The Human Consciousness Now...Our World in the Midst of Becoming...to What? Observe, contemplate Now.
PRETORIA, Dec 4 2025 (IPS) - Nature is a double-edged sword for global business. A groundbreaking report will reveal how businesses profit from exploiting natural resources while simultaneously impacting biodiversity.
An incisive scientific assessment, the Business and Biodiversity Report, set to be released by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) probes the impact and dependence of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.
Business and Biodiversity
This report, the first of its kind, examines the ways in which business benefits from nature and the ways in which global business operations impact nature. Representatives from 152 member governments are expected to approve it at the IPBES’ 12th Plenary session in the United Kingdom in February 2026.
Speaking at a media briefing ahead of the report launch, IPBES Executive Secretary Luthando Dziba said the assessment was commissioned by member governments for them to understand global business relationships with biodiversity. The report is to strengthen the knowledge to support the efforts of global businesses that are dependent on biodiversity and that also impact biodiversity.
“Biodiversity decline also represents a major risk for businesses,” Dziba said, highlighting that there are huge economic risks associated with biodiversity, whose loss is ranked among the top 10 global risks to business.
Dziba noted that the report is set to help businesses understand and measure how they depend on as well as how they impact biodiversity, which can determine actions they take to reduce their impacts on nature.
“Governments have an interest in understanding how other sectors impact biodiversity but also how they depend on biodiversity,” Dziba said. “Considering the unprecedented rates at which biodiversity is declining, this should hopefully be a wake-up call that presents significant risks, for instance, for businesses if biodiversity that they depend on is in such a dire state.”
Governments can design policies and regulations to create an enabling environment for companies to act sustainably by understanding how businesses benefit from and affect biodiversity, according to Dziba.
IPBES, an independent intergovernmental body established to strengthen the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services, had published several scientific assessments over the years. The assessments have provided policymakers with up-to-date knowledge on the current situation and challenges relating to nature, biodiversity, and nature’s contributions to people.
Biodiversity Loss: a Loss to Business
IPBES’ seminal publication, the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, released in 2019, found that 1 million animal and plant species are threatened with extinction, many within decades. Changes in land and sea use, direct exploitation of organisms, climate change pollution, and invasive alien species are the leading causes of changes in nature.
Nature provides several ecosystem services, like pollination, water purification, climate regulation, and raw materials for business, which make trillions of dollars in value globally. At the same time, global businesses have a negative impact on nature through mining, agriculture production, manufacturing, and gas and oil exploration.
The World Economic Forum has warned that 50 percent of the global economy is threatened by biodiversity loss, calling for a radical change from destructive human activity to a nature-positive economy.
The World Economic Forum’s New Nature Economy Report II, warns about the risks of destroying nature, stating that “USD 44 trillion of economic value generation—over half the world’s total GDP—is potentially at risk as a result of the dependence of business on nature and its services.”
The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2022 ranked biodiversity loss as the third most severe threat humanity will face in the next decade.
In 2024, IPBES launched two reports that highlighted the importance of tackling the biodiversity crisis to unlock business and innovation opportunities. Swift action on protecting biodiversity could generate USD 10 trillion and support over 390 million jobs by 2030, according to IPBES. Failing to act on climate change adds at least USD 500 billion a year in more costs to achieving biodiversity goals.
IPS UN Bureau Report
Regional leaders say the outcome of the ‘mixed bag’ climate talks once again overlooks the real and mounting threats faced by Caribbean countries.
CLERMONT-FERRAND, France, Dec 4 2025 (IPS) - During the Global Development Conference 2025, development experts and researchers kept warning that low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were being pushed into a wave of digital transformation without the basic statistical systems, institutional capacity, and local context needed to ensure that AI and digital tools truly benefited the poor.
Among the prominent voices shaping this conversation were Dr. Johannes Jütting, Executive Head of the PARIS21 Secretariat at the OECD, and development economist Johanna Choumert-Nkolo, who has over 15 years of research and evaluation experience. IPS interviewed both Jutting and Choumert-Nkolo following the conference, which concluded about five weeks ago, about the issues surrounding digitalization in LMICs. Following is the summary of their responses.
How is Data the Weakest Link?
Much of the conversation around AI’s potential in the Global South centers on the promise of improved governance. But for Jutting, whose organization has been working on AI and data, there is a widening gap between the capacities of countries in the Global North and those in the Global South.
