By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 23 2025 – The UN Staff Union is on edge — hoping for the best and expecting the worse — as the General Assembly will vote on a proposed programme budget for 2026 by December 31.

The President of the UN Staff Union (UNSU), Narda Cupidore, has listed some of the proposals which will have an impact on staff members, including:

• Proposed decrease of the 2026 regular budget by 15.1%
• A total of 2,681 posts (about 18.8%) proposed for abolishment across the Secretariat, more than half of which are already vacant.
• Administrative functions will be centralized through new Common Administrative Platforms (CAPs) beginning in New York and Bangkok next year.
• Proposed relocation of approximately 173 posts to lower cost duty stations, including Nairobi, Bonn, Valencia, Tunis, and Vienna.

IF the proposed changes are approved by the General Assembly, the following measures are expected to take effect:

• Mitigating measures: reductions in staffing will be managed through vacancy elimination, the early separation programme, lateral reassignments within entities, followed by global placement.
• Downsizing policy: if further staff reductions are required, the downsizing policy will be enacted in accordance with the established rules under ST/AI/2023/1, considering appointment type, performance, and years of service.

WHAT HAPPENS Next…

• December 2025: Await General Assembly resolution
• January – March 2026: mitigating measures
• April 2026 onward: Downsizing policy applied if needed

Early Separation Program (a mitigating measure): Office of Human Resources has advised:

• Rounds 1 and 2 are still open and will not be finalized until January 2026.
• Round 3 is currently active, focused on a specific criterion as outlined in this round.
• Colleagues who expressed interest in the program will receive individual responses confirming approval or non-approval once all rounds of the exercise are closed.

Support for Staff

The Staff Support Framework 2.0 – expected to be available soon – to help navigate upcoming changes, provide structured guidance on prioritizing reassignment over terminations, and minimize involuntary separations.

As the Fifth Committee continues its deliberations in the coming days toward adopting a resolution and approving the budget, the UN Staff Union (UNSU) remains actively engaged in monitoring the negotiations, says Cupidore in a memo to staff members.

“At the same time, we are evaluating the potential implications of these decisions, our entitlements and working conditions”.

Meanwhile, the US State Department is in the process of eliminating over 132 domestic offices, laying-off about 700 federal workers and reducing diplomatic missions overseas.

The proposed changes will also include terminating funding for the UN and some of its agencies, budgetary cuts to the 32-member military alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and 20 other unidentified international organizations.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Gita Bhatt
WASHINGTON DC, Dec 23 2025 – We live in a galaxy of data. From satellites and smartwatches to social media and swipes at a register, we have ways to measure the economy to an extent that would have seemed like science fiction just a generation ago. New data sources and techniques are challenging not only how we see the economy, but how we make sense of it.

The data deluge raises important questions: How can we distinguish meaningful signals of economic activity from noise in the age of artificial intelligence, and how should we use them to inform policy decisions? To what extent can new sources of data complement or even replace official statistics?

And, at a more fundamental level, are we even measuring the metrics that matter most in today’s increasingly digital economy? Or are we simply tracking what we looked at in the past? This issue of Finance & Development explores these questions.

Author Kenneth Cukier suggests that harnessing alternative data requires a new mindset. He likens today’s economists to radiologists who once resisted having clearer MRI scans because they were trained to read fuzzier ones. Are we clinging to outdated metrics even as new data offers faster, granular, and sharper insights into economic reality and a better reflection of “ground truth”?

More data doesn’t automatically mean better insights or decisions. New or alternative data is often a by-product of private business activity, with all the biases of that environment. It may lack the long continuity and robust methods that underpin official economic indicators.

That’s why official statistics remain essential.

Claudia Sahm shows how central banks are tapping new sources of data to fill gaps—including falling response rates to national surveys—but always in tandem with trusted official sources. To improve data quality, she calls for strong ties between statistical agencies, private providers, government officials, and academics.

Relying on data sources not available to the public erodes transparency, which is critical to central bank accountability, she cautions.

