By Joyce Chimbi
BUSAN, Korea, Apr 30 2025 – Participants from over 100 countries will leave the 10th Our Ocean Conference in Busan, the Republic of Korea, with stark reminders that with sea levels rising dangerously, coastal regions and low-lying areas globally, particularly densely populated areas, are threatened.

Asia, Africa, island nations, as well as the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts are increasingly on the frontlines of the coastal climatic carnage. Countries and regions at high risk include Bangladesh, India, the Philippines, and Pacific Island nations like Tuvalu and Fiji. In 2024, floods caused the highest number of fatalities in Africa in countries such as Cameroon and Nigeria.

“We started this conference with the understanding that the ocean is under threat. A third of the world’s fisheries are overfished. Illegal and destructive fishing is damaging the ecosystems. It hurts the coastal communities that depend on it and undermines global economies. So, to risk the ocean risks the future security of all of our countries and the planet,” said Tony Long, CEO, Global Fishing Watch.

The Our Ocean Conference gathered approximately 1,000 global leaders from various sectors, including heads of state and high-level government officials from over 100 countries, and representatives from more than 400 international and non-profit organizations. Together, they discussed diverse and concrete actions for a sustainable ocean.

Today, experts highlighted the intersection of the ocean, climate, and biodiversity in finding solutions that transform science into political action. While the ocean is on the frontlines of the climate crisis, it is also a significant source of sustainable solutions because it absorbs nearly 25 percent of carbon dioxide emissions and 90 percent of the heat resulting from these emissions.

The 30×30 campaign supports the national and global movements to protect at least 30 percent of the blue planet’s land, waters, and ocean by 2030. While moderating a session on the importance of 30×30 and progress in national waters, Melissa Wright, a senior member of the environment team at Bloomberg Philanthropies, where she leads the Bloomberg Ocean Initiative, spoke about ongoing support for the global ambition.

“We’re supporting global ambition to achieve 30×30 in the ocean through equitable and inclusive partnerships and initiatives with civil society, governments, indigenous and community groups, and local leaders. Since 2014, the Blue Water Ocean Initiative has invested more than USD366 million to advance ocean conservation,” she said.

The initiative works in tandem with governments, NGOs, and local leaders to accelerate the designation and enforcement of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Most recently, the initiative has pushed for the rapid ratification of the High Seas Treaty and ensured the creation of MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

“We do not have much time left until 2030 to achieve the 30×30. As such, we are presented with a unique and challenging opportunity for ambitious, robust enhancement to our national and global capacities for the protection, conservation, and sustainability of our oceans,” said Noralene Uy, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning, and Foreign-Assisted and Special Projects, Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Noralene Uy speaking to participants about the Philippines’ efforts and challenges towards achieving the 30×30 targets. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

The Philippines is one of the 17 megadiverse countries in the world, meaning it possesses a high level of biodiversity and a large number of endemic species. The country is home to a significant portion of the world’s plant and animal species, including many unique and endemic species.

Within this context, she said an undue burden weighs on the Philippines given limited resources and other priority development objectives. Nonetheless, the country has turned to science and is making progress. The country has established marine scientific research stations strategically located in the major marine biogeographic regions of the country to provide insights and knowledge into their ocean.

They have also formulated the national ocean environment policy, stressing that as science and policy evolve according to the priorities of our country, organizational structures and knowledge systems must change as well.

To achieve the highest ambition in marine protection, the Philippines and coastal communities around the globe now have an ever-greater need for financing and technical resources. Brian O’Donnell, Director, Campaign for Nature, explained that the only available assessment of the cost of 30×30 on a global scale is now five years old.

“According to the assessment, it would cost about USD 100 billion a year to implement 30×30 both on land and in the sea and at the time of the assessment, only about USD 20 billion was being spent, leaving an USD 80 billion annual shortfall,” he explained.

“Not only do we need to ensure we get more money into this space, but that money is delivered efficiently and effectively to the people, communities, and countries where biodiversity is and those who are safeguarding it.”

O’Donnell said that, despite ongoing challenges in mobilizing financial resources, there is some notable progress. He spoke about the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in 2022, which includes a target for wealthy nations to provide at least USD 20 billion annually in international biodiversity finance to developing countries by 2025, increasing to USD 30 billion by 2030.

