By Eric Bebernitz
NEW YORK, May 22 2025 – In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order that upended humanitarian efforts globally, leaving millions of vulnerable people without lifesaving services. The administration’s decision to slash American international aid by 83% is creating daily tragedies in the world’s most fragile regions.

The United States was previously the largest humanitarian donor globally, providing an estimated $64 billion in 2024 – approximately 42% of all humanitarian aid worldwide. Now, nearly 5,800 grants have been canceled, leaving only about 500 programs operational.

Even prior to the aid cuts, a child died due to hunger-related causes every 11 seconds. Now, unthinkably, things are getting worse. According to the 2025 Global Report on Food Crises released earlier this month, more than 295 million people faced acute hunger last year, the sixth consecutive annual increase, driven by conflict, displacement, and climate extremes.

Meager rations are being cut in refugee camps, pregnant women are losing access to medical care, and entire communities are without clean water as cholera cases surge.

The Human Cost to the World

In Afghanistan, therapeutic nutrition units at public hospitals in Kabul and Badakhshan have faced the heartbreaking task of turning away children in need of lifesaving care after being forced to close in March. Fortunately, with assistance from the European Union, these facilities have recently reopened, at least for a few months.

Since the halting of US funding, more than 396 nutrition sites have closed across the country, as well as more than 400 health facilities. More than 29,400 people have lost emergency monetary and food aid amid growing food insecurity.

In Madagascar, after four consecutive years of drought, mobile clinics treating malnourished children have closed. We’ve had to let go 200 staff and close two centers in the south. Roughly 3,000 children with severe acute malnutrition – the deadliest and most urgent form of hunger – no longer receive treatment. Sadly, that number is likely to grow, since 35,000 people have lost essential food aid.

In Mozambique’s Cabo Delgado province, already traumatized by eight years of armed conflict and recently hit by three cyclones, the sudden interruption of funding has led to more than 30 staff members losing their contracts, considerably reducing our capacity in areas where we were the only humanitarian presence. More than 17,000 people no longer receive food aid or the support they need to access clean water.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, US funding accounted for 70% of the world’s total humanitarian response to deep poverty and worsening conflict that has displaced more than seven million people – roughly equivalent to the population of Tennessee. Stretched thin, health centers there are now charging fees that many families cannot afford. The DRC has one of the highest maternal mortality rates globally—three women die every hour from pregnancy-related complications. US budget cuts leave us unable to help.

False Savings, Greater Long-Term Costs

The US administration justifies these cuts under “fiscal responsibility” and “America First” policies. Yet international aid represents just 1% of the federal budget, while the long-term benefits of aid far outweigh any short-term savings.

Studies show that every dollar invested in preventing undernutrition delivers up to $81 in return through GDP gains that can benefit the global economic system. Early warning systems – such as the now-shuttered Famine Early Warning Systems Network inspired by President Reagan – saved money by identifying potential crises before they required massive intervention.

Even Marco Rubio, US Secretary of State and briefly the Acting Administrator of USAID, once acknowledged that the U.S. invests in aid “because we’re a compassionate people, but we also do it because it’s in our national interest. Because perhaps more than any other nation on Earth, we understand that a world that is freer, more just, more peaceful and more prosperous poses less of a threat.”

In other words, in our increasingly interconnected world, strategic foreign assistance isn’t charity—it’s a necessary investment in our shared prosperity and security over the long term. It is also strikingly effective. Over the past 45 years, humanitarian assistance has contributed to a 60% drop in children dying from hunger’s deadly effects. This remarkable progress is now at risk.

Eroding Trust and Contradictory Messages

For humanitarian organizations, the administration’s approach has created an impossible situation with a devastating lack of clarity. Where exemptions were supposed to be granted for “life-saving” activities, the promised funds have not materialized, forcing organizations to deplete their reserves or shut down vital programs entirely.

The impact reaches far beyond individual organizations to affect the entire humanitarian ecosystem. Thousands of field staff positions have been eliminated across multiple countries, leaving critical gaps in service delivery.

This funding crisis comes at a time when more than 300 million people worldwide need humanitarian aid. Nearly 733 million people—almost 10% of the world’s population—suffer from hunger, and one in three people globally don’t know where their next meal is coming from.

It will take an estimated $44.7 billion in 2025 to begin to meet these basic needs. So, the sudden disappearance of US funding leaves a catastrophic gap that other donors simply cannot fill.

A Call to Renew American Leadership

We’ve seen the power of American leadership before. The Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe after World War II. Plan Colombia changed the trajectory of that nation. America’s rapid response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak prevented a global pandemic.

