The Human Consciousness Now...Our World in the Midst of Becoming...to What? Observe, contemplate Now.
URBANA, Illinois, US, May 6 2026 (IPS) - A newly published review in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment has revealed disturbing statistics on the growing environmental threats posed by global food production. The global food system, designed to feed and nourish humanity, is now a major contributor to climate change via greenhouse gas emissions, and the largest driver of freshwater depletion, biodiversity loss, and nutrient pollution.
Alarmingly, this new review brings attention to a concerning cruel twist and a deeper problem manifested through feedback loops between environmental change pressures including climate change and global food production.
In this vicious hard to break feedback loop, farmers are forced to use more inputs including fertilizers and toxic pesticides to sustain high yields, which in turn ruins and further compromises the environment while making food production harder in the long term.
In this vicious hard to break feedback loop, farmers are forced to use more inputs including fertilizers and toxic pesticides to sustain high yields, which in turn ruins and further compromises the environment while making food production harder in the long term
The central question then becomes: How do we break these vicious feedback loops that threaten to undermine our global food system in the longer term? What specific foundational strategies stand a chance of reducing environmental pressures and improving global food systems and agricultural production resillience?
First and foremost, the foundations for breaking this cruel cycle begin in the soil, by investing in revitalizing and improving the health of soils and agricultural lands that power global food production. Healthy soils teeming microbes are the foundations of resilient, sustainable and global food production ecosystems.
Healthy soils store and filter water and cycle nutrients, support the growth of nutritious food while simultaneously helping agricultural crop plants to cope with water stress, combat diseases and pests, and use nutrients more effectively, reducing the need for additional inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides.
Convincingly, smart investments channeled towards improving soil health and soil microbiome can help farmers and food producers to produce more and healthy crops with less, limit environmental damage and simultaneously break the emerging feedback loops between global food production and environmental damage.
The good news is that improving and building soil health and soil microbiomes is a top priority for many stakeholders involved in food production in the United States and around the world including farmers, researchers, governments, philanthropists, non-governmental and non-profit organizations, research funding agencies, the African Union and the United Nations.
Excitingly, adoption of several sustainable regenerative practices including cover cropping, crop rotation, conservation tillage, planting diverse crops, integrating livestock and agroforestry, alongside with inoculation of soils with microbes including arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi can improve soil health and quality, improving biodiversity, mitigate climate change, and extend soil longevity beyond 10,000 years. Moreover, research is confirming that these strategies do indeed work.
Second, another intervention that can reduce environmental decline while improving global food production is investing in innovative climate-smart agriculture and precision agriculture practices. Scientific evidence has shown that adopting these practices can sustain global food production while limiting environmental harm.
Complementing and accompanying these foundational strategies is the urgent need to prioritize breeding and developing multi-stress and stress-resilient crops and integrating stress resilient traits from wild relatives of domesticated crops.
Additionally, multi-stress and climate-resilient crops can be grown alongside other annual and perennial crop species while being integrated into broader sustainable and regenerative farming practices including agroforestry. Collectively, these practices can sustain food production while minimizing environmental harm, thereby breaking feedback loops.
Finally, these strategies must be paired with policies and incentives to ensure maximum adoption. Farmers who adopt regenerative and sustainable soil building, climate-smart, precision agriculture practices while planting stress resilient crops should be supported and rewarded.
Alongside policies and incentives, there is a need to ensure that farmers, who are central in global food production embrace and adopt these sustainable feedback loops breaking practices. Embracing these practices can improve agricultural productivity, resilience and efficiency.
Of course, it is critical to understand and be aware of the constraints that still hinder stakeholders in global food production including farmers from adopting these global food production and environmental pressures feedback loop breaking practices.
Feeding our growing world sustainably requires everyone to confront the vicious cycle of food production and environmental decline. Researchers, policymakers, governments, private businesses, civil society, and philanthropists must act with urgency.
We should view mitigation and adaptation as interconnected strategies to address the dual challenge of producing food while protecting the environmental systems that enable it. The most effective and sustainable solutions will strengthen agriculture and reduce environmental harm. Time is of the essence.