For the IMF’s Bert Kroese, reliance on private data must not diminish resources available for official number crunching. Without strong, independent national statistical agencies, the integrity of economic data, and the policies built on it, could falter.

That’s not to say government agencies always get it right. Rebecca Riley argues that core economic metrics like GDP and productivity are increasingly misaligned with a rewired, data-driven economy. She calls for a modernization of measurement systems to better reflect the growth of intangible assets such as digital services, and the evolving structure of global production.

Better data collection serves the public good only if the data is widely available. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger warns that the concentration of data collection among a handful of Big Tech companies threatens competition and innovation.

He makes the case for policies that mandate broader data sharing. Thijs Van de Graaf adds a geopolitical lens, revealing the material demands behind AI’s data hunger, from energy and chips to minerals and water, and how these pressures are reshaping global power dynamics.

Elsewhere, Laura Veldkamp discusses the value of data, raising questions about how we price, use, and share information, and proposes novel approaches to turn intangible data into something we can count. Jeff Kearns shows how innovative approaches like nowcasting are helping developing economies close information gaps.

And the head of India’s statistical agency, Saurabh Garg, explains in an interview how he is tackling challenges of scale as public demand for real-time data grows.

This issue serves as a reminder that better measurement is not just about more data—it’s about using it wisely. In an era where AI amplifies both possibilities and noise, that challenge becomes even more urgent. To serve the public good, data must help us see the world more clearly, respond intelligently to complexity, and make better decisions. Data, after all, is a means not an end.

I hope the insights in this issue help you better understand the profound forces at play in our data-driven world.

Gita Bhatt is the Head of Policy Communications and Editor-In-Chief of Finance & Development magazine. She has a multifaceted communications background, with more than 20 years of professional experience, including in media and public affairs.

During 2009-11, she worked at the Reserve Bank of India as Adviser to the Governor. She has an MSc from the London School of Economics, and a Bachelors in Economics and Philosophy from George Washington University.

Source: International Monetary Fund (IMF)

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 23 2025 – Jeanne Kirkpatrick, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, once made a highly-debatable distinction between “friendly” right-wing “authoritarian” regimes (which were mostly U.S. and Western allies) and “unfriendly” left-wing “totalitarian” dictatorships (which the U.S. abhorred).

Around the same time, successive U.S. administrations were cozying up to a rash of authoritarian regimes, mostly in the Middle East, widely accused of instituting emergency laws, detaining dissidents, cracking down on the press, torturing political prisoners and rigorously imposing death penalties.

Kirkpatrick’s distinction between user-friendly right-wing regimes and unfriendly left-wing dictators prompted a sarcastic response from her ideological foe at that time, former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who shot back: “It seems to me that if you’re on the rack (and being tortured), it doesn’t make any difference if your torturer is right-handed or left-handed.”

Last month, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Alice Jill Edwards, warned that rigorous oversight of security and policing trade fairs is necessary to prevent prohibited and inherently abusive law enforcement equipment hitting the market after such items were found on display at Milipol 2025, an arms and security trade fair held in Paris from 18 to 21 November.

“Direct-contact electric shock devices, multiple kinetic impact projectiles and multi-barrel launchers cause unnecessary suffering and ought to be banned,” Edwards said. “Their trade and promotion should be prohibited across all 27 EU Member States and globally.”

Under the EU Anti-Torture Regulation – first introduced in 2006 and strengthened in 2019 – companies are banned from promoting, displaying or trading certain equipment that can be used for torture or ill-treatment. In 2025, the EU further expanded the list of prohibited and controlled law enforcement items, according to a UN press release.

Dr. Simon Adams, President and CEO of the Center for Victims of Torture (CVT), the largest international organization that treats survivors and advocates for an end to torture worldwide, told IPS as the largest torture rehabilitation organization in the world, the Center for Victims of Torture supports the Special Rapporteur and the campaign to stop companies marketing, promoting and selling goods that are designed solely to inflict human suffering.