AI, he said, offers enormous potential. “For lower-income countries in particular, the production side is promising because AI can reduce the very high costs of traditional data collection. By combining geospatial data with machine learning, for instance, we can generate more granular and more timely data for policymaking, including identifying where poor populations live,” Jutting told IPS.
“But real challenges remain. Many low-income countries lack the fundamental conditions required to make use of AI. First, connectivity: without it, there is no practical AI application. Second, technical infrastructure such as data centers and reliable data transmission. Third, human capacity and skills, which require sustained investment. And fourth, governance and legal frameworks that must be updated to reflect new technologies,” he said.
There are also clear risks, particularly concerning confidentiality, privacy, and the fact that most large AI models are trained on data from the Global North, he told IPS and added that this creates potential biases and limits their usefulness for national statistical offices in the Global South.
Data collection processes, such as censuses and household surveys, are expensive, slow, and operationally difficult. According to him, many national statistical offices lack the workforce, training, and budget needed to maintain regular, reliable data production.
The challenge, he emphasized, is not simply technological.
“Digital transformation is not just a technology issue. It is a change management issue, a capacity development issue, a skills issue, and a political will issue.”
Dr. Johannes Jütting, second from right, speaking during a panel discussion at the Global Development Conference 2025 in Clermont-Ferrand, France. Credit: Athar Parvaiz/IPS
Divide Within the Global South and Fiscal Constraints
While global debates often frame digital inequality as a problem between rich and poor nations, Jütting believes the more serious divide is emerging within the Global South itself. He argues that some LMICs are sprinting ahead while others fall further behind, a divergence he calls “one of the most worrying trends in development today.”
“What I see is a divide inside the Global South,” he said. “Countries like Rwanda, Kenya, the Philippines and Colombia are advanced—sometimes more advanced than OECD members. But others like Mali, Niger, and several small island states, are completely left behind.”
This divide is not only visible in connectivity and infrastructure but also in institutional readiness, technological skills and even access to basic demographic data. In some countries, he said, governments still lack reliable records of how many people are born each year or how many people live within their borders.
“How can we talk about fancy AI models when basic population data is missing?” he asked. “We have to start with the fundamentals.”
He also cautioned that development agencies may inadvertently widen this divide by focusing on “low-hanging fruits” that yield quick, measurable results, instead of supporting long-term system-building in fragile countries.
“There is donor fatigue, and funding is shrinking,” he said.
So, how do we move forward? First, Jutting said, every country needs a strong national strategy for the development of statistics (NSDS). This strategy must be fully aligned with national development plans, he said and added that only then can we ensure financing is efficient, coordinated, and aligned with country needs as well as international monitoring requirements, such as the SDGs or Africa’s Agenda 2063.
“Second, viable financing models will require greater domestic resource mobilization. Governments must be convinced to invest in their own data systems—and this requires demonstrating tangible impact.”
And third, he said, donors need to align their spending more effectively. “Our recent work on gender data financing shows a major disconnect: while gender equality funding is increasing, funding for gender data is not. This mismatch risks wasting money and undermining progress.”
He believes that there has to be a change on both fronts: national governments must allocate more domestic resources, and donors must invest in data in a more strategic, coherent, and results-oriented way.
Complexity of Measuring Digital Impacts
While Jütting focused on institutions and governance, Choumert-NKolo approached digitalization through the lens of climate resilience, human behaviour and evidence generation. Unlike many policy conversations that foreground tools and technologies, she emphasized the complexity of understanding real-world impacts.
“Digitalization is reshaping economies at a very fast pace,” she told IPS. “From a climate perspective, we need to understand what this means, both in terms of opportunities and risks.”
Her main concern is the long-term and layered nature of digital impacts. A digital tool deployed today may influence decisions in ways that take years to fully materialize.
“You never know how a tool will be used until people start making decisions with it,” she said. “Understanding behavioural change is complex, and attribution to one digital tool is extremely difficult.”
Despite these challenges, she emphasized that digital tools have significant potential to support climate adaptation. Farmers facing unpredictable weather patterns can benefit from climate information services delivered through mobile platforms. Communities vulnerable to storms or floods can receive alerts even through basic SMS networks. Such tools, she said, can save lives.
But she urged caution in assuming digital tools are universally accessible or understood.
“We must remember that not everyone can read or act on digital messages,” she said. “Literacy and accessibility gaps remain large in many countries.”
Her research experience in East Africa reinforced the importance of context. Mobile money, she said, became a major success story precisely because it solved local problems and fit local cultural and economic realities. But not every challenge requires a digital solution.
