By Anselm Vogler
Feb 13 2025 –  
The climate crisis is severely endangering human well-being. While the climate security nexus is omnipresent in national security strategies and on international institutions’ agendas, political responses remain insufficient and are often problematic. Among other issues, related policies often struggle with siloization or a focus on symptoms instead of root causes.

To address the core challenges to human security imposed by climate change, the “emergent practice of climate security” must be sensitive to two contexts. First, local political and economic contexts shape how these processes of environmental change translate into human insecurity. Second, climate change is only one of several ecological processes that endanger human security on our planet.

To substantiate this point, my recent publication documents the pathways to human insecurity in the specific political and economic contexts of Vanuatu and Guam. Both Pacific islands are exposed to climate change impacts such as sea level rise and intensifying extreme weather. However, their country-specific political and economic contexts translate this exposure into different forms of human insecurity. This means that similar climate change impacts have different implications for both islands.

For example, the economic differences mean that climate change impacts affect food security differently. In Vanuatu, most people engage in subsistence agriculture. In this economic context, sea level rise and tropical storms can disrupt food supplies directly by destroying local crops, particularly in rural areas. At the same time, local food habits on the Melanesian archipelago are currently shifting towards a growing reliance on lower-quality imported foods and these trends seem to be amplified by the side effects of disaster relief.

In contrast, the prevailing colonial integration of Guam into the United States economy has enforced diets centred around imported, processed food long ago. Food insecurity, therefore, comes about differently and rather results from a precarious form of economic integration. According to a study, every second respondent experienced not having enough money to pay for food and dietary quality was found to be insufficient. In particular, shares of fruit and vegetables intake are dramatically low and the mortality resulting from non-communicable diseases among Pacific islanders is on a worldwide high. In this context, climate change is rather an aggravating factor: while there is almost no local food production to be disrupted by extreme weathers, super typhoon Mawar endangered food security due to internal displacements and food price hikes. In addition, the islands tourism economy is endangered by these storms and by the additional risks that ocean warming creates for the island’s coral reefs. This poses a substantial risk to local’s livelihoods.

The differences in political status between Guam and Vanuatu also affect how climate change translates into human insecurity on these islands. Since it achieved independence in 1980, Vanuatu is a sovereign nation. This enables the country to make its voice on climate change heard in international fora. But it also limits the places and modes through which its citizens can leave the archipelago. Migration is a possible climate adaptation strategy but most Vanuatu citizens’ options are limited to participation in labour mobility programs where they temporarily move to Australia or New Zealand and conduct low-paid unskilled labour. Such programs can generate knowledge transfer and support climate adaptation – but they have also been criticized for causing a ‘brain drain’ on Vanuatu and to expose labour migrants to problematic working conditions in their destination countries.

In contrast, Guam is not a sovereign nation but an organized, unincorporated territory of the United States. This provides its inhabitants with a United States citizenship and according privileges of international mobility. This political status eases mobility and created large diaspora populations within the United States mainland. However, the political dependency comes at a severe cost as Guam has no institutional voice on the stage of international climate policy and remains at the “margins and periphery of climate-change planning within the United States.”

The case of Guam also demonstrates that climate change is not the only environmental danger that human security has to grapple with. Its economic and political integration enabled the arrival of invasive species. These severely affect the island’s ecosystems. For example, the brown tree snake nearly exterminated local bird life and the coconut rhinoceros beetle harms local trees. These ecological damages affect the human security dimension of “place, self and belonging” as, for example, birds play an important role in the indigenous Chamoru culture. Environmental crime is an even more proximate result of the local economy and heavy militarization. Finally, some preliminary indications suggest “past and ongoing asbestos exposure” on Guam.

The findings of my interview-based study of human insecurity on Vanuatu and Guam allow for two takeaways. First, the study demonstrates how climate change impacts virtually every aspect of human security. For example, climate change is entangled with a wide range of issues such as food security, international labour mobility, political and economic contexts. Consequently, virtually every governmental department needs to consider the interactions between climate change and human security.