Torture is a crime under international law and is illegal everywhere and at all times. Companies should not be able to market and trade goods that are routinely abused by security forces to commit human rights violations, or have no purpose other than to inflict torture, he said.

“At CVT we work with traumatized survivors of torture every day. Many are refugees who have come from countries where security forces use the sort of devices that were on sale at the fair. The European Union has been a key partner in the campaign to establish torture-free trade.”

“It is unconscionable that companies are allowed to promote these products inside the EU. It is grotesque that such products even exist. This trade in human cruelty should be completely banned,” declared Dr Adams.

A wide range of equipment previously identified by the UN Special Rapporteur as “inherently abusive” were on display at the fair. Offending equipment found on display or being promoted included direct-contact electric shock weapons (batons, gloves and stun guns), spiked anti-riot shields, ammunition with multiple kinetic impact projectiles, and multi-barrel launchers, according to the UN.

These products were marketed by Brazilian, Chinese, Czech, French, Indian, Israeli, Italian, Kazakh, North Macedonian, South Korean, Turkish and US companies.

Among the new banned items under EU law are aerial systems that deliver “injurious quantities of riot control agents,” yet companies were promoting drones fitted with multi-barrel launchers capable of dispersing large quantities of chemical irritants.

After Milipol organisers were notified of the items, swift action was taken, demanding companies remove catalogue pages and items. Edwards said one state-owned company refused to comply and its stall was shut down.

“The continued promotion of inherently abusive weapons underscores the urgent need for States to adopt my 2023 report recommendations,” the expert said.

While welcoming recent EU steps to strengthen controls, Edwards stressed that regional action alone is insufficient.

“The discoveries made at Milipol show why a global, legally binding Torture-Free Trade Treaty is essential,” the UN Special Rapporteur said. “Without coordinated international regulation, abusive equipment will simply find new markets, new routes and new victims.”

She urged all organisers of security, defence and policing exhibitions worldwide to establish robust monitoring, enforce bans consistently, and cooperate fully with independent investigators.

“Milipol’s response was swift and responsible,” the expert said. “But the fact that banned items were exhibited at all shows that constant vigilance is essential.”

Edwards had raised these issues on previous occasions and will continue to monitor relevant developments.

Alice Jill Edwards is the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Afshan Khan
GENEVA, Dec 23 2025 – In my more than 30 years with the United Nations, I’ve seen enormous change, collaboration and progress towards improving human development. But I’ve also seen how history has a way of repeating itself to entrench some of the most intractable global challenges.

In no area is this more evident than in the fight against malnutrition. Early in my career with Unicef, I learned to appreciate how crucial nutrition is to a child’s future, and the cascade of problems that follow when nutrition falters. The effects ripple through learning outcomes, health, economic opportunity, and long-term stability.

The 2008–09 food price crisis brought the issue of malnutrition sharply into focus. When nutritious diets suddenly became unaffordable for many millions, global leaders recognised the need for a different approach, inspiring the creation of the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement.

Fifteen years on, we stand at a crossroads on nutrition. 2025 has seen a dramatic fall in overseas development assistance (ODA), especially for nutrition, which even in good years is below 1% of total ODA. And, there is no end in sight to humanitarian crises. The United Nations has appealed for US$23 billion to save the lives of 87 million people facing acute crisis, while more than 135 million people worldwide now require humanitarian assistance. In an increasingly constrained aid environment, the UN is forced into triage, deciding not where needs are greatest, but where limited resources can stretch the furthest. Beyond emergencies, a global cost-of-living crisis is pushing healthy diets further out of reach for millions more. Taken together, these pressures make one outcome tragically predictable: without urgent action, malnutrition will rise.

In Nigeria, hospital admissions of severely malnourished children have surged by 200 per cent in some states, and hundreds of children have already died from malnutrition, just in the first half of this year. In Sudan, the destruction of food factories and aid disruption amid a years-long civil war has left millions of people trapped in a never-ending, ever-worsening nutrition emergency.