“Sometimes nature-based or low-cost solutions work better. The key is context. We must understand what problem we are trying to solve and whether digital tools are the right fit.”
She believes the way forward lies in identifying local needs, drawing from existing evidence and piloting new solutions where knowledge gaps remain. “There is a lot of hype around digitalization,” she said. “We need more comparative evidence on what works best in each setting.”
A Future That Must Be Shaped Carefully
One theme emerged with clarity from both experts: Digital transformation can support inclusive development, but only if countries invest in strengthening their statistical systems, building institutional capacity and grounding innovation in local realities.
“We need more and better data for better lives,” Jütting said. “But we must ensure the poorest countries are not left behind in this digital wave.”
Choumert-NKolo echoed that sentiment. “Digital tools offer huge opportunities,” she said. “But they must be rooted in context, evidence and local needs.”
For LMICs navigating the uncertainties of climate change, economic pressures and technological disruption, these warnings are timely. Digital transformation can be a powerful equalizer—or a new source of exclusion. The difference, experts said, will depend on whether governments and development partners prioritize the foundations that make digital inclusion truly possible.
“Travel (for reporting this story) to the Global Development Conference was supported by GlobalDev, the research communications platform of the Global Development Network (GDN). The 2026 Global Development Conference was organized in partnership with other members of the Pôle clermontois de développement international (PCDI)—Foundation for Studies and Research on International Development (FERDI) and Centre for International Development Studies and Research (CERDI). Reporting and research remain independent.”IPS UN Bureau Report
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 4 2025 (IPS) - For seventy-eight years, the question of Palestine has been on the agenda of this General Assembly, almost as long as the institution itself.
Resolution 181 (II) was adopted by the General Assembly on November 29 1947 – laying the foundation for the Two State Solution and calling for the establishment of both an Arab State and a Jewish State in Palestine.
But while the Jewish State, the State of Israel, is a recognized Member State of the United Nations, the Arab State, the State of Palestine, is not.
Seventy-eight years later, Palestine has still not been admitted to the UN as a full Member.
For 78 years the Palestinian people have been denied their inalienable rights – in particular, their right to self-determination. Now, it is high time that we take decisive action to end this decades-long stalemate.
The atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7th set off one of the darkest chapters in this conflict. Two years of war in Gaza have left tens of thousands of civilians killed, including many women and children. Countless more have been injured, maimed, and traumatized for life.
Communities are starving; civilian infrastructure is in ruins; almost the entire population is displaced. Children, mothers, fathers, families like us.
The hostages who have been finally released and reunited with their loved ones are slowly recovering from captivity under extremely dire conditions, while other families are mourning over the returned bodies. Again, children, fathers, mothers, families like us.
And while the horrors of Gaza have dominated the news for two years, settlement expansion, demolitions and increased settler violence in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem continue to undermine the prospects for a sovereign, independent, contiguous and viable Palestinian state.
Palestinian communities are bifurcated by the rapid expansion of settlements. Movement, communication and access to essential services and livelihoods are severely restricted for Palestinians by checkpoints, confiscations and demolitions.
While in my previous capacity, I visited a small village in the West Bank to actually meet with Palestinian farmers and teachers who wanted to show me what settlement expansion and settler violence meant for their daily lives.
As we stood on a hillside overlooking their farmland, a drone from an Israeli settlement began hovering above us, circling in the air, monitoring what we were doing and probably saying.
We know what happens when foreign people and cameras are no longer there. It’s not just a drone watching; it’s outright violence, including farmers being attacked as they try to go to work, as they try to harvest.
Beyond the violence itself are the daily indignities confronting the residents of the West Bank, including children getting to school or thousands of pregnant women rushing to hospital to receive care or give birth, only to be stopped at checkpoints or by road closures.
All that has happened in the last two years has all underlined what we have known since decades. The Israeli–Palestinian conflict cannot be resolved through illegal occupation, de jure or de facto annexation, forced displacement, recurrent terror or permanent war.
This only adds to grievances and fuels the flames of conflict.
Israelis and Palestinians will only live in lasting peace, security, and dignity when they live side by side in two sovereign and independent states, with mutually recognized borders and full regional integration –
As outlined in the New York Declaration, which is indeed a ray of hope, and the adoption of Resolution 2803 in which the Security Council endorsed the “Comprehensive Plan to End the Conflict in Gaza”.
We see unfortunately again on a daily basis that these are only words on paper if we do not deliver. We need to ensure that the ceasefire is consolidated and becomes a permanent end to hostilities. Since this ceasefire at least 67 children have been killed; and again, we see children being left without parents, or left in the rubble.