But, secondly, virtually every impact of climate change on human security is shaped by context. The comparison of Vanuatu and Guam has shown the importance of local political and economic contexts. Consequently, climate change adaptation policies need to address these structural contexts to become effective. From us non-local actors, the local intricacies of climate-related human insecurity inevitably demand a desire for open-minded understanding and a respectful cooperation with local actors such as those who seek to protect Vanuatu and Guam.

Related articles:

Keeping climate security human centric
Climate change, international migration and self-determination: Lessons from Tuvalu
Climate change’s intangible loss and damage: Exploring the journeys of Pacific youth migrants

Dr. Anselm Vogler is a Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University and an emerging International Relations and (Critical) Security Studies scholar with a specialization in Environmental Peace and Conflict Research. Previously he obtained a PhD from Hamburg University and has worked at the University of Melbourne and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research on human security, climate security frames in NDC and national security strategies, and the climate-defense nexus has been published in the International Studies Review, Political Geography, the Journal of Global Security Studies, and Global Environmental Change.

This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.

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 Francine Pickup
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 13 2025 – Tourism is back – and stronger than ever. With 1.4 billion international tourist arrivals recorded globally in 2024, the sector has bounced back to pre-pandemic levels, signalling a recovery from its worst crisis.

But in a world facing climate shocks, resource depletion, and many conflicts and crises, recovery is not enough. Tourism must not only bounce back; it must drive sustainability and build resilience.

The Cost of Unchecked Tourism

Tourism drives economies, cultures, and connections, making up about 10% of the global economy and creating one in four new jobs. However, the rising number of tourists is pushing popular destinations to their limits. From overcrowding on Mount Everest to water shortages in Spain’s tourist hotspots, overtourism is increasingly problematic, exposing the environmental impact of tourism:

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Hotels, resorts, and restaurants rely on unsustainable energy and inefficient equipment, with cooling systems significantly contributing to emissions.
• Water Overconsumption: Tourists use about 300 liters of water (guest per night), stressing water-scarce regions.
• Waste and Pollution: Tourism generates excessive waste, overwhelming local systems. For example, 85% of wastewater in the Caribbean is untreated, harming marine ecosystems.
• Biodiversity Loss: Poorly planned tourism developments cause habitat destruction, deforestation, and coastal erosion, threatening ecosystems that attract visitors.
• Unsustainable Supply Chains: Tourism supply chains often rely on harmful chemicals and unsustainable practices, such as excessive pesticide use in food production, which damages the environment.

To ensure a sustainable future, tourism must shift from depleting resources to regenerating and protecting them.

Why Resilience Matters

The tourism industry is highly vulnerable to disruptions like climate change, disasters, pandemics, and economic downturns, particularly in developing countries and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), where tourism often accounts for over 20% of GDP.

These nations face rising sea levels, stronger storms, coral bleaching, and biodiversity loss, threatening their tourism industries and survival. Heavy reliance on imports and small economies increases vulnerability and recovery challenges.

To address these challenges, destinations must build more resilient and sustainable business models:

• Diversification: Relying on a single source of visitors or narrow products increases risk. Expanding markets and experiences can create buffers against disruptions. For example, Malaysia’s Sustainable Tourism Recovery project strengthens nature-based tourism, boosting resilience and diversifying the economy.
• Regenerative Practices: Sustainability is essential. Eco-friendly initiatives, local supply chains, and energy efficiency help minimize impacts. In Türkiye, the Cool Up initiative reduces energy consumption and emissions in tourism through natural refrigerant cooling systems.
• Local Empowerment: Engaging local communities strengthens resilience. In Ecuador, Indigenous communities use eco-tourism to preserve culture and the Amazon rainforest while benefiting from tourism.
• Crisis Preparedness: Governments, businesses, and communities must collaborate on contingency plans to adapt to climate change and reduce disaster risk. In the Caribbean, coral reef restoration protects marine life, boosts resilience to hurricanes, and supports tourism.