Esther Ngumbi, PhD is Assistant Professor, Department of Entomology, African American Studies Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
ROME, May 6 2026 (IPS) - Across Europe, winter wheat is already in the ground. What farmers apply in the coming weeks will determine the size of this year’s harvest. Those decisions are now being made under a sudden surge in costs that did not exist when seeds went in.
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz in late February disrupted energy and input markets that European agriculture cannot avoid. Within days, tanker traffic fell by 90 to 95 percent. European natural gas prices rose by 70 to 75 percent in the first week, with prices approaching double pre-conflict levels by mid-March.
Meanwhile Brent crude began the year at $61 per barrel and finished Q1 at $118, the largest quarterly price increase on an inflation-adjusted basis in data going back to 1988.
Farmers need immediate, targeted support to sustain the use of fertilizers and other key inputs during this narrow window, and governments should act to keep trade in agricultural inputs open while mobilizing rapid financing for countries under pressure
These shifts shape the cost of energy that underpins farming, from machinery and irrigation to the production of nitrogen fertilizers. At the same time, disruptions to Gulf fertilizer exports—representing roughly 20 to 30 percent of globally traded supply—pushed prices higher across all markets.
Europe, though not directly dependent on Gulf producers, buys into this global price system while also facing higher domestic production costs linked to gas. The result is a sustained increase in input costs at the precise moment farmers decide how much nitrogen to apply, decisions that will shape yields at harvest and are already beginning to set the direction of food prices into 2027.
Two priorities now shape the outcome. Farmers need immediate, targeted support to sustain the use of fertilizers and other key inputs during this narrow window, and governments should act to keep trade in agricultural inputs open while mobilizing rapid financing for countries under pressure.
These measures can still stabilize planting decisions and protect yields. Without them, higher input costs will translate directly into reduced application, lower production, and tighter food supply later in the year.
Rising fertilizer costs are already forcing farmers to adjust input use, with direct consequences for yields and food supply later in the year.
When fertilizer prices rise and liquidity tightens, farmers apply less nitrogen. Lower input use reduces yields. The impact does not appear immediately. It becomes visible at harvest, when production falls below potential, and later in markets, when supply tightens and prices rise. By then, the decisions that shaped the outcome cannot be reversed.
European agriculture enters this crisis with already thin margins and limited capacity to absorb further cost increases. Farmers have faced prolonged financial pressure since the 2022 input cost surge, with rising costs only partially offset by prices.
Climate variability and regulatory pressures add further uncertainty. The current surge compounds these conditions and risks eroding confidence at a critical moment. The resilience of European agriculture depends on whether farmers can absorb shocks of this scale without reducing investment or output.
A further pressure sits at the intersection of energy and food markets. Rising oil prices increase the attractiveness of biofuels, drawing crops such as maize and vegetable oils toward fuel production. This tightens food supply and raises prices further. Europe is deeply integrated into this system. Energy volatility feeds directly into agricultural markets, linking geopolitical risk to food prices and inflation.
The window for action remains open, but it is narrowing. Nitrogen has not yet been fully applied. Spring planting across parts of Europe is still underway. Acting now can limit the damage. Waiting until harvest will not.
The immediate priority is to sustain production. Farmers require timely and proportionate support to maintain input use, particularly fertilizers, during this critical phase.
Current policy responses have focused largely on fuel through tax cuts, price caps and targeted subsidies, while support for fertilizers and broader agrifood inputs remains limited. Existing instruments provide a foundation, but the scale and speed of the shock call for greater flexibility. Clear signals of support, combined with measures to ease liquidity constraints, can influence decisions now and reduce the risk of a contraction in output.
Europe’s response must also extend beyond its borders. As a central actor in global agricultural markets, it has both an interest and a responsibility to support stability. Maintaining open trade in agricultural inputs is essential. Export restrictions imposed by several countries risk shifting the burden onto more vulnerable economies. Europe should lead in opposing such measures.
Access to financing remains critical. Instruments such as the International Monetary Fund’s Food Shock Window can provide rapid support to countries facing acute pressure. Complementary approaches, including the Financing for Shock-Driven Food Crisis Facility facilities developed within the Food and Agriculture Organization, enable earlier and more proactive responses before shocks deepen and spread.
