By May Yaacoub
LUSAKA, Zambia, May 6 2025 – The 3rd LDC Future Forum, held from April 1-3, 2025, in Zambia, brought together global leaders, policymakers, and experts to address the urgent need for resilience in the world’s 44 Least Developed Countries (LDCs).

Under the theme of enhancing resilience, the forum emphasized innovative financing, climate-smart agriculture, sustainable infrastructure, circular economy and multi-stakeholder partnerships to combat systemic shocks.

A Call for Proactive Resilience

The forum opened with a powerful speech by Ms. Rabab Fatima, Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the UN-OHRLLS, who highlighted the vulnerability of LDCs to climate change, economic instability, and ongoing geopolitical crises, underscoring that the theme of this year’s Forum is both timely and urgent.

Ms. Fatima highlighted Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme and Cambodia’s digital IDPoor database that show how timely, targeted, digitally enabled, and shock-responsive mechanisms can break cycles of vulnerability. In this regard, she asserted that “LDCs possess immense potential for transformation, but this requires stronger financing mechanisms, climate-smart agriculture, and inclusive social protection systems.”

Rabab Fatima, Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the OHRLLS. Credit: OHRLLS

Zambia’s Leadership on being proactive and developing Resilience

Mr. Hakainde Hichilema, the 7th President of Zambia, emphasized the need for Zambia and other LDCs to transition from dependence on foreign aid to achieving proactive self-reliance. He highlighted how evolving geopolitical dynamics have led to reductions in aid, signaling that traditional reliance on external assistance is no longer a sustainable strategy for development.

President Hichilema stressed the importance of building resilience by leveraging domestic solutions and greater solidarity among LDCs. The LDC Future Forum, he explained, embodies this shift—preparing Zambia to face emerging challenges internally rather than relying on external aid.

The President highlighted his administration’s efforts in navigating crises, including the pandemic and a severe drought. Key advancements include enhanced irrigation for food security, expanded hydroelectric infrastructure, and greater solar energy adoption—all driving the nation toward self-sufficiency.

He said times have changed, stressing that “resilience is an absolute must.” and underscored the country’s desire to graduate from the LDC category in the years ahead.

Group Photo at 3rd LDC Future Forum, Lusaka, Zambia. Credit: OHRLLS

Finland’s Model for Development

Mr. Ville Tavio, Finland’s Foreign Trade and Development Minister, highlighted Finland’s enduring commitment to supporting LDCs and advancing the SDGs with a focus on inclusivity—ensuring no one is left behind, saying “The Future Forums bolster LDCs in harnessing their full potential to achieve social and economic growth”.

Mr. Tavio noted that Finland has developed a comprehensive model to strengthen resilience at home but acknowledged that this approach may not be universally applicable. Reflecting on his country’s journey, he noted that at independence in 1917, only 5% of its population had more than basic education, and much of the country was rural farmland.

Today, Finland has achieved developed-nation status, with education and social services accessible to all, pointing out that, with the right support and innovation, LDCs can also make fast progress in enhancing their resilience.

Key Highlights of the High-level dialogues and the thematic sessions:

1. Innovative Financing: Discussions revealed that developing countries including LDCs need $4 trillion annually to meet the SDGs. Blended finance and green bonds were proposed to bridge gaps, with examples like the Nordic Development Fund’s work in a select number of LDCs.

2. Climate-Smart Agriculture: Digital tools and AI for farmers took center stage, alongside calls for regional cooperation to combat food insecurity. Anticipatory action and resilience-building emerged as critical pillars of climate-smart strategies, including strengthening early warning systems, improving risk analysis, and tailoring solutions to each region’s specific environmental and socioeconomic conditions.

3. Water management and renewable energy: Participants highlighted scalable, innovative strategies for sustainable water management and renewable energy integration, emphasizing their critical role in enhancing resilience. Discussions also explored pathways to achieving water and energy security, with a particular focus on gender-sensitive approaches.

4. Circular Economy: Success stories in waste reduction and green industrialization were show-cased for Rwanda, Bangladesh and Ethiopia. These efforts, powered by partnerships, advanced technologies, and integrated approaches, pave the way for resilient and prosperous futures for LDCs.