Against a bleak backdrop of humanitarian crises at country levels, global trends project that more than half of the global population will be overweight by 2035 — the outcome of a food environment where convenient, low cost foods high in transfats, sodium and sugar are more affordable than nutritious foods.

And yet, now — just as renewed commitments to the principles that inspired SUN’s creation seem most crucial — high-income nations are reducing their spend on overseas development assistance (ODA) while SUN countries struggle with dwindling resources, regardless of their commitments to improving nutrition.

The world cannot afford to forget nutrition. To do so would invite a future marked by widespread chronic disease, overstretched health systems, lost educational and economic potential, and diminished quality of life for millions.

Meeting today’s reality demands a fundamental shift in how we plan and invest to solve the problem. We must move beyond short-term thinking, break down divides between humanitarian and development work, and coordinate efforts across food, health, education, climate, and social policy.

Only by building long-term resilience across governments, economies and communities can we hope to reverse current trends and safeguard the next generation against the nutritional challenges of the future.

This is the thinking behind the SUN Movement’s renewed approach — a joined-up, global effort built around three simple ideas: build resilience against shocks, work across sectors, and diversification of finance for sustainability. ODA alone cannot fuel progress against the World Health Assembly malnutrition targets.

First, resilience. The past few years showed that conflicts, climate disasters, and economic emergencies can quickly wipe out national nutrition gains. Resilience to such shocks is necessary to avoid human capital loss leading to longer term national decline. SUN will focus on helping countries build food and healthcare systems to withstand shocks and prevent emergencies turning into disasters.

Second, sustainable financing. Today, the world faces a $10.8 billion annual nutrition funding gap. Until we close it, countries will continue to face the same cycle of progress followed by setbacks. Countries need to be able to draw on more than one pot of money, and SUN will help them to diversify across national budgets, responsible business, philanthropies, development banks, and climate funds.

Third, addressing the changing face of malnutrition. Overweight and obesity now affect almost 400 million children, a tenfold increase since 1975. What is more, 70 per cent live in low- and middle-income countries, where populations are growing fastest. SUN’s renewed approach has put obesity prevention and healthy food environments alongside its long-standing focus on undernutrition.

Finally, integration. Malnutrition does not exist in isolation, so neither can our response. Policies across health, agriculture, education, social protection, climate adaptation, and humanitarian response matter. The Global Compact for Nutrition Integration — already supported by over 80 countries and organisations — is showing what true collaboration can look like. The Compact brings together governments, funds, development banks, UN agencies, civil society and business around a shared goal: aligning support with countries’ needs and providing a common framework to ensure nutrition objectives are embedded in policies, programmes and financing across all relevant sectors.

My career has taught me that global progress is never guaranteed. Moreover, I have learned that the gains we fight hardest for are often the most fragile and must be cultivated, invested in, and protected.

Two things are clear: no country is immune from the malnutrition crisis, and if we continue to rely on fragmented, short-term responses, this crisis will only deepen.

SUN is on a journey to help the world chart a different course. As I step back from this work, my hope is that global resolve only grows stronger, and in fifteen years time, we will have found new solutions for seemingly intractable problems.

Afshan Khan is UN Assistant Secretary-General and coordinator of the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram and Kuhaneetha Bai Kalaicelvan
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Dec 23 2025 – Opinions have been divided over the annual UN climate conferences. While some see COP30 in Belém, Brazil, as confirming their irrelevance, others see it as a turning point in the struggle for climate justice.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Accelerating decline
Negotiations continued there as the 1.5°C target slipped beyond reach.

As the world accelerates toward catastrophic warming, ecological systems are collapsing, and millions across the Global South face increasingly life-threatening situations.

Rising sea levels, extreme heat, droughts and flooding are undermining food security, displacing communities, and exacerbating inequality and living conditions.

The economic costs of climate disasters are accelerating. Social and human costs continue to rise, with lives, livelihoods and ecosystems destroyed.

Fiscal austerity and indebtedness are making things worse. Instead, governments increase military spending and subsidise fossil fuels, accelerating planetary warming.

