants and Stateless while Kenya also brought in a new policy that would positively impact the more than 830,000 refugees and asylum-seekers that are hosted in the country.
At the same time, Ecuador reached an important milestone in 2025 with its National Implementation Plan (NIP) of GCM. Similarly, Malawi has finalized its first National Implementation Plan on Migration.
It is too early to see if these plans will be enforced and a lot will depend on the availability of international funding. Despite the constraints, the IOM remains steadfast in its mission of protecting the rights of migrants.
In 2024 a new Strategic Plan that aims at saving lives and protecting people on the move, driving solutions to displacement and facilitating pathways for regular migration, was introduced.
In a world in which 8,000 migrants were officially reported dead or missing worldwide in 2025, bringing the total since 2014 to more than 82,000 and with 117.3 million people worldwide are forcibly displaced, the international communities cannot stay indifferent.
Let’s remind ourselves of the real power of the GCM.
This Global Compact does not only recognize that safe, orderly and regular migration works for all when it takes place in a well-informed, planned and consensual manner. It is also a tool that highlights the role of the international community in helping create conducive policies for individuals to be able to lead peaceful and productive lives in their home nations.
In short, migration should never be an act of desperation.
While there are individuals of migrant origins like Cem Özdemir who offer a glaring example of successful achievements that allow himself to openly reject a stereotyped categorization, there is a sea of vulnerabilities and deaths affecting millions of others who voluntarily or forcibly left their homes.
This is the reason why legal tools like the International Refugees Convention, this year in its 75th anniversary and more limited but potentially useful mechanisms like IMRF this coming week and next Global Refugee Forum (GRF) 2027, do matter and we should all pay attention to them.
Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.
IPS UN Bureau
NEW YORK, May 1 2026 (IPS) - “We choose hope because despair is a form of surrender that we cannot accept,” UN Ambassador to the Philippines, Enrique Manolo, told civil society representatives and the diplomatic community, considering the question of whether to pursue nuclear disarmament in a world that is becoming more polarized on the issue.
At an event hosted on the sidelines of the 2026 NPT Review Conference on April 30, Manolo and other speakers discussed efforts to reinvigorate momentum for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) by bringing hope into diplomatic dialogue and making the case for nuclear disarmament through the lens of the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.
The event was sponsored by Soka Gakkai International, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and the UN Permanent Missions of the Philippines and Kiribati.
In choosing to spotlight the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, this event highlighted an underreported perspective in the debate over nuclear weapons. During the general debate this week, UN member states have so far spoken about protecting and maintaining the NPT as longstanding proof of what multilateral actors can achieve under a unified vision for peace and security.
They reiterate the NPT as a cornerstone of the international disarmament regime. And yet, the current geopolitical climate and the systemic weakening of institutions are undermining the treaty’s foundational principles. It is, therefore, all the more crucial to see member states reaffirm their commitment to the NPT, and more broadly, to preserving international peace and security.
At present, however, much more has been said about how certain state parties to the NPT are honoring their obligations. Delegates from non-nuclear states have pointed out that nuclear powers have not sufficiently met their obligations to nonproliferation and are even considering expanding their nuclear capabilities, which would be in violation of the NPT.
SGI Choose Hope attendees. Credit: Naureen Hossain/IPS
The fallout of a nuclear detonation would have far-reaching consequences that would go beyond the point of impact, as several speakers noted in their remarks. There is the immediate aftermath of the devastation wrought on affected communities, from the destruction of their homes to the injuries and lifelong medical conditions.
Radiation exposure is an intergenerational curse, as second- and third-generation communities deal with chronic health issues as a result of it.
Hideto Matsuura, a hibakusha and the director of Nihon Hidankyo, testified to the fact. Matsuura was in his mother’s womb during the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in 1945, yet the exposure to the radiation from the womb left him reeling from the impact of nuclear weapons.