A New Era of Resilient and Sustainable Tourism

The tourism sector must evolve to become a champion for sustainability and build resilience against future disruptions. That means embracing solutions that ensure tourism supports – not depletes – the ecosystems and communities it depends on.

Working towards this transformation, UNDP has been supporting countries and communities around the globe to balance economic growth with environmental protection and community well-being.

This year, a new initiative is kicking off to drive systemic change across the tourism sector in 14 countries, including seven small island nations. Funded by the Global Environment Facility, the Integrated Collaborative Approaches to Sustainable Tourism (iCOAST) initiative is set to play a critical role in enhancing sustainable and resilient tourism by addressing key areas such as cooling, chemicals and waste, electronics, construction, food systems, and plastics.

With a vision to make tourism nature-based, low emission, zero-waste, and resilient, iCOAST will implement four core strategies:

• Strengthening Policy and Regulation: Supporting governments in crafting cohesive policies and regulatory frameworks for sustainable tourism.
• Increasing Access to Finance: Unlocking commercial and private sector funding to help businesses transition to sustainable practices.
• Cleaning Up Supply Chains: Removing harmful chemicals, reducing waste, and optimizing the use of natural resources across tourism-related industries.
• Fostering Global Knowledge Exchange: Creating a platform for transformative partnerships and cross-sector collaboration.

The Road Ahead

A resilient tourism sector not only survives crises but emerges stronger. By learning from past disruptions, prioritizing sustainability, and empowering local communities, we can build a more resilient, equitable, and enriching tourism industry.

Initiatives like iCOAST ensure tourism remains a cultural bridge while protecting ecosystems and communities. But resilience requires action. Governments, businesses, and travelers must recommit to tourism model that respects the planet and empowers people. Together, we can make sustainable, resilient tourism the standard.

(The iCOAST is funded by the Global Environment Facility and will be implemented across Belize, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Honduras, Indonesia, Jamaica, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Seychelles, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Türkiye, and Vanuatu, by the following partners: UNDP, UNEP, WWF, UNIDO, FAO, IDB, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, in cooperation with UN Tourism).

Francine Pickup is Deputy Director, UNDP Bureau for Policy and Programme Support, New York

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, Feb 13 2025 – The Trump administration’s decision to dismantle the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the US government’s primary channel for humanitarian aid and disaster relief, is expected to have a devastating impact on the world’s developing nations.

The 2025 Budget Request, under the former Biden administration, amounted to a staggering $58.8 billion in US foreign aid for this year.

The proposed aid included funding to fully support the US priorities and commitments made at the U.S.-Africa Leader’s Summit in May last year.

The request also fulfills Biden’s pledge made at the U.S.-hosted Seventh Replenishment of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria to match $1 for every $2 contributed by other donors by providing $1.2 billion to the Global Fund.

And, according to the State Department, it was also expected to advance U.S. leadership by providing sustained funding for the Pandemic Fund to enhance global preparedness against infectious disease threats.

But all these commitments will have to be abandoned– or drastically scaled back– with the elimination of USAID and with over 10,000 of its staffers laid-off worldwide, leaving only about 290 positions—with US employees asked to return home.

Credit: J. Countess/Getty Images

According to a frontpage story in the New York Times February 11, critics of Trump’s executive orders say these orders “will cause a humanitarian catastrophe and undermine America’s influence, reliability and global standing.”

The Times said the US spent nearly $72 billion on foreign assistance in 2023, including spending by USAID and the State Department. As a percentage of its economic output, the US—which has the world’s largest economy—gives much less in foreign aid than other developed countries.

USAID spent about $38 billion on health services, disaster relief, anti-poverty efforts and other programs in 2023—about 0.7 percent of the federal budget.

Dr James E. Jennings, President, Conscience International, told IPS the Draconian cuts to USAID are already having global repercussions.