5. Social Safety Nets: Tanzania’s TASAF program—which integrates cash transfers with public works—was highlighted as a successful model for supporting vulnerable communities while fostering long-term development. Similarly, Burundi’s use of social protection programs to mitigate the effects of recurring climate shocks, such as droughts and floods, showcased how targeted interventions can both lift people out of extreme poverty and strengthen community resilience.

The Road Ahead

The forum concluded with a consensus on accelerating the Doha Programme of Action (DPoA), prioritizing climate resilience, and strengthening partnerships. USG Fatima closed with a rallying call saying, “by working together, we can ensure that LDCs have the necessary tools and resources to achieve sustainable development and graduate from the LDC category with resilience and stability”.

As LDCs face escalating climate and economic threats, the forum’s outcomes offer a roadmap for sustainable development—one built on collaboration, innovation, and unwavering resolve.

Based on those outcomes, and to advance the Doha Programme of Action and build resilience in LDCs, it is crucial to expand innovative financing, and invest in climate-smart agriculture, sustainable water management, and renewable energy, and enhance monitoring and accountability.

Promoting economic diversification, circular economy models, and adaptable social protection systems-alongside strong multi-stakeholder partnerships-will reduce vulnerabilities and support sustainable growth amid ongoing challenges.

These steps aim to help LDCs build resilience, achieve sustainable development, and progress toward graduation from LDC status.

About the LDC Future Forum
The annual forum convenes leaders to address LDC vulnerabilities and solutions. Zambia’s hosting marked the first time the event was held in an LDC, amplifying local voices in global dialogues.

For more information, click here.

About UNOHRLLS
The Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UNOHRLLS) is dedicated to advocating for the sustainable development of LDCs, LLDCs, and SIDS. It promotes global awareness of their unique challenges and mobilizes international support for their development priorities.

Key Links:
• Op-Ed by USG Rabab Fatima
• Curtain Raiser Video
• Previous editions of LDC Future Forum
• Doha Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries
• Roadmap to Doha Programme of Action

May Yaacoub is Head of Advocacy and Outreach, Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS)

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
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, May 6 2025 – US President Donald Trump has deliberately sown discord worldwide in attempting to remake the world to serve supposed American interests better. He will not cede influence, let alone power and control, to other nations, let alone people.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Mar-a-Lago Accord
His chief economic adviser, Stephen Miran, has offered some rationale for Trump’s tariffs besides promoting his ‘Mar-a-Lago Accord’ plan for US imperial revival. But even if most governments comply, the US deficits dilemma will not be resolved.

For Miran, Trump is reshaping the US-led unipolar world more equitably by getting others to bear more of the costs of ‘global public goods’ that the US ostensibly provides.

As geopolitical economist Ben Norton has noted, the US spends trillions on its global empire, with around 800 military bases abroad! While influential US corporate interests have benefited most, others have also gained.

The US contributed to the Global North’s reconstruction boom after World War II (WW2). After pre-empting growing Soviet influence from the last year of WW2, the US enhanced its hegemony by strengthening allies during the first Cold War.

However, Miran complains it is too “costly” to maintain the post-Cold War unipolar order without others bearing their “fair share” of the US costs of providing a “global security umbrella” and international dollar liquidity.

1985 Plaza Accord
In the 1980s, many complained about how Japan and Germany, which had lost WW2, had benefited from imposed military spending constraints and US occupation to gain industrial leadership worldwide.

At its second meeting at New York’s Plaza Hotel, the US-led Group of Five (G5), of the largest Western economies, agreed that the yen and Deutschemark should greatly appreciate against the US dollar.

This would ensure US recovery from its slowdown following dollar strengthening due to the Fed’s high-interest rate policy to quell inflation after the second oil price hike.

As the yen appreciated, Japan’s 1989 ‘Big Bang’ financial reforms sealed its fate. Its asset price bubble burst, also ending the post-war Japanese miracle boom.

Miran acknowledges US dollar “overvaluation has weighed heavily on the American manufacturing sector while benefiting financialised sectors of the economy in manners that benefit wealthy Americans”.

From Plaza to Mar-a-Lago
Unlike Plaza, Miran’s proposed Mar-a-Lago Accord, named for Trump’s private Florida retreat, will be imposed on all, especially allies in the Global North.

The Global North must improve the US trade balance by deterring imports and increasing exports by letting the dollar depreciate. Allies have been threatened with tariffs and unilateral withdrawal of the US security umbrella.