Over the medium term, countries should diversify fertilizer supply sources and strengthen regional coordination. Over the longer term, resilience will depend on more efficient input use, investment in alternative production methods such as green ammonia, and reduced dependence on volatile energy markets. Food production should be treated as a strategic asset, alongside energy and infrastructure.
The decisions taken now will shape outcomes far beyond Europe. Food prices in 2027 are being influenced by choices made this spring, on farms and in capitals. Farmers are adjusting under pressure. The question is whether the response they receive matches the urgency of the moment.
Excerpt:
Maurizio Martina is Deputy Director-General of the United Nations Food and Agriculture OrganizationMay 6 2026 (IPS) -
CIVICUS discusses the status of political prisoners in Venezuela with Manuel Virgüez, director of Movimiento Vinotinto, a Venezuelan human rights organisation that works for citizen empowerment, democracy and justice.
Manuel Virgüez
What’s the status of political prisoners?
Following the 2024 presidential election, the state detained around 2,000 people as part of what it called Operation Tun Tun. In early 2026, around 1,000 remained in detention, although various organisations put the total at between 950 and 1,200, depending on the classification criteria they use. Since 8 January, when Jorge Rodríguez, President of the National Assembly, announced imminent releases, and following the approval of an amnesty law, that number has fallen to around 450.
Among those released were human rights defender Rocío San Miguel, activist Javier Tarazona and journalist Eduardo Torres. The vast majority of those released were members of civil society or political activists. On 16 April, it was unofficially reported that around 50 former employees of Petróleos de Venezuela, detained in 2025, had been released. If this is confirmed, the current number of political prisoners remaining would be around 380.
The group that remains in detention consists mainly of dissident military personnel and former public officials. The authorities are reluctant to release them because they pose a direct threat to the regime’s stability. They are the ones who have suffered the worst treatment: various organisations, including Movimiento Vinotinto, have documented enforced disappearances, inhuman treatment, torture and persecution of family members. In some cases, people remained missing for weeks or months, with no knowledge of their whereabouts or whether they were still alive. These are some of the most serious violations recorded in recent decades in Venezuela.
How did these arrests differ from previous ones?
Two things distinguished them from previous waves of repression. The first was the abusive use of the concept of ‘eradication’, provided for in the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure, to transfer all cases to courts in Caracas. People detained in states such as Bolívar, hundreds of kilometres from the capital, were required to appear there. This was an unprecedented violation of the procedural principles of Venezuelan law. Not even in the 1960s, in the face of guerrilla movements, was there such a concentration of cases in a single court.
The second thing was the criminalisation of everyday acts. The state used anonymous reports via mobile apps to identify and arrest people, and a simple WhatsApp status update could be treated as an act of terrorism. The presumption of innocence ceased to exist in practice and the burden of proof was reversed: it was the detainee who had to prove they were not guilty.
What does the amnesty law entail and what does it exclude?
The law provides for the closure of cases linked to political events from different periods in Venezuelan history. This is no minor matter. After years of mass detentions and restrictions on freedom, the state implicitly acknowledges that those people should not have been imprisoned. The credit goes, above all, to the detainees’ families, human rights organisations and the international community.
But the law falls short. It does not provide for any mechanism of redress for those who were unjustly detained. Nor does it provide for the restitution of property. Many political prisoners had their businesses, homes and vehicles confiscated and won’t recover them on release. The law also offers no clear guarantees for those in exile. On 16 April, former legislator Alexis Paparone returned to Venezuela and was detained for several hours before being brought before a court, demonstrating that returning remains risky.
The law effectively excludes dissident military personnel and makes no provision for the thousands of politically motivated dismissals that have taken place, in violation of International Labour Organization Convention 111, nor for political disqualifications. As long as leaders such as María Corina Machado are unable to exercise their political rights, there can be no talk of a genuine transition.
What conditions are required for a genuine democratic transition?
There can be no reconciliation without justice. What Venezuela has experienced is one of the darkest periods in South America’s recent history. Bringing victims and perpetrators together without a prior process of accountability is not reconciliation; it is impunity. Where there’s no justice, there’s vengeance, and that generates endless cycles of violence. Societies that have not dealt with their crimes have carried that wound for generations.