Business interest in ‘green transitions’ focuses on new profit-making opportunities. As renewable energy grows, energy supplies increase as fossil fuels are slowly replaced.

COP of Truth?
In his opening speech to the thirtieth Conference of Parties (COP30) in Belém, host President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva promised it would be the ‘COP of Truth’.

K Kuhaneetha Bai

He urged world leaders and governments to demonstrate their commitments by presenting their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) for its Global Mutirão (community mobilisation) outcome.

Although not officially present, the US continued to frustrate the climate talks by urging petrostates to resist efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

The COP30 Climate Change Performance Index exposed governments’ weak commitments to combating planetary warming over the past 21 years.

Its report analysed the policies of 63 countries responsible for 90% of the world’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The top three spots were kept empty to emphasise that no country has shown sufficient ambition to do so.

For 2025, Saudi Arabia took last place, with the US, Russia and Iran not far behind. Trump’s latest policies have set the US further back.

Meanwhile, the White House threatened sanctions and tariffs against governments that support a global tax on GHG emissions by international shipping.

Just transition?
COP30 in Belém continued to fail to achieve what is urgently needed: binding GHG emission cuts, phasing out fossil fuels, meaningfully compensating for past losses and damages, or better financing for climate adaptation.

COP30 adopted the Belém Mechanism for Just Global Transition – a new UNFCCC arrangement to overcome the fragmentation and inadequacy of such efforts worldwide.

However, the mechanism lacks both finances and plans to protect those harmed by decarbonisation initiatives. Nor are there resources for ‘green industrialisation’.

Climate justice is still misrepresented as threatening livelihoods rather than as key to survival. The climate justice movement must convince the public that it is key to social progress.

Climate finance setback
Lula appealed again for increased climate financing for the Global South following the dismal record since the 2009 Copenhagen COP.

Brazil also launched the Tropical Forests Forever Fund (TFFF) to incentivise countries conserving their forests. Although it failed to raise its target of $25 billion, 53 countries endorsed the TFFF, with pledges in Belém totalling $6.6 billion.

Belém also offered new suggestions for climate finance, in its ‘Baku to Belém (B2B) Roadmap to 1.3T’ (USD1.3 trillion), and the report of the COP30 Circle of Finance Ministers (CoFM).

The CoFM involved 35 finance ministers representing three-fifths of the world’s population and its GHG emissions.

The COP30 promise to “at least triple” finance for developing countries’ climate adaptation by 2035 was again blocked by the Global North. LDC requests for grant financing were also ignored yet again.

Promoting voluntarism
Brazilian COP30 chair Corrêa do Lago proposed various compromises to encourage those disappointed by UN processes to take climate action.

His proposed ‘voluntary roadmap’ to transition from fossil fuels will be discussed at the Colombia/Netherlands-led ‘coalition of the willing’ conference in April 2026.

The chair’s other voluntary roadmap for forest conservation followed the COP30 agreement’s failure to condemn deforestation with stronger language.

The adoption of the 59 compromise indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation was delayed by poorer African countries’ inability to afford immediate implementation. The compromise was a two-year delay, referred to as the ‘Belém-Addis vision’.

Belém as turning point
For the first time, the US was officially absent from the Belém COP. With over 56,000 delegates registered, attendance was second only to Dubai, with more than 1,600 business lobbyists present.

COPs make slow progress by painstakingly extending the consensus for climate action. Belém may shift the COPs’ focus from negotiations to initiatives, a precedent which can be abused or advanced.

Belém’s Mutirão Decision (Action Agenda) focuses on delivery, drawing from the ‘whole of society’. Its 30 measurable Key Objectives were based on the 2023 Global Stocktake.

While Belém’s outcomes fell short of most expectations, many acknowledge Brazil did its best under trying circumstances. Nonetheless, climate justice is being denied by the continuing procrastination of powerful vested interests.

Although not quite the ‘COP of Truth’, inclusion and implementation that Lula promised, Belém reversed the backward slide of recent COPs, which the Global South must build upon before it is too late.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);