Miran’s proposal also envisions foreign governments holding 100-year US Treasury bonds. This should transfer long-term losses due to inflation to bondholders abroad.

He also wants a US sovereign wealth fund financed by revaluing US gold reserves to market prices. Meanwhile, his proposed cryptocurrency stabilisation fund already threatens to disrupt international finance.

His plan claims to reduce US trade deficits and bring back good jobs. Miran expects it will significantly shrink the US current account and fiscal deficits without requiring more tax revenue or spending cuts.

Weaker dollar not enough
Jenny Gordon has challenged Miran’s argument. She reasons that his plan is unrealisable without significantly shifting US resources from non-tradables to tradables.

Manufacturing investments needed to substitute imports and increase exports have to be financed. But the US has been a net borrower for almost half a century!

Its current account deficit reflects these savings-investment imbalances. The US would have to cut its capital account surplus by borrowing much less from others to reduce its current account deficit.

Making manufacturing more competitive requires a weaker dollar and new investment. The US must encourage Americans to save more, consume less, divert investment from elsewhere, and cut its fiscal deficit.

Otherwise, foreign borrowings financing manufacturing investments will strengthen the US dollar. Worse, a weaker greenback is needed to boost US competitiveness.

Miran may prevail
Even if US manufacturing recovers, well-paid jobs in depressed areas remain unlikely. Besides ageing, changing technology, consumption, and incomes have adversely affected prospects for reviving US manufacturing.

Government spending cuts have hurt state-sponsored research, which enabled the US to lead technological innovation worldwide until early this century.

Miran’s proposed forced conversion of US Treasury bonds held in official reserves to ‘century bonds’ will reduce confidence in the dollar and its liquidity value.

Besides lowering US borrowing costs, it would undermine the deep secondary market for US T-bills and dollar-denominated trade and financial flows—all key to dollar privilege.

The dollar’s status as a reserve currency has enabled the US to maintain massive fiscal deficits without high interest rates or the threat of currency collapse. But it has also constrained US economic options, favouring finance and other modern services.

Trump does not want to lose the dollar’s status as a reserve currency. His threat to the BRICS suggests likely harsh retaliation against efforts to reduce reliance on the US dollar.

The dollar’s status in international finance also enables the US to threaten others credibly. However, Trump’s treatment of allies reminds us that compliance does not ensure stability.

Miran presumes that trade and investment partner countries will do as he wants. While few may agree to his proposal, which will not work, not many may stand up to Trump. Worse, some are already giving lip service to the proposal.

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 Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, May 6 2025 – On the crucial matters of life and death, the United States is a costly anomaly. Simply stated, women and men in the US pay more​ for health but get less​ life.

Although the United States has the highest healthcare costs per capita among developed countries, it does poorly compared to other developed countries on the vital issues of life and death.

The US spends close to twice the amount on healthcare per capita as other developed nations. In 2023, for example, the United States spent approximately $13,400 per person on healthcare, while the comparable average for other OECD countries was about $7,400 (Figure 1).

Source: OECD.

Even with its high healthcare expenditures, the US continues to lag behind other developed countries on virtually every measure of the chances of dying and living, including preventable and treatable deaths.

Despite the US paying high​er healthcare costs per capita​ than other developed countries, men and women in the United States are ending up with higher death rates and shorter lives than their peers abroad
The poor standing of the United States on measures of life and death persists despite the US having: (1) the world’s largest economy; (2) the most powerful military; (3) the third largest land area, population and workforce; (4) enormous amounts of resources; (5) a highly educated population; (5) a top migration destination; and (6) higher expenditures on health care per capita than other developed countries.

Starting at birth, the comparatively poor standing of the United States on matters of life and death is strikingly evident. The US has a higher infant mortality rate than the majority of other developed countries.

In 2023, the US ranked 33rd out of 38 OECD countries in terms of infant mortality. The US infant mortality rate of 5.6 deaths per 1,000 live births, which in 2023 resulted in 20,162 infant deaths, is more than three times the infant mortality rates of Japan, Norway and Sweden, which were about 1.7 deaths per 1,000 live births.

If the US had experienced an infant mortality rate of any of those three countries in 2023, the number of infant deaths would have been about 6,113, or 30% of the actual number of infant deaths.