For there to be justice, profound institutional reform is needed: in the armed forces, the electoral system, the judiciary and the public prosecutor’s office. Cosmetic changes are not enough. It will be a long-term process, but the first steps must be taken to call general elections and move towards real economic recovery.
What’s possible, and necessary, is a pact of coexistence: an agreement to respect the constitution and live without mutual persecution. But such a pact requires the Chavista regime to acknowledge its mistakes and its crimes. Without that, any transition will remain incomplete.
Even so, I am optimistic. Venezuelan civil society, despite all it has lost, remains standing. There are signs that something is changing, and we must seize this opportunity. I’m confident that we will be able to lay the foundations for a democracy that says ‘never again’ to authoritarianism.
CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.
GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Twitter
YouTube
SEE ALSO
Venezuela: ‘People once again believe they can influence what happens in their country’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Pedro González Caro 29.Mar.2026
Venezuela: democracy no closer CIVICUS Lens 29.Jan.2026
Venezuela: ‘We are seeing an economic transition, but no democratic transition’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Guillermo Miguelena 29.Jan.2026
WASHINGTON DC / OSLO, May 6 2026 (IPS) - A conversation with Toril-Iren Pedersen, Director of the UNDP Global Policy Centre for Governance, and Michael Jarvis, Executive Director of the Trust, Accountability, and Inclusion (TAI) Collaborative
Q1: What is financial integrity and why is it important right now? Why is it relevant to TAI’s members?
Toril-Iren Pedersen
For us, the issue is not limited to one category of wrongdoing. It is about the connection between different parts of economic value, from public revenues to criminal flows, and the loopholes that exist within the regular financial system. Financial integrity cannot be considered in isolation. Weaknesses across tax, corruption, anti-money laundering and the broader global financial architecture all have to be understood together.
Michael Jarvis: At TAI, we see financial integrity as the need for systems to operate transparently, accountably and ethically. That is how people ideally manage their personal finances, and how we hope corporations run their businesses. But we are especially focused on governments and countries: how they strengthen the integrity of their financial systems, minimize corruption, encourage fairness and better steward public resources.
There is a clear development case for why this matters. TAI’s members are primarily U.S.-based philanthropies working internationally, and our work is organized around three priorities: strengthening healthy democracies, advancing climate accountability and improving fiscal accountability through fair and effective financial governance. Financial integrity underpins all three. Without it, progress in each area is weakened.
Michael Jarvis
When financial systems lack integrity, the damage is broad. It undermines trust in government, contributes to democratic disillusionment and weakens citizens’ confidence that public resources are being used fairly. It can also slow the energy transition, as we have seen with concerns around carbon markets. And it directly affects the ability of governments to raise and spend revenue effectively.
Toril-Iren Pedersen: I would add that declining trust in governments and in the multilateral system is higher than we have seen in a very long time. Lack of financial integrity contributes directly to that distrust.
Visible wealth inequality is one challenge, but so is the perception of invisible wealth being accumulated through the global financial architecture. When people sense that wealth is moving in the shadows, outside transparency and democratic control, it creates legitimate grounds for distrust. That is why lack of financial integrity must be understood as a systems failure that requires a systems approach.
Michael Jarvis: That is also the focus of the new paper from your team, the UNDP Global Policy Centre for Governance, which TAI supported. It emphasizes why progress requires action on multiple fronts and why no single actor or institution can solve this alone. Financial integrity is a collective action challenge.
Q2: How has UNDP’s Global Policy Centre for Governance worked on financial integrity over the past few years? What were your most important results and insights?
Toril-Iren Pedersen: The Centre’s work has taken place across several streams, but the most important contribution has been analyzing the system and the relationships among different actors. When we look at corruption and illicit financial flows, we have to ask who enables those flows within countries and across borders. Understanding those relationships is central to financial integrity.
The Centre has also convened actors within the UN and among practitioners, including country representatives involved in the Financing for Development negotiations in Sevilla last summer. That process helped produce stronger commitments to curb illicit financial flows and introduced more substantive language on financial integrity and corruption than we had seen in earlier iterations of the Financing for Development agenda.