This target aims to help developing countries implement their biodiversity strategies and action plans, particularly those in Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States. But O’Donnell said there is a need to change how things are done, as, unfortunately, much of the financing to developing countries is coming in the form of loans and short-term financing.

In all, he encouraged partnerships and collaboration in raising much-needed resources, such as the Oceans 5, which is dedicated to protecting the world’s five oceans. Oceans 5 is an international funders’ collaborative dedicated to stopping overfishing, establishing marine protected areas, and constraining offshore oil and gas development, three of the highest priorities identified by marine scientists around the world. Bloomberg Philanthropies is a founding partner of Oceans 5.

Looking ahead, there is optimism that by the time delegates settle down for the 11th Our Ocean Conference in 2026 in Kenya, the global community will have moved the needle in their efforts across finance, policy, capacity building, and research towards marine protected areas, sustainable blue economy, climate change, maritime security, sustainable fisheries, and reduction of marine pollution.

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 Zikora Ibeh
LAGOS, Nigeria, Apr 30 2025 – Half a century after ECOWAS promised peace and prosperity, three breakaway states are testing West African solidarity, sparking a potential trade war.

Unless last-minute diplomatic efforts can save the day, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) looks set to mark its 50th anniversary next month not only three member states short but also facing the onset of a trade war that threatens to undo its decades-long efforts at achieving regional integration and free trade.

Since July 2023, the 15-member regional bloc founded in 1975 has been gripped by a crisis of legitimacy over its stance on the wave of military coups in the region. Between 2020 and 2023, Mali (2020 and 2021), Burkina Faso (2022) and most recently Niger (2023) experienced a series of coups that saw the overthrow of democratically elected governments and the seizure of power by juntas.

The latter, buoyed by a wave of anti-Western sentiment sweeping the region, moved to end decades-long military and economic alliances with former coloniser France as well as the US, Germany and the EU, in favour of relations with Russia and China.

But it was not until July 2023, when the Tchiani-led military junta seized power in Niger, that the simmering discontent in the regional bloc metastasised into a split and the confederation of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), a defence pact comprising the breakaway states of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, was formed.

Towards a trade war?

Since its emergence on the West African landscape, the AES has quickly morphed into a substantive regional rival with an agenda for monetary, economic, trade and cultural integration. On 29 January, the AES countries formally withdrew from ECOWAS after observing the mandatory one-year notice period. The bloc now has its own flag and passport, as well as a central bank and currency.

Two weeks ago, the AES slapped a 0.5 per cent import duty on all goods from ECOWAS member states in a move that raises the prospect of a trade war. The tariff, which took effect immediately, applies to all goods, excluding humanitarian aid, entering the three countries.

This new policy runs counter to ECOWAS’ intention under the Trade Liberalization Scheme (ETLS) and investment policy to continue to ensure open borders and free movement of goods between its members and the AES countries despite their official exit from the bloc.

The new levy threatens to disrupt trade flows and drive up food prices across the region.

The AES has defended the levy as a means of raising revenue to finance its activities. Given that the AES countries are cash-strapped and currently have minimal administrative capacity to manage more complex policies, it is not surprising that they have resorted to this measure.

Import duties are a ‘stroke of the pen’ policy, providing a quicker way to raise revenue than long-term investment in expanding revenues through export markets and developing other areas of comparative advantage. At the same time, however, they can also serve as a shortcut over a cliff.

Depending on how ECOWAS states respond, AES import duties risk provoking countermeasures — something that would only make an already bad situation worse.

The new levy threatens to disrupt trade flows and drive up food prices across the region. But the impact could be far worse for the alliance, whose member states are among the world’s poorest countries. Being landlocked, the AES countries are heavily dependent on imports through ports via their southern ECOWAS neighbours, primarily Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Togo, Senegal and Benin.

So, adding this tariff will significantly increase the price of imports, including food, for citizens of AES member states. Nigeria, for instance, is Niger’s third-largest trading partner after France and Mali. And in recent months, Niger has suffered frequent power cuts and fuel shortages due to dwindling supply from neighbouring Nigeria.