As director of Nihon Hidankyo, the Japanese hibakusha organization group, Matsuura has dedicated himself to spreading a message of peace and nuclear disarmament under the principle of “no more hibakusha.” He shared his mother’s story of living through the bombing and its immediate aftermath. He described those who died from burns and radiation poisoning within days of the bombing, but conditions were horrific for those who survived.
Panelists at the Choose Hope for Nuclear Deterrence side event. Credit: Naureen Hossain/IPS
As time passed, people reported serious medical issues and did not understand the root cause of the ailments they were suffering. Eighty years after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, hibakusha and their descendants continue to suffer from late-onset conditions such as cancer and leukemia. They also continue to share their stories with the international community to promote peace above all.
“Again, I raise my voice. Nuclear weapons and human beings are not able to exist together,” said Matsuura. “All nations please join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as soon as possible. Let’s achieve an immediate end to nuclear weapons and their eventual elimination. That’s why I came here today to work together with you.”
Pacific island states like Kiribati are also a case study of the impact of nuclear testing on communities. Though testing in the Pacific Ocean was conducted due to the relative isolation from the continents, island nations and their citizens were nonetheless affected by radiation exposure.
Certain areas, including those that are sacred to their cultures and traditions, remain uninhabitable to this day. Josephine Moote, the Charge d’Affaires of the UN Mission of Kiribati, remarked on the significance of nuclear justice in response to the aftermath of nuclear testing.
When discussing the impact of nuclear weapons, the disruptions to society and the environment cannot be overlooked.
Both Matsuura and Josefin Lund, Secretary General of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear Weapons Sweden (IPPNW), remarked on how radiation exposure affected pregnant women and their children thereafter.
Lund remarked how the healthcare systems collapsed in the wake of the bombings, as almost all the hospitals were destroyed and more than two-thirds of medical professionals were killed, meaning that survivors were left without sufficient care.
Furthermore, access to uncontaminated food and water became extremely limited, and with the destruction of infrastructure and hygiene standards, this bred conditions for diseases to spread rapidly. What this evidence demonstrates, Lund said, is how humans are “extremely vulnerable” to the effects of nuclear war.
“The nuclear weapons are not just tools of war. They are weapons of mass suffering. The effects cannot be controlled in time or space. They harm civilians… destroy healthcare systems, poison the environment, and leave lasting scars on humanity,” said Lund.
The threat of nuclear weapons also stands in the same nexus of another existential threat of our time: climate change. Conflict and the use of even conventional weapons can also cause devastation to the environment.
Beyond that, nuclear weapons and climate change are both what Andean DeVos, Outreach Coordinator for Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, called “threat multipliers.” Their impact “erodes the conditions needed to sustain peace and health” and “deepens the factors that cause instability.”
Climate change is a factor in mass migration and competition for scarce resources, which can drive instability and conflict, while the continued existence of nuclear weapons and the lack of progress in disarmament efforts threatens the NPT regime. DeVos further lamented a “crisis in priorities”: global spending for military activities, including nuclear expansion, had increased in recent years, when those resources could instead be invested in disarmament activities or transitioning away from fossil fuels.
Yet DeVos and other speakers reiterated that in such frustrating circumstances, people can take inspiration—and hope—from meetings like Thursday’s side event, where diverse perspectives are shared but united by a common belief in nuclear disarmament as the path to peace. Hope can be taken from the knowledge that more than half of UN member states are party to international treaties like the NPT and the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
SGI Tomohiko Aishima, Executive Director of SGI Peace Center, believes that peace education plays a crucial role in promoting disarmament and rejecting nuclear deterrence.
In educating people about the reality of a nuclear blast, deterrence loses its strategic potential and is instead exposed as an instrument that is “absolute in its inhumanity.”
Aishima urged the diplomats in the room who would soon return to the NPT Review Conference in UN Headquarters to heed the warnings of civil society and the hibakusha as they carry on their debate.
“Let the humanitarian impact guide your policy. Together, let us reject the illusion of deterrence; let us choose human security. Let us choose hope.”
Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.
IPS UN Bureau Report