As global citizens, we must recognize that hunger anywhere threatens stability everywhere. Food insecurity drives migration, fuels extremism, and exacerbates conflicts.

Congress is currently laying out a budget for next year that includes funding levels for foreign assistance. We are urging Members of Congress to support funding levels that are equal to or above the foreign assistance funding levels they agreed to last year, with guarantees that the Administration will spend these Congressionally appropriated funds.

America has always been greatest when we are at our most generous. As the richest and most powerful nation in the world, we should be thinking bolder, not smaller.

We have the ability to end chronic hunger for everyone, for good.

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’);  

Excerpt:

Eric Bebernitz is Director, External Relations, Action Against Hunger

By Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, May 22 2025 – The UN is going through another exercise in reforming itself under immense pressure from the US, its main funder. This time US President Donald Trump has expressed himself much more forcefully and seems determined to pare down US contributions and demand further curtailing of UN expenses, while some other donors, reluctant to show their own hands, are quietly cheering on the US.

To emphasise that it means business, and to the cheers of its cabal of domestic supporters, the US has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

In addition, it has pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords. On previous occasions, the US had also withheld its contributions forcing then Secretaries-General, Kofi Annan and Ban ki-Moon to undertake reform exercises. That the US should now adopt a more ruthless approach to the UN after having been a catalytic force in its creation, is a sad commentary on the changes that have impacted on the original idealism.

It would seem that the UN goes through the ritual of trying to reform itself every time the US withholds funding, usually when the Republicans assume power in Washington DC. At the time, many senior UN staffers cynically believed that the US would come up with the funds that it owed sooner or later and treated the reform ritual with supercilious indifference. (This was what I experienced during my time at the UN).

This time round, the UN reform exercise may have to be more meaningful if the Trump Administration is to refrain from going through with its threats to curtail funding. In any, event, many would agree that the UN needs reform, both within the organisation as well as in its political bodies.

Reassuringly and to the relief of many, the US appears to be still committed to the UN. The Acting Permanent Representative of the US to the UN, Dorothy Shea has said, “The United Nations remains essential to resolving complex international challenges, first among them maintaining international peace and security, and addressing the causes of armed conflict. The UN must return to its principal purpose and the Secretary-General is uniquely positioned as the Chief Administrative Officer to lead this endeavor.”

At a time when many governments are facing budget reductions and reprioritization, the United Nations must refocus on effective delivery of its core purposes. This includes better delivery where it matters most: at the country-level”. It would seem that the US commitment to the UN remains positive despite worries to the contrary articulated by some. However, the message of the Acting PR is abundantly clear — the UN must re-focus on its key goals.

One of the irksome issues to address is the plethora of activities for which the UN has assumed responsibility. Over the years, the Organization has taken upon tasks, mostly at the behest of Member States, that may fall broadly within its mandate, but which are not necessarily consistent with its core functions.

Although many such tasks could be brought within the broad scope of its Charter mandated responsibilities, critics would argue that they do not fall within its core mandates. The funding in many cases came from the core budget, and the support structure is provided by the Organization, and some activities may even be funded by special contributions from Member States.

This has enabled certain Member States to facilitate UN activities which they themselves have funded but, in most likelihood, which respond to the agenda of their own domestic pressure groups. Human Rights and the Environment, especially climate change, likely fall into this category.

Over the years, the UN has thus taken on the role of responding to the domestic pressures of individual states, especially the rich states, leaving doubts in the minds of some as to whether these functions really fall within the core responsibilities of the Organization.

Added to the problem is the persistent shortfall of funds to realise the range of functions now being undertaken by the Organisation. By April 30, 2025, unpaid “assessments” (money owed to the UN by individual countries) stood at US$2.4 billion, with the US owing $1.5 billion, China around $600 million, and Russia more than $70 million.

On top of that, the peacekeeping budget was $2.7 billion in arrears. In 2024, 41 countries did not pay their mandated contributions. While non payers could lose their right to vote, this has never proved an adequate deterrent to those intent on delaying their dues.

In March 2025, UN Secretary-General António Guterres launched “UN80”, a review that seeks to make sure the institution continues to be fit-for-purpose as it looks towards a financially straightened future. The threatened funding cuts by the US, has helped to focus the attention of the Organization.

This exercise of the Secretary-General, reminiscent of the experience of both previous Secretaries-General, Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon, who also launched similar exercises but which petered out in time as much of the organization returned to the comfort zone of existing work methods and practices. Some things changed but not much.