This has to end.
And as we brace for the increasing cold in New York ourselves, imagine what winter means for the people of Gaza: tents collapsing under rain, families shivering without shelter, children facing the night with nothing but thin fabric between them and the wind, and countless people still going to sleep hungry.
If we want to live up to our commitments, we need humanitarian agencies, on the ground without hindrance and without excuse.
And we need to ensure that humanitarian aid is delivered throughout all Gaza in a full, safe, unconditional and unhindered manner, in full accordance with international humanitarian law and humanitarian principles. And this includes delivery through UNRWA.
And as outlined in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of Israel in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, allowing UNRWA to fulfil its mandate and continue operations there is not merely a gesture of goodwill, it is a legal obligation.
Both the General Assembly and the Security Council have been consistent on the parameters that must guide any peaceful resolution of the conflict. So, we know what we have to do.
These parameters are again reiterated in the draft resolution before this Assembly today, relating to the New York Declaration, which was endorsed by a vast majority of Member States, and identified a comprehensive and actionable framework including tangible, timebound and irreversible steps for the implementation of the Two-State-Solution, in particular that resolution underlined that Gaza must be unified with the West Bank. There must be no occupation, siege, territorial reduction, or forced displacement.
It underlines that Hamas must end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority.
It makes clear that the Palestinian Authority must continue implementing its credible reform agenda focusing on good governance, transparency, fiscal sustainability, fight against incitement and hate speeches, service provision, business climate and development.
And it calls on the Israeli leadership to immediately end violence and incitement against Palestinians, and immediately halt all settlement, land grabs and annexation activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. It makes clear that it has to end the violence of the settlers.
As diplomats we all know this is hard diplomatic work. And therefore , I want to be frank and clear.
The quest for peace, stability and justice in the Middle East needs our United Nations. It needs this Assembly to play a meaningful role.
It requires every Member State to walk the talk: to engage in this process, to uphold the United Nations Charter, to adhere to international law, and the promise this institution made to all the people of the world eighty years ago.
Let us recall once more: self-determination, and the right to live in one’s own state in peace, security, and dignity, free from war, occupation and violence, is not a privilege to be earned, but a right to be upheld.
IPS UN Bureau
Excerpt:
Annalena Baerbock In her address as President of the UN General Assembly
SRINAGAR, Dec 4 2025 (IPS) - “I see more philanthropic support aligning with systems thinking, linking climate stability, biodiversity protection, Indigenous leadership, and community resilience,” says Michael Northrop, Program Director at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
In an interview with Inter Press Service (IPS), he says funding is increasingly moving beyond isolated interventions and siloed approaches. The intersection between climate, nature, and Indigenous rights can be considered together. He sees philanthropy moving in that direction, and the momentum is growing.
Northrop is particularly excited about the recent COP30 Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) announcement. Over the past two years, the Fund has backed the facility while in its development stages. TFFF targets the protection of 1.2 billion hectares of tropical rainforests across more than 70 low- and middle-income countries.
The TFFF was launched during COP 30 with USD 5.5 billion in commitments from sponsor countries, strong endorsements from 53 countries, and plans for delivery. It has a long-term goal of raising about USD 125 billion.
All-in-one Solution
He calls it a nature solution, a climate solution, an Indigenous peoples and local communities solution, and an economic development solution, all in one.
“The Brazilian government raised almost USD 7 billion in early contributions. They aim to secure another USD 15 billion from governments over the next 12 to 18 months, then attract USD 100 billion in private investment. This structure focuses on investment instead of grants or loans. Countries will get paid per hectare of standing forest they conserve,” Northrop told IPS.
Northrop sees this initiative as a major departure from traditional models. It rewards protection instead of exploitation and avoids burdening countries with increased debt.
He appreciates Brazil’s leadership in promoting this initiative, stating that the RBF has been working with Brazilians and other nations for nearly two years. “The current challenge is moving from concept to a mature investment mechanism that can finance forest protection at scale.”
Indigenous peoples and local communities already protect nature more effectively than any other model, he says.
“Half of the world’s remaining intact forests are within Indigenous territories. Almost 45 percent of global biodiversity exists within those lands, although formal recognition of land rights often lags. In regions such as the Amazon, the Congo Basin, and Southeast Asia, granting tenure to indigenous communities has helped protect forests, marine resources, and ways of life.”