The analytical work on the financial integrity ecosystem and the systems approach has also been developed in collaboration with several TAI members, including the MacArthur Foundation and Ford Foundation. Their support has been important both substantively and financially.
Q3: How will the Centre work on financial integrity going forward, under your leadership?
Toril-Iren Pedersen: The Centre has worked on a range of governance frontier issues. Going forward, we will focus on two areas: financial integrity, and data systems and data availability at the country level. The data agenda connects directly to financial integrity, but it also has broader relevance.
On financial integrity, we see a need to problem-solve the systemic challenges that are preventing progress at both the country and global levels. We will continue analyzing what is stopping countries from making substantive progress and what kinds of solutions and policy alternatives can be made available to them.
Some of these solutions already exist, but they are not always accessible. As a UNDP Policy Centre, our role is to make research, policy options and insights into systemic challenges available to UNDP country offices so they can be integrated into country-level programming. We also hope this work will help countries engage more effectively in global processes.
There is currently a disconnect. The Financial Action Task Force, the OECD tax framework and anti-corruption frameworks all rely on data from countries, but they do not always help solve what is fundamentally a systems challenge. We will continue engaging in those processes while breaking the work into more manageable areas where countries can take action nationally, regionally and globally.
Q4: What is the role of philanthropy in strengthening financial integrity against the backdrop of a fast-evolving global development landscape? What collaboration opportunities do you see between philanthropies, multilateral organizations and other stakeholders?
Michael Jarvis: Philanthropy’s role is a nimble one. The volume of finance philanthropy brings is not the same as government donors or what countries can mobilize themselves. The question is how philanthropy can prompt the right conversations and support work that moves the agenda more effectively.
Traditionally, philanthropy has supported civil society groups, independent media and think tanks at the global and national levels. Those actors investigate financial integrity issues, build evidence, raise public awareness and develop policy recommendations for governments and multilateral forums.
Philanthropy also has limits. Individual donors, including TAI members, often focus on a relatively small number of priority countries. They are not operating at a scale that covers all countries affected by these issues. That is where the UN system and international financial institutions can play a different role, because they work with nearly every country and have government relationships built into their mandates.
There are important complementarities. The MacArthur Foundation, for example, has made a major investment in Nigeria around financial integrity and anti-corruption, working with government agencies while also supporting civil society and media. More broadly, different actors bring different relationships, mandates and capacities.
The Financing for Development process in Sevilla is a good example. The outcome was stronger because many players were involved, from civil society groups working in-country to global and regional convenings that reinforced the message. Those efforts helped shape the negotiations and elevate financial integrity on the agenda.
An important opportunity is the Illicit Finance Summit, being hosted by the UK Government in June. It can bring together governments committed to addressing financial integrity challenges and create space for civil society, academia, philanthropy and others to develop practical solutions. Philanthropy should be part of that conversation and think about where its support can amplify or pilot ideas that emerge.
Visibility also matters because it helps attract resources. Funding for financial integrity work remains very limited. In a 2023 analysis, TAI estimated that about $150 million had been directed to illicit financial flows work since 2020, including efforts to address tax avoidance.
That averages roughly $30 million a year across different groups, countries and sectors. Compared with the scale of the problem, and compared with funding for fields such as climate or AI, that is extremely small.
The upcoming summit could serve as a call to action for philanthropy and other funders to invest more. The rise in fraud enabled by crypto and other technologies affects people directly and is creating grassroots demand for action. Partnership will be essential, including with UNDP, the World Bank, national governments, civil society and research networks.
Toril-Iren Pedersen: I agree. We need to mobilize more resources, but it is also important to recognize what has already been achieved with limited funding. Much of the momentum for change over the past 10 to 15 years has come from civil society organizations, journalist networks and collaborative investigations around leaks. Those efforts helped put issues such as tax fairness, transparency and beneficial ownership on national and global agendas.
This field has shown that limited resources can have an outsized effect when actors from different parts of the ecosystem work together. Anti-corruption, tax fairness and anti-money laundering were once treated as separate silos. Bringing those communities together around shared solutions is a cost-effective way of working.