The AES levy also adds to the growing structural, logistical and political challenges that continue to hinder the growth of intra-African trade and particularly the realisation of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which came into effect in 2021. For a continent of 1.3 billion people, the AfCFTA is supposed to be the world’s largest operating free trade area.

Sadly, this is not yet the case. According to figures from Trade Data Monitor, the value of intra-African trade stood at $192.2 billion in 2023, representing just 14.9 per cent of total African trade. Over the same period, the global share of intra-African exports and imports also declined from 14.5 per cent in 2021 to 13.7 per cent in 2022.

Payback

Whether West Africa gets back on track with the AfCFTA will depend on the possibility of convincing the AES countries to rejoin ECOWAS by July 2025, when the grace period granted at the time of their exit in January ultimately expires.

The AES countries account for around 17 per cent of ECOWAS’ total population of 446 million, more than half of its total land area of over 5 million km2 and about 7.7 per cent of its total GDP. Their departure has thrown ECOWAS into its worst crisis in half a century.

The current trajectory of political polarisation and a potential tariff war will only lead to the common ruin of all.

Still, this was not an inevitable crisis. Rather, it was one that the regional bloc walked into with its eyes wide open. Because all things considered, the split can be seen as payback for ECOWAS’ drift away from its founding pan-Africanist ideals and the mistakes it made in its handling of the coup in Niger.

At its founding half a century ago, ECOWAS expounded a vision of solidarity, collective self-reliance, non-aggression, and the maintenance of regional peace and stability. Over the decades, however, not only had the union failed to stand true to these ideals, but its hollow defence of democracy while tolerating sit-tight despots such as Togo’s Faure Gnassingbé in its rank had produced a crisis of legitimacy that robbed the regional body of the moral authority to enforce discipline in times of turmoil.

This crisis of legitimacy is currently being reinforced as the AES continues to employ sovereign and anti-imperialist rhetoric to position itself as a worthy alternative. But the current trajectory of political polarisation and a potential tariff war will only lead to the common ruin of all. Hence the urgent need for ECOWAS to avoid giving in to provocation and instead employ diplomacy to resolve the challenges brought about by the imposition of import duties by the AES.

It was the failure to take the diplomatic route that led to the impasse in the first place. This is the lesson that ECOWAS must learn as it begins to reimagine its role as a regional bloc for the next half-century. Failing to do so could mean a further erosion of the bloc’s influence and relevance over the coming 50 years.

Zikora Ibeh is a researcher, columnist, podcaster and development advocate with a passion for social justice and gender equity. She works to make a difference in society through public policy advocacy, action research and media advocacy.

Source: International Politics & Society, Brussels

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 Timothy A. Wise
CAMBRIDGE, MA., Apr 30 2025 – On March 17, Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum signed into law a constitutional reform banning the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) corn. The action followed a December ruling by a trade tribunal, under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement, in favor of a U.S. complaint that Mexico’s 2023 presidential decree, with broader restrictions on the consumption of GM corn, constituted an unfair trade practice by prohibiting the use of GM corn in tortillas.

The Mexican government publicly disagreed with the ruling, claiming that the three arbitrators had failed to consider the scientific evidence Mexico presented in the yearlong case. But the government chose to comply, rescinding the three specific parts of the decree deemed to limit future GM corn imports. Still, the government left intact the decree’s measures phasing out the use of the herbicide glyphosate, establishing a protocol for tracking GM corn imports into the country, and banning the cultivation of GM corn in the country.

The constitutional amendment enshrines that last measure in a more permanent manner. While GM corn has faced planting restrictions for more than a decade, the constitutional ban represents an important act of resistance and sovereignty, particularly in light of the flawed decision by the tribunal.

Trade panel fails to consider evidence

Corn is central to Mexico’s agriculture, cuisine, nutrition, and culture. Mexico is the center of origin for corn, where the crop was domesticated thousands of years ago. It remains at the core of the country’s farming, diet, and culture. As President Sheinbaum acknowledged in approving the constitutional ban on GM corn cultivation, “Sin maiz no hay pais” – without corn there is no country.