UN reform, to be convincing, should be an ongoing process and not simply a response to US threats to withhold funding. The Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (DMSPC) and the UNGA Fifth Committee perform useful functions in this respect, but the UNGA 5TH Committee is subject to too much pressure from Member States.

Managers must not only be technically competent but also be modern executives who believe in continuing change, upskilling and upgrading. Training to upgrade skills and the commitment of staff to the core goals of the organization should be a regular feature. Those appointed to the highest levels by the Secretary-General, must possess superior managerial skills, especially those presented for appointment by influential states.

The organization must adapt to changing circumstances, embrace modern work methods and attitudes, seek to produce the best with available resources, and, very importantly, be committed to producing value for money. The world must feel that the world organization is producing results commensurate with what the international community is spending on it and, especially its staff.

Many staff have resigned to marking time in NY or Geneva while not producing much of value for the organization or the international community.

UN 80 has identified areas that could be improved immediately. But many of these proposals could run into staff resistance. For example, it recognized outdated working methods leading to inefficiencies within the organization as a key problem, while intergovernmental meetings are not making use of modern tools and technologies.

These were problems identified even during the tenures of Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon. A complex range of solutions were implemented. UN staff are on better than average benefits packages. Those considered redundant were encouraged to take a golden handshake and leave. Staff training was a priority.

Staff assessment methods were modernized. I remember the training and team building sessions we attended at Glen Cove with specialized external trainers. Automation happened quickly. Kofi Annan initiated the award of a UN 21 Pin to superior performers in management. (I was one of the early awardees of the Pin). But the initiative petered out largely because many of the senior political appointees who came from outside the organization could not relate to the innovations.

One solution to this would be to require nominees for such appointments possess superior management experience. Better still, countries that make such nominations, provide the secretariat with multiple names. The leadership of a unit or a division plays a crucial role in making the unit dynamic and productive.

It is to be remembered many managers who originated in developing countries, such as India and China, now lead cutting edge corporations and occupy senior government positions in the West, especially in the US. These changes, properly implemented, would very likely improve delivery.

Without doubt, UN meetings can be organised differently. All meetings need not take place in New York or Geneva with the participation of delegations from capitals. These meetings are expensive to organise, costly to the participants and unlikely to have the best representatives from poorer countries due to the costs involved.

If participation could be arranged from capitals, using modern technology which is now freely available, results would most likely be better. Where in the rare case that a country cannot organise such distant participation using modern technology, the UN office in the capital could assist in providing the necessary facilities.

Some countries might consider this a cost-effective option even for meetings of the UN Committees and even the UNGA. (This was tried out during the Covid lock downs).

The UN has been asked to consider moving some of its offices to more cost-effective locations. Nairobi already hosts, inter alia, UNEP, and UN Habitat and numerous environment related conferences. It would also make sense to bring together all UN ocean related offices under one roof in Jamica where the Commission on the Continental Shelf is located.

The use of NY for ocean related offices and meetings seems incongruous given that the US is not even a party to the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC). A rigorous rationalisation of LOSC activities and moving them to Jamaica or some other similarly cost-effective location would seem desirable.

Given the close connection between the oceans and climate change, we could even consider moving all LOS activities to Bonn where the Climate Change secretariat is located. In addition to the cost advantages, access to cutting edge academic and dedicated research institutions in Europe would be an added advantage to both. The two institutions could feed from each other and thrive in a supportive environment. Moving UNDP and UNICEF out of NY should also be considered.

Over-lapping agendas of units such as between ECOSOC and its functional commissions and expert bodies, and those of the General Assembly and its Second and Third Committees, leading to duplication of efforts should be subjected to a rationalization review. Their own managerial bodies should undertake such reviews in the first instance.

A serious review must be undertaken of whether all those Under-Secretaries-General (USG), Assistant Secretaries-General (ASG) and Directors (D) are required. Many positions could be terminated, others consolidated. In implementing the reform, rigor must be exercised.

Otherwise, the current reform is also likely to go the same way as the previous ones.

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’);  

Excerpt:

Dr Palitha Kohona is former Head, UN Treaties, a one-time Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN & until recently, Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China.

By Kizito Makoye
DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania, May 22 2025 – As delegates prepare for the third United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC) in Nice, France, momentum is building around ocean governance, finance for marine conservation, and an urgent shift toward a regenerative blue economy. Ocean advocates say the world is at a critical juncture—and the next few weeks could shape the future of marine protection for decades.

“Oceans sustain all life on Earth,” said Rita El Zaghloul, Senior Programme Manager at the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People. “Protecting our ocean is fundamental for our food security, our cultural heritage, and our economies and livelihoods.”