Going forward, we also need to connect financial integrity to other development priorities, including climate finance and health financing. Each sector has its own financial integrity challenges. With the current development financing crunch, we cannot afford to leave money on the table, and we cannot afford to let resources disappear when policy action could prevent it.
Q5: Is there a case for involving the business community? What would the message be?
Toril-Iren Pedersen: Yes. Governance investments are one area we will be looking at closely. There is enormous pressure to mobilize funding from private actors and the private sector. Much of the focus has been on ensuring that specific investments comply with human rights and development standards. That remains important.
But financial integrity is also about longer-term systems de-risking. Investments in anti-corruption mechanisms, laws that reduce corruption risk and dispute-resolution frameworks can make markets more attractive for private investment. The goal is to build systems where private actors face lower real or perceived risk and can operate without relying as heavily on facilitated investment support.
In that sense, we need to distinguish between short-term and long-term de-risking, and between project-level and systems-level de-risking.
Michael Jarvis: There is a strong private sector incentive to support financial integrity, especially for companies operating across borders. But there is also a quid pro quo: corporate actors need to uphold their own standards of financial integrity. That includes thinking responsibly about the taxes they pay in different jurisdictions and avoiding excessive profit shifting.
The private sector benefits from stronger financial integrity systems, but it also has responsibilities within them. Beneficial ownership transparency is one example where progress has helped make it easier to identify who is behind corporate structures. These structures are still misused, but many legitimate private sector actors increasingly recognize that transparency can help distinguish them from bad actors and reduce reputational risk.
All of us have a role in the system. The challenge now is to make a clear case for why financial integrity deserves continued investment, government attention and policy bandwidth, especially at a time of aid cuts, foreign assistance pressures and tight country budgets. That is a collective challenge, and one we need to keep elevating.
IPS UN Bureau
SRINAGAR, India, May 6 2026 (IPS) - The First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia, may eventually be remembered as a defining moment in global climate politics, not because it produced a treaty or a formal negotiation outcome, but because it changed the tone, structure, and ambition of the conversation itself.
For decades, international climate diplomacy has been about managing emissions, not addressing the source of those emissions: fossil fuels. Governments continued to discuss carbon markets, offsets and adaptation funds but so too did the growth in oil, gas and coal production. Within the UN climate process itself, producer nations and powerful economic interests often blocked direct discussion of phasing out fossil fuels. However, there was no such case as Santa Marta.
The conference, co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands and attended by delegates from almost 60 nations, was not intended to be another COP-style negotiation. It was explicitly designed as a political and practical platform for those countries willing to move faster on the fossil fuel phase-out. That makes a difference.
“This was not a negotiating conference. This is about dialogue and looking together at what we can do and how we can apply our creativity, our collaboration, and the science to find new opportunities,” said Stientje van Veldhoven-van der Meer, Dutch Climate and Green Growth Minister.
The conference’s most important accomplishment might be the single transition from negotiation to problem-solving.
Traditional COP summits often descend into exercises in diplomatic survival, with countries fighting over language late into the night and protecting narrow interests. In Santa Marta, ministers repeatedly stressed that participants were not there to defend positions but to create solutions.
“The contrast was stark,” said Minina Talia, Tuvalu’s Minister for Home Affairs, Climate Change and Environment.
“I’ve been to a lot of COPs over the years and I’ve never felt like this. More chilled, ready to go home. We are not here to bargain. We’re here to find solutions,” he told reporters on the concluding day of the conference.
For small island states like Tuvalu, where climate change is an existential threat now rather than a future risk, this difference is significant. It is the politics of survival.
Several Concrete Results
Ireland and Tuvalu will co-host a second conference, ensuring continuity and signalling a conscious North-South partnership. A dedicated science panel will support countries and regions in their transition away from fossil fuels. Three work streams were established: pathways to transition away from fossil fuels; decarbonisation of trade balances; and new financial mechanisms to finance the transition.
These are not symbols for deliverables. They went to the core of the politics of dependence on fossil fuels.
The biggest challenge in climate politics is no longer to prove that climate change is real. It’s trying to work out how countries that rely on fossil fuel revenues can survive the transition without economic collapse, social unrest or widening inequality.
That means dealing with debt, subsidies, tax systems, labour transitions, industrial planning and trade balances. The focus on financial architecture in Santa Marta is a sign of awareness on the part of the participants.