In defense of Mexico’s 2023 decree, the panel acknowledged that the government presented scientific evidence from qualified and reputable sources of “risks to human health arising from the direct consumption of GM corn grain in Mexico, and risks to native corn of transgenic contamination arising from the unintentional, unauthorized, and uncontrolled spread of GM corn in Mexico.” (That evidence is summarized in an extensive publication from Mexico’s national science agency.)

The trade tribunal dismissed concerns about such risks in its ruling, essentially giving itself a pass on reviewing the scientific evidence of human-health risks by arguing that Mexico had not conducted an approved risk assessment “based on relevant scientific principles,” a reference to prevailing international codes for such processes.

The panel also failed to evaluate the risks to native corn. Mexico presented strong evidence that GM corn has cross-pollinated native corn varieties, gene flow that threatens to undermine the genetic integrity of the country’s 64 “landraces” and more than 22,000 varieties adapted by farmers over millennia to different soils, altitudes, climates, foods, and customs.

The tribunal argued that no special protection from GM corn was needed because gene flow already takes place from non-GM hybrid varieties of corn, and GM contamination is no different from non-GM gene flow. “Mexico has not demonstrated how the threat to the traditions and livelihoods of indigenous and farming communities from GM corn is greater than the threat posed by non-native, non-GM corn,” the panel wrote. Cross-pollination from hybrid corn “could equally threaten the genetic integrity of native corn.”

Equating contamination from GM corn with that of hybrid corn is a serious misreading of the science and of Mexico’s culture. GMOs by definition – and by explicit definitions in the constitutional amendment – involve crossing species boundaries, introducing, for example, a gene from a bacterium into a corn plant to repel insects. In contrast, hybrid corn is produced by cross-breeding different corn varieties, the resulting offspring remaining pure corn, with no non-corn genes in its DNA.

Mexican farmers have a long history of developing some of their own cross-pollinated varieties, intentionally combining a native variety with a hybrid that has properties the farmer desires. Such cross-pollination has nothing in common with unwanted contamination from GM corn, imposed on farmers without their informed consent. They call it “genetic pollution.”

It can pose a long-term risk to native varieties. Transgenic traits do not always reveal themselves after contamination. That means farmers can unknowingly spread such contamination from their pollen year after year to other corn plants. Mexican researchers discovered such contamination in their 2013 survey of native corn varieties. Biotechnologist Antonio Serratos reported that some of the native varieties he found even within Mexico City had transgenic traits in their DNA.

“In Mexican fields, transgenic native maize is being created,” he told me at the time. ”If [GM] maize seeds are sold or exchanged, the contamination will grow exponentially. That is the point of no return.”

Seed-sharing under threat

The tribunal’s alternative recommendation for controlling unwanted gene flow suggested that “the informal seed exchange practices of indigenous and farming communities” was one of the “underlying issues” Mexico should address to prevent contamination instead of restricting imports.

Limiting seed-sharing is entirely at odds with the science of seed diversity and evolution, says researcher Erica Hagman, who helped prepare Mexico’s defense in the USMCA dispute. Mexico’s rich corn diversity is the direct result of millennia of adaptive practices by farmers in their fields. The tribunal’s suggestion that Mexico should limit such seed-sharing to prevent GM corn contamination runs counter to the practices of in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity.

Mexico’s constitutional ban on GM corn cultivation ensures that such misguided reasoning will not guide public policy. The amendment was strengthened by proposals from civil society that extended the ban to new genetically engineered seeds by banning any crops “produced with techniques that overcome the natural barriers of reproduction or recombination, such as transgenics.” This limits some of the new generations of genetically engineered crops.

While the constitutional reform does not include some of the original language restricting GM corn consumption, no doubt in deference to the trade ruling, the final version shows a clear preference for non-GM crops, leaving the door open to tighter regulation.

Tania Monserrat Téllez from the Sin Maíz No Hay País coalition called the reform “a major step forward for the defense of native corn varieties, the health of the Mexican population, and the protection of Mexico’s biocultural heritage associated with corn.”

Timothy A. Wise is the author of Eating Tomorrow: Agribusiness, Family Farmers, and the Battle for the Future of Food (New Press 2019) and a researcher at Tufts University’s Global Development and Environment Institute.

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’);