Michael Northrop, Program Director at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, in a remote Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest. Photo: Supplied
He emphasizes that when giving sovereignty and governance responsibilities to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), they do not require extensive external resources.
“They need safety, legal recognition, and the freedom to live on and defend their lands. This is a powerful message that is now understood more widely.”
Single Lens Needed to Tackle Multiple Issues
One of the greatest obstacles, according to Northrop, lies in the way global systems compartmentalize climate, nature, and indigenous issues. Climate change, he says, is treated through one lens, biodiversity through another, and Indigenous rights through yet another.
These areas are interdependent but managed separately. Negotiators at UN climate summits differ from those at biodiversity forums. They often belong to different ministries, speak different scientific languages, and focus on different priorities. As a result, policy responses malfunction.”
Northrop believes the disconnect reflects human cognitive limits.
“Most people cannot think deeply about these big systems all at once. Yet he notes progress in recognizing connections, supported through the powerful visual mapping of these connections that Earth Insight did before COP30. He believes accessible visuals help experts see the interdependencies more effectively.
The fund uses field visits to identify partners. Northrop says the institution does not have a big staff, so it relies on travel and direct engagement. The Fund looks for people who think on a large scale and design strategies to solve complex problems. Reviewing paper proposals alone is insufficient. He says real understanding comes from meeting people, seeing their environments, and learning what drives them.
There are enormous numbers of positive examples of effective philanthropy, but even with these, the overall volume of the work is insufficient. He notes a generational shift in the sector that contributes to current impact.
“Earlier, philanthropic institutions often hired academics without social change and policy change experience. Today, staff are increasingly drawn from social movements, campaign organizations, and policy implementation roles.”
He finds this shift encouraging.
Michael Northrop, Program Director at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), inspects oil pipelines in the Ecuadorian Amazon. RBF stresses that Indigenous peoples and local communities already protect nature more effectively than any other model. Photo: Supplied
Still, philanthropy cannot substitute for strong governance and policy. He points to worrying trends in the United States, where decisions that protected social and environmental systems are being reversed. He insists progress depends on government action alongside philanthropic support. Both are needed.
At COP30, Northrop notes a split in approaches among countries. “A large number wanted to phase out fossil fuels and halt deforestation. Others, including major oil-producing nations, continue to push for extraction. The world has already crossed the threshold for burning new fossil fuel reserves if it hopes to protect the planet.”
Unfortunately there is also continued pressure to industrialize forest landscapes through oil, mining, logging, and agriculture.
Fossil Fuel Phase-Out Efforts
Northrop expects philanthropy will support the 80 countries that have committed to a fossil fuel phase-out. This approach may need adoption outside the formal COP mechanisms, given the split in Belém. He also expects strong philanthropic engagement to support efforts to end deforestation.
He would like to see immediate action on phasing out fossil fuels and ending deforestation. He says the world cannot wait.
The link between forest protection and fossil fuel restraint is direct. Extraction becomes more difficult if forest areas are left intact. Keeping reserves in the ground helps safeguard forests. Northrop believes strategies must be aligned.
He sees growing collaboration among philanthropic groups focused on nature and climate—a new and expanding trend—which must continue because neither philanthropy nor policy can solve these issues alone. Both must work together with civil society and indigenous communities.
Northrop is clear about the biggest challenge for climate philanthropy—achieving scale. Philanthropy alone cannot deliver transformation at the necessary magnitude. Only policy can. Philanthropy must help develop and support strong policy and governance to scale systemic change.
His personal motivation, which developed early in life, continues to drive him. He says he’s fortunate to have met so many mission-driven people throughout his four decades of work on nature, climate, and development. He has deep respect for how social change agents’ minds work. What keeps him going, he says, is listening. He tries to understand what people are doing and what inspires them. He credits individuals who have driven major changes in the environmental, health, and education systems for inspiring his work.
Northrop believes there is more philanthropy today and that more players think globally. He welcomes new actors with practical experience in change-making. He warns that philanthropic support must be backed by stable national and international policy.
“The coming months will test whether the Tropical Forest Forever Facility advances beyond the pilot stage. If it succeeds, it could become one of the most significant efforts yet devised to reward protection instead of destruction.”
IPS UN Bureau Report
Excerpt:
Michael Northrop, Program Director at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, says the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, announced at COP30, is an all-in-one nature, climate, Indigenous peoples, local communities and economic development solution.
NAIROBI, Kenya, Dec 3 2025 (IPS) - As geopolitical challenges and tensions escalate globally, one thing is clear: fragmented politics will not fix a fractured planet. This is why the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) – the world’s highest decision-making body on the environment – is so critical to address our shared and emerging environmental threats.