Regarding maternal deaths, the United States also has one of the highest maternal mortality rates among wealthy nations. Its standing on maternal mortality is well below other developed countries, ranking 30th among OECD countries. In 2021, the US maternal mortality rate was three times the OECD average, i.e., 33 deaths per 100,000 versus 11 deaths per 100,000.

Furthermore, the life expectancy at birth of the United States ranks at about 32nd among OECD countries. In 2023, the US had a life expectancy of about 78 years, compared to an average of about 83 years among peer countries. The US life expectancy at birth is well behind countries such as Canada, France, Japan, Sweden and Switzerland (Figure 2).

Source: OECD.

It is the case that life expectancy at birth varies considerably across the large territory of the United States. Nevertheless, the life expectancies of all 50 US states fall below the average for comparable developed countries.

With respect to premature death before age 70 years, the US level is substantially higher than those of other developed countries. In 2021, the premature death rate before age 70 years of the United States was approximately twice the average for similar wealthy countries, i.e., 408 versus 228 per 100,000 people below age 70 years.

In the ages 25 to 29 years, men and women in the US experience death rates nearly three times higher than their counterparts in other developed countries. In particular, men and women in the United States are almost twice as likely as those in peer countries to die of cardiovascular diseases before age 70.

Also, US death rates from chronic diseases of the liver, kidneys and respiratory system as well as diabetes are increasing, especially among young people. In contrast, the death rates from those diseases in other developed countries have generally not changed or decreased during the recent past.

The reasons for the increase in chronic diseases among young people in the US are believed to be related to health behavior. For example, the prevalence of diabetes is strongly influenced by diet, respiratory diseases are linked to smoking and chronic liver conditions often result from heavy alcohol consumption.

The poor standing of the United States on the chances of survival continues well into old age. With respect to life expectancy at age 65 years, for example, the US is ranked 30th among OECD countries. Again, the US level is well below the life expectancies at age 65 years of other developed countries, including Australia, Canada, France, Japan, Sweden and Switzerland.

Many societal, communal, institutional and cultural factors influence life and death outcomes across the United States. Income, inequalities, access to healthcare, delays for care, lack of health insurance coverage, costs, affordability, shortages of healthcare professionals, administrative complexities and related shortcomings within the healthcare system are certainly critical determinants of survival outcomes and longevity in the US.

Moreover, the United States continues to be in a class by itself in the underperformance of its healthcare sector.

That underperformance is expected to worsen in the near future with the US administration’s proposed tax reduction legislation disproportionally going to the rich that is to be partially offset by huge cuts in Medicaid healthcare coverage, food assistance and related programs aimed at people with limited income, resources and security.

In contrast to the underperformance of the US healthcare, many high-income developed countries have found ways to meet most of the basic healthcare needs of its citizens, including universal coverage.

In addition to the shortcomings of the US healthcare sector, health behavior, including cigarette smoking, alcohol misuse, illicit drug use, motor vehicle crashes, firearms deaths, violence including homicides, obesity and the lack of exercise, also affect preventable deaths and average lifespans.

With respect to health behavior, men and women in the United States are doing relatively poorly in comparison to their peers in other developed countries. In terms of obesity, for example, the US level of approximately 42% is the highest among OECD countries with the percentages of many countries being a fraction of the US level, including Italy, Japan and South Korea, all at less than 10 percent.

In terms of daily food consumption, the United States consumes more calories and sugar per capita than any other OECD country. The US also has the highest level of ultra processed food consumption in the world, estimated to account for approximately half of the calorie intake of the average person in the United States.

Regarding motor vehicle crashes, the United States has one of the highest motor vehicle death rates among OECD countries. Among the reasons believed to account for the higher vehicle fatality rate of the US are distracted driving, speeding and impaired driving.

In 2022, for example, the US fatality rate from registered motor vehicles was one of the highest among OECD countries. The motor vehicle fatality rates of some OECD countries, such as Canada, Denmark, Italy, Japan, Sweden and the UK, were less than half of the US rate (Figure 3).

Source: OECD.

In sum, despite the US paying high​er healthcare costs per capita​ than other developed countries, men and women in the United States are ending up with higher death rates and shorter lives than their peers abroad. Moreover, considering the recent actions and proposed legislation of the US government, the existing healthcare system and the health behavior of the country’s population, the anomaly of healthcare costs and length of life in the United States is not likely to improve any time soon.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends, and Differentials”.