The debate over fossil fuel subsidies was particularly important. Ministers emphasised the need for transparency on the location of fossil fuel incentives, revenues and dependencies within national economies. This is important because fossil fuels are not just an energy issue. They’re so entrenched in national budgets, banking systems, foreign policy and power structures.
The war in the Middle East, the disruption of oil supplies and the general insecurity of world energy have hastened the need for change. But unlike previous oil crises, this time renewable energy is getting cheaper and cheaper compared to fossil fuels, and electric vehicles are scaling up very fast.
Participants argued that the war has revealed not the need for more oil drilling, but the danger of fossil fuel dependence itself.
“The war really opened up peoples’ eyes to how fragile the fossil fuel system is,” a speaker said. “And this war comes at a time when renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels.
This shifts the transition from a strictly environmental imperative to a strategic economic and security priority.
Action on climate is no longer simply about saving the planet. It’s about stabilising economies, reducing geopolitical vulnerability and avoiding the financial risks of stranded fossil assets.
The reason this is a powerful shift is that finance ministers tend to move faster than environment ministers.
Another remarkable strength of Santa Marta was its insistence on being inclusive. Indigenous Peoples, parliamentarians, peasants, women, NGOs and even children were brought into the heart of the conversation.
“This is a new climate democracy, where governments are no longer the only actors making climate decisions,” said Irene Velez Torres, Director of the Colombian National Environmental Agency.
One of the strongest interventions at the conference came from Indigenous representatives, who warned that a clean energy transition without land justice would simply mean another wave of colonial extraction. Their declaration rejects a future where extraction of fossil fuels is replaced by mining for transition minerals, mega dams or industrial projects imposed on Indigenous lands without consent.
“If we are not part of building the just transition and the phase-out of fossil fuels, it will not be just,” they said in a joint declaration at the end of the conference on April 29.
This revealed one of the deepest contradictions in global climate policy: many governments speak of a green transition but continue with extractive models under a new name.
Indigenous leaders demanded free, prior and informed consent, legal recognition of the rights to their territories, direct access to climate finance and protection for land defenders at risk of criminalisation and violence.
The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative continues to be central. Tuvalu has been one of its earliest supporters, demanding a legally binding international framework to stop expansion and ensure a fair phase-out of fossil fuels.
Talia welcomed the treaty for raising the bar in terms of moral pressure and providing governments with clearer information but warned against limiting the whole transition conversation to one mechanism.
He said: “The treaty is an initiative. We want to look at all other initiatives so that we have a fair, balanced outcome.”
That’s a sign of strategic maturity. One treaty will not kill the most profitable industry in modern history.
These include UNFCCC processes, national policy, fossil fuel treaty mechanisms, regional declarations, central bank reforms and the involvement of financial institutions.
Participants highlighted China’s green lending strategies and said banking systems need to stop rewarding fossil fuel dependence and instead finance transition at scale.
Likewise, Pacific island nations are advocating for regional “fossil fuel-free zones”, supported by new declarations and intergovernmental task forces. These efforts matter because regional leadership often moves quicker than global consensus.
Hence, the choice of Tuvalu as the venue for the next conference is very significant. It’s shifting the discussion from the diplomatic capitals to one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries. It forces political leaders to confront the human reality of rising seas, disappearing land and threatened sovereignty.
History in the Making
Santa Marta won’t solve the fossil fuel crisis. It doesn’t stop new drilling. It does not yet impose binding obligations.But it may have done something more important, which is to make fossil fuel phase-out politically discussable at scale. For years, people saw talking straight about ending oil, gas, and coal as too radical, too unrealistic, or too politically dangerous. In Santa Marta it became the focus of the room.
If this coalition grows from 60 to 100 countries, if its outcomes feed into COP31 and national climate plans, if the finance systems start to shift, and if the Pacific conference deepens the legal momentum, then Santa Marta could be remembered not as a one-off summit but as the moment when climate diplomacy finally stopped treating the symptoms and started tackling the disease. That would be history.