El Zaghloul cited new data from the OECD showing that the ocean economy, if treated as a single country, would have ranked as the world’s fifth-largest economy in 2019. It provides food for 3.2 billion people and contributes $2.6 trillion to global GDP each year.

Despite this, only 8.4 percent of the ocean is currently under formal protection. Advocates say that figure must rise to at least 30% by 2030—a goal enshrined in the Global Biodiversity Framework and reaffirmed by the 2023 High Seas Treaty, also known as the BBNJ (Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction) Treaty.

“Let us not forget that discussions on this treaty started eight years ago,” El Zaghloul said. “To enter into force, we need at least 60 ratifications. So far, we have only 21. UNOC represents a key milestone to change that.”

From Pledges to Action

Activists and policymakers alike are calling for a clear shift from pledges to implementation.

“We are only five years away from 2030,” warned El Zaghloul. “We must move beyond rhetoric.”

Examples of effective action are emerging across the globe. El Zaghloul highlighted several: the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor—a collaborative effort between Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Panama—has connected five marine protected areas to strengthen ecosystem management. The Marshall Islands has designated a marine area larger than Switzerland as a no-fishing zone. And in 2024, Australia expanded a marine reserve to cover over 52 percent of its national waters.

“These examples show that progress is possible—regardless of income level,” El Zaghloul said. “But of course, much more is needed.”

Financing the Ocean’s Future

One major hurdle remains: funding.

“We really need to make sure that finance is directly reaching the coastal communities that are working to safeguard our oceans,” said El Zaghloul. “From the HAC perspective, we’ve launched a rapid deployment mechanism offering small grants between USD 25,000 and USD 50,000 as seed funding. But of course, that’s only a start.”

Kristin Rechberger, CEO of Dynamic Planet and co-organizer of Monaco’s Blue Economy Finance Forum (BEFF), echoed the need to rethink the role of private finance in ocean conservation.

“For too long, extraction and pollution have been the business model, with little investment in protection or regeneration,” Rechberger said. “We need to create a new regenerative ocean economy that puts conservation at its heart.”

Rechberger said a new study shows that to achieve the 30×30 goal, 190,000 small marine protected areas must be established within the next five years—just within territorial waters.

“That requires smart programming, investment products, and scalable initiatives that restore marine life and generate returns,” she said. “This isn’t just an environmental issue—it’s an economic opportunity.”

Rechberger’s initiative, Revive Our Ocean, brings together proven partners working to demonstrate that marine protection can lead to coastal prosperity. She also pointed to the upcoming Ocean, Coastal Resilience, and Risk conference in Nice—slated to bring mayors and governors into the conversation.

“Some local leaders are already protecting coastlines and reaping the benefits through increased climate resilience and tourism,” she said. “We hope many more follow.”

France’s Role and the Path Ahead

France, the host of the upcoming UNOC, has pledged strong support. The French government, backed by HAC and other organizations, is pushing for new marine protected area announcements at the conference.

“We’re working to move from 8.4% to something closer to 30%,” said El Zaghloul. “But it’s not just about expanding coverage—we need to make sure these areas are effectively managed, inclusive, and resilient.”

El Zaghloul concluded with a call for unity: “We must ensure ministers and technical experts are aligned to push for more ambition. We need to quadruple ocean protection—and do so inclusively and effectively.”

Filimon Manoni, the Pacific Ocean Commissioner, has underscored the region’s unwavering commitment to ocean governance and climate resilience. Despite being home to small island nations, the Pacific has long been a global leader in marine protection, from advancing Sustainable Development Goal 14 to spearheading community-led marine conservation efforts.

“We take this opportunity very seriously,” Manoni said, emphasizing that the conference provides a rare platform for Pacific nations to voice their ocean-climate concerns, which are often sidelined at global climate talks.

At the heart of the Pacific’s agenda is the urgent call for the ratification of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement, a crucial step toward ending lawlessness in the high seas. Manoni warned that ongoing inaction could jeopardize years of marine conservation within national waters. He also called for a binding global plastics treaty and a reevaluation of global trade systems that continue to fuel ocean pollution.

“We, the small island developing states, continue to carry the burden of plastic waste,” he said, pointing to the need for systemic changes in international commerce to curb marine degradation.

The UNOC in Nice promises to be a pivotal moment. Whether it succeeds will depend not only on bold declarations but on the tangible steps taken afterward. For the world’s oceans—and the billions who depend on them—the stakes could not be higher.

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’);