The seventh session of the Assembly, taking place at the headquarters of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in Nairobi, Kenya, next month, will bring together ministers, intergovernmental organizations, multilateral environmental agreements, the broader UN system, civil society groups, scientists, activists and the private sector to shape global environmental policy.
Inger Andersen
Credit: UNEP/Natasha Sweeney
Even in turbulent times, environmental multilateralism continues to deliver. Since countries met at UNEA last year, this multilateralism has delivered important progress.
Governments agreed to establish the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution – finally completing the “trifecta” of science bodies alongside the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The BBNJ Agreement on the sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction came into force, a major win for the governance of our oceans.
Importantly, during such a challenging political climate, the Paris Agreement is showing that it is working. However, it is clear we need to move much faster with greater determination. But change is afoot: The global shift to low-emission and climate resilient development is irreversible. Renewable energy is outcompeting fossil fuels pricewise. Climate smart investments are driving tomorrow’s vibrant economies and societies.
While we must recognize that many were hoping COP30 would include explicit reference to phasing out fossil fuels in the decision text, this was not to be. However, the COP President committed to creating two roadmaps during his one-year tenure, one to halt and reverse deforestation and another to transition away from fossil fuels – a move that was backed by more than 80 countries during the talks.
These are not small steps – nor are they enough to address the threats we face in full. But they do reinforce that multilateralism can still bring science and policy together to address our global challenges.
Of course, progress is not always straight forward. Since UNEA’s historic resolution in 2022 on a legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, negotiations have continued to advance. While we do not yet have a full treaty text agreed, the latest talks in Geneva earlier this year made hard fought progress and countries remain at the table, sustaining momentum toward an agreement that ends plastic pollution once and for all.
This year, under the theme “Advancing sustainable solutions for a resilient planet,” UNEA will build on these wins to set the stage for even greater progress.
The seventh edition of UNEP’s flagship report, the Global Environmental Outlook, will be key to informing how we deliver this future. Released during UNEA, the report will help move us beyond diagnoses of our common challenges to identifying real solutions across five interconnected areas: economics and finance; circularity and waste; environment; energy; and food systems. Drawing on contributions from hundreds of experts worldwide, the Outlook will help countries prioritize the most effective solutions to deliver our global goals.
To deliver at the speed and scale required, the United Nations system must act together – with the full family of Multilateral Environmental Agreements coming together to support countries. UNEP is proud to host 17 conventions and panels that span the environmental spectrum, from toxic chemicals to protection of the ozone layer. Bringing this family of agreements closer together offers opportunities to better align priorities.
This is why UNEA will put a central focus on how these agreements can better work together for accelerated, more targeted support to countries as they implement commitments. Because action on climate is action on biodiversity and land; because action on land is action on climate; because action on chemicals, pollution and waste is action on nature and on climate.
Inaction now carries a clearer cost than ever. At UNEA-7 in Nairobi – the environmental capital of the world – the “Nairobi Spirit” can convert shared challenges into shared action and, ultimately, shared prosperity on a safe, resilient planet that benefits all.
IPS UN Bureau
Excerpt:
Inger Andersen is Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Dec 2 2025 (IPS) - In a Truth Social post that reverberated around the world, on October 29 President Donald Trump wrote: “Because of other countries’ testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.”
A month later, it remains unclear what “testing programs” Trump had in mind. Other than North Korea, which last tested in 2017, no country has carried out nuclear-explosive testing since 1998.
Some commentators speculated that Trump was referring to tests of nuclear weapons delivery systems, since Russia had just carried out tests of innovative systems, a long-range torpedo and a nuclear-powered cruise missile.
Perhaps to underline that the United States too tests delivery systems, in an unusual November 13 press release Sandia National Laboratories announced an August test in which an F-35 aircraft dropped inert nuclear bombs.
It appears, though, that the testing in question concerns nuclear warheads. In what was clearly an effort to contain the implications of Trump’s announcement, on November 2, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said regarding US plans that “I think the tests we’re talking about right now” involve “noncritical” rather than “nuclear” explosions. The Energy Department is responsible for development and maintenance of the nuclear arsenal.
In contrast, Trump’s remarks in an interview taped on October 31 point toward alleged underground nuclear-explosive testing by Russia, China, and other countries as the basis for parallel US testing. His remarks perhaps were sparked by years-old US intelligence assessments that Russia and China may have conducted extremely low-yield experiments that cannot be detected remotely.