For two billionaires– one of whom is allegedly the richest person in the world– to take bread from the mouths of multitudes of children throughout the global south is not just uncaring–it is cruelty personified, he pointed out.

“International aid is more than numbers on a balance sheet. It impacts people in desperate need for their next meal, safe drinking water, a place to sleep, or emergency medical aid”.

Washington’s USAID program costs only 1.2% of the federal budget, according to the Pew Research Center. Much of it benefits refugees and displaced persons worldwide.

“Today they number more than ever before in history, totaling almost 100 million people. Cutting support for health programs, especially Malaria eradication and AIDS/SIDA treatment and prevention is simply madness, because deadly diseases eventually reach everybody’s neighborhood,” said Dr Jennings.

Not since President Franklin Roosevelt arrived in the White House in 1932, he said, has a chief executive issued so many directives. There is a huge difference, however.

“FDR’s actions were to benefit people, lift them out of poverty, provide jobs and improve life.”
Even if the massive federal government needs reform and border controls strengthened, something most Americans support, Trump’s actions are intended to strengthen plutocrats like himself, cut services to the American people, including veterans, and eliminate programs to help struggling populations in the rest of the world.

Such has always been the behavior of autocrats, not to mention would-be tyrants, declared Dr Jennings.

In an oped piece this week, Dr. Alon Ben-Meir, a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU), wrote “witnessing the devastating impact of Trump’s executive order to freeze almost all foreign aid is heartbreaking”.

His decision has left millions of vulnerable children without access to lifesaving food across the globe. Over 1.2 million people in Sudan who were supported by US-funded programs are now left without access to food, essential medicine, and clean water, which they need to survive.

“The consequences are equally devastating in refugee camps in Ethiopia, where 3,000 malnourished children relied on US-supported efforts through Action Against Hunger. Trump’s inhumane decision is not just heartless; it shatters the very ideals of compassion and leadership that once defined the United States”.

A nation that once led the charge in fighting hunger and saving lives is now, under Trump’s savage assault, abandoning millions of innocent children to starvation and inevitable death. His wanton action demeans rather than preserves America’s greatness, said Dr Ben-Meir.

According to the Times, there are more than 30 “frozen studies”, including:
• Malaria treatment in children under age 5 in Mozambique
• Treatment for cholera in Bangladesh
• A screen-and-treat method for cervical cancer in Malawi
• Tuberculosis treatment for children in Peru and South Africa
• Nutritional support for children in Ethiopia
• Early-childhood-development interventions in Cambodia

Marco Rubio, US Secretary of State and acting Administrator of USAID, was quoted as saying:
“The United States is not walking away from foreign aid. It’s not.”

“But it has to be programs we can defend. It has to be programs we can explain and it has to be programs we can justify. Otherwise, we do endanger foreign aid.”

Meanwhile, justifying the decision to shut down USAID, the White house said in an official statement that for decades, USAID “has been unaccountable to taxpayers as it funnels massive sums of money to the ridiculous — and, in many cases, malicious — pet projects of entrenched bureaucrats, with next-to-no oversight”.

The few examples of “waste and abuse” cited by the White House included the following:

$1.5 million to “advance diversity equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities”
$70,000 for production of a “DEI musical” in Ireland
$2.5 million for electric vehicles for Vietnam
$47,000 for a “transgender opera” in Colombia
$32,000 for a “transgender comic book” in Peru
$2 million for sex changes and “LGBT activism” in Guatemala
$6 million to fund tourism in Egypt
Hundreds of thousands of dollars for a non-profit linked to designated terrorist organizations — even AFTER an inspector general launched an investigation
Millions to EcoHealth Alliance — which was involved in research at the Wuhan lab
“Hundreds of thousands of meals that went to al Qaeda-affiliated fighters in Syria”
Funding to print “personalized” contraceptives birth control devices in developing countries
Hundreds of millions of dollars to fund “irrigation canals, farming equipment, and even fertilizer used to support the unprecedented poppy cultivation and heroin production in Afghanistan,” benefiting the Taliban

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’);