IPS UN Bureau Report
HERAT, Afghanistan, May 5 2026 (IPS) - Qadoos Khatibi, an Afghan university lecturer, and Fayaz Ghori, a civil society activist, also from Afghanistan, were detained by the Taliban’s Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. Their crime? Advocating for girls’ right to education.
Their arrest came as Afghanistan began a new academic year in the last week of March. Schools reopened across the country, but girls above primary school level remain barred from classrooms for the fifth consecutive year.
Khatibi had posted a video urging the Taliban to reopen educational institutions for girls, emphasizing that a country cannot develop without girls’ education. Ghori, for his part, had written that, “We are looking forward to the day when the doors of education will be opened for the girls of this country.”
In Afghanistan today, even civic, non-political advocacy can carry extreme risk. Critics and activists risk arrest, forced disappearance and sometimes worse, simply for sharing a video, writing a post, or speaking out. Online spaces are closely monitored, and critical voices are swiftly suppressed
Nearly five years have passed since the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan, a period marked by the closure of secondary schools and universities to girls and women. During this time, girls’ education has come to a complete halt, and anyone who dares to speak out in protest often faces swift and harsh punishment.
Sediq Yasinzada, a civil society activist in Herat province and friend of both men, said they had spoken out against the closure of schools and universities for girls. They had shared posts on Facebook calling for the reopening of schools beyond grade six, and for universities to once again re-admit female students.
More than 2.2 million girls in Afghanistan are currently denied access to education due to restrictions, according to the United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef), highlighting the magnitude of the problem.
In March this year, both men were summoned by the Taliban’s Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in Herat. After interrogating them, they were handed over to Taliban intelligence. They spent 24 hours in detention, a fate that has become all too familiar for critics of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
This time, however, the response was different. Because Khatibi and Ghori are well-known figures in Herat, their detention sparked a wave of support on social media. Ordinary citizens, activists, and local influencers called for their immediate release, bringing the issue to a wider public attention.
Alongside the social media outcry, several local elders and influential figures intervened directly with the Taliban, and after about 24 hours, both men were released.
Sarwar Khan, a prominent elder from Herat, says he has repeatedly urged the Taliban in meetings to reopen schools. He is the father of four daughters, all of whom are now denied access to education. “Send your sons to study”, was the Taliban’s mocking response, fully aware that Sarwar Khan has no sons.
When he pointed out that he has no sons, and that education is a right for both women and men, he was threatened with expulsion or even imprisonment if he continued to speak.
After his release from detention, Khatibi shared a statement on Facebook that underscored the core of their demand:
“What we asked for was a human, national, and Islamic request… Knowledge is the foundation of development and does not conflict with religious values. Knowledge does not have a gender. Our women and girls have the right to education.”
The arrests of Qadoos Khatibi and Fayaz Ghori are not isolated incidents. They reflect a broader pattern in Afghanistan, where even peaceful advocacy for girls’ education can be treated as a crime. Families like Sarwar Khan’s, as well as activists and ordinary citizens, face constant threats simply for demanding a basic human right.
In Afghanistan today, even civic, non-political advocacy can carry extreme risk. Critics and activists risk arrest, forced disappearance and sometimes worse, simply for sharing a video, writing a post, or speaking out. Online spaces are closely monitored, and critical voices are swiftly suppressed.
Many men avoid protest not out of indifference, but out of fear. In a situation whereby university professors and civil society activists can be scrutinized and ultimately criminalized simply for sharing a video or written text, many choose silence.
Yet despite this environment of repression, women, girls, and some men continue to protest. In recent years, dozens of women have been detained for weeks or even months without access to lawyers or contact with their families simply for demanding a fundamental right to education.
Since the Taliban returned to power in August 2021, Afghanistan has entered a harsh new era. Progress made over two decades, during which millions of girls entered schools and universities, has abruptly halted. The closure of schools beyond grade six and the suspension of higher education have created not only an educational crisis, but also a deep social and human challenge. In this climate, any form of civic protest is met with security crackdowns, shrinking the space for public expression.
Taliban authorities have repeatedly detained critics and civil society activists over the past several years, particularly those who have spoken out against their policies.
Excerpt:
The author is an Afghanistan-based female journalist, trained with Finnish support before the Taliban take-over. Her identity is withheld for security reasons
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.