The prudent approach is to assume that Trump is talking about a US return to nuclear-explosive testing. That assumption is reinforced by the fact that a few days after Trump’s social media post, the United States was the sole country to vote against a UN General Assembly resolution supporting the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).
The Russian government is taking this approach. On November 5, President Vladimir Putin ordered relevant agencies to study the possible start of preparations for explosive testing of nuclear warheads.
US resumption of nuclear-explosive testing would be a disastrous policy. It would elevate the role of nuclear arms in international affairs, making nuclear conflict more likely. Indeed, nuclear tests can function as a kind of threat.
It likely would also stimulate and facilitate nuclear arms racing already underway among the United States, Russia, and China. Over the longer term nuclear-explosive testing would encourage additional countries to acquire nuclear weapons, as they come to terms with deeper reliance on nuclear arms by the major powers.
Resumption of nuclear test explosions would also be contrary to US international obligations. The United States and China have signed but not ratified the CTBT. Russia is in the same position, having withdrawn its ratification in 2023 to maintain parity with the United States. Due to the lack of necessary ratifications, the CTBT has not entered into force. Since the CTBT was negotiated in 1996, the three countries have observed a moratorium on nuclear-explosive testing.
That posture is consistent with the international law obligation, set forth in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, of a signatory state to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty.
The object and purpose of the CTBT is perfectly clear: to prevent and prohibit the carrying out of a nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.
The CTBT is a major multilateral agreement with an active implementing organization that operates a multi-faceted world-wide system to verify the testing prohibition. It stands as a precedent for a future global agreement or agreements that would control fissile materials used to make nuclear weapons, control missiles and other delivery systems, and reduce and eliminate nuclear arsenals.
The sidelining or evisceration of the CTBT due to an outbreak of nuclear-explosive testing would reverse decades of progress towards establishing a nuclear-weapons-free world.
A return to nuclear-explosive testing would similarly be incompatible with compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Its Article VI requires the negotiation of “cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date.”
Nuclear-explosive testing has long been understood as a driver of nuclear arms racing. The preamble to the NPT recalls the determination expressed in the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits above-ground nuclear tests, “to seek to achieve the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time and to continue negotiations to this end.”
In 1995, as part of a package enabling the NPT’s indefinite extension, a review conference committed to completion of negotiations on the CTBT by 1996, which was accomplished. In 2000 and 2010, review conferences called for bringing the CTBT into force.
To resume nuclear-explosive testing though a comprehensive ban has been negotiated, and to support design and development of nuclear weapons through such testing, would be a thoroughgoing repudiation of a key aim of the NPT, the cessation of the nuclear arms race.
That would erode the legitimacy of the NPT, which since 1970 has served as an important barrier to the spread of nuclear arms. The next review conference will be held in the spring of 2026. Resumption of nuclear-explosive testing, or intensified preparations to do so, would severely undermine any prospect of an agreed outcome.
It is imperative that the United States not resume explosive testing of nuclear weapons. It would be a very hard blow to the web of agreements and norms that limit nuclear arms and lay the groundwork for their elimination, and it could even lead toward the truly catastrophic consequences of a nuclear conflict.
IPS UN Bureau
Excerpt:
Dr John Burroughs is Senior Analyst, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear PolicyKATHMANDU, Nepal, Dec 2 2025 (IPS) - This coming International Volunteer Day (IVD), celebrated every year on 5 December, is special because the United Nations will launch the International Volunteer Year 2026 or IVY 2026.
This is going to be a great opportunity to re-set the global agenda of volunteerism, one of the most important tools to promote civic engagement, the bedrock of our societies.
Civic engagement, expressed through volunteerism, can make local communities more inclusive and people centered.
Because volunteerism in essence is by the people, for the people and with the people, is not just a tool but it is a catalyst for meaningful human-to-human experiences.
If it can be designed, planned and managed properly including investing in the people that are engaged in it and driving it, volunteerism provides unique opportunities to grow and become better human beings.
In an era in which artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly evolving and challenging some of the most foundational aspects of our lives, volunteerism could offer a new meaning, new ground to forge connections by helping others.
“In an era of political division and social isolation, volunteering offers a powerful way to forge connections and foster our shared humanity” shares UN Secretary-General António Guterres in his official message for this year’s IVD.
Yet, almost inexplicably, volunteerism struggles to be recognized for its vital role and for the functions it plays in our lives. Volunteerism should be something that can really rally people together, a glue that can help with re-establishing connections with others.
In short, volunteerism is a precious, universal unifying element in our lives. Unfortunately, we are still unable to, not only upholding its values on a daily basis but we are also far we far from practicing it, truly making it an inextricable part of our being. After all, there is a common understanding that policy makers around the world have more serious things to deal with.
Instead of considering volunteering as something transformational, it is just seen as something nice while instead it should be at the core of any serious policy promoting social cohesiveness, something that should be a priority for any government.
But will IVY mark a turnaround? Will this special initiative really make a difference? Will IVY then be embraced by leaders in a tokenistic way as normally happens or will be there a serious effort to center volunteering as a key enabler of local wellbeing and prosperity?
These might sound as rhetorical questions that can be easily shrugged off and dismissed because there are more important issues to be worried about.
UNV, the United Nations program that is formally part of UNDP, has a unique role in boosting volunteerism around the world.
I have personally a great admiration for this organization but unfortunately, it falls short of the urgent priority to turbo-charge volunteerism, spreading it, mainstreaming it. At the end I do believe that UNV is failing in what it is its central mission.
Recently I came across a post on LinkedIn about how the government of Uzbekistan is stepping up its support for UNV. This should be great news because for too long, the agency was seen as too westernized, too much modeled to reflect only a certain and partial version of promoting and practicing volunteerism.
I do recognize and praise UNV’s efforts to change and embrace a more diverse strategic outlook and engage with emerging economies, new nations like Uzbekistan.
But as I was going through the post, I immediately felt that this new type of engagement was as much as promoting volunteerism but also about strategically building a pipeline of future UN staff from the Central Asian nation.
Because UNV has always been an entry door to join the ranks of the United Nations system and this is something that always bothered me. I never understood why this agency should promote what are in practice full time jobs that have, basically, nothing to do with volunteerism and are more similar to professional internship or fellowships that, in essence, offer cheaper manpower comparatively to the UN’s pay standards.
To me, this approach does not make sense. Then why do not we entrust UNOPS, the operational arm of the UN with the tasks of running schemes that can offer tangible opportunities to those youths who dream of joining the UN?
I am aware that the UN is undergoing a drastic overhaul. I am concerned about it but I also see this process, driven by immense aid cuts by the American and other administrations, as a chance to redeem the UN as a more effective development force.
I do not know what will happen to UNV. I do appreciate and value the part of the agency that tries to elevate volunteerism in the policy making processes around the world.
This coming IVY could offer a great platform to better promote, pitch volunteerism around the world.
A new edition of The State of the World’s Volunteerism Report, a massive global undertaking, will also be unveiled. With the new global report, a new Framework for the Global Volunteer Index will also be launched, an undertaking led by the University of Pretoria.
Having more data, more parameters and indicators to measure, assess the numbers of volunteers around the world and importantly, their impact, is essential.
In this type of tasks, UNV has developed a unique degree of expertise and it can really exercise the best of the convening powers that the United Nations have been famed for.
In the eventuality of any restructuring, this component of UNV must be not only protected and safeguarded but it must also be boosted. Perhaps UNV needs to shed itself of the outsourcing and onboarding functions it ended up assuming.
They were not supposed to become so central in the agency’s identity but they became the most important, budget wise, component of the agency. Either another agency takes up these responsibilities or UNV can fully separate such functions from its core business agenda.
An autonomous, semi-independent function could operate as it is already working now but it should be sealed off from other dimensions.
This would constitute a semi spin-off of the operation of placing full time United Nations Volunteers (UNV Volunteers) in UN Agencies, a task that is deemed strategically important for many nations as the case of Uzbekistan I ran into tells us.
In envisioning such restructuring, each government willing to sponsor its UNV volunteers, should be charged an additional budget item that could be directed to support the core functions of UNV.
I still imagine UNV running volunteering schemes around the world but these should be part time and only in partnership with civil society. The current model of UNV Volunteers should be re-branded and decontextualized from any association with volunteerism.
The reason for this is simple: these promising young professionals, all well-meaning and well-motivated, are not volunteers nor they are not engaged in any volunteerism centered activity.
If UNV wants to still facilitate and deploy full time volunteers, then, the model being championed by VSO, centered on partnership with local organizations and offering small living stipends to its volunteers, should be considered.
This year’s theme of IVD is “Every Contribution Matters”.
A new and different UNV, more grounded, more agile and closer to local communities and civil society organizations, can be imagined, ensuring that every contribution would “really” matter.
Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.
IPS UN Bureau