By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, May 21 2025 – Many countries around the world have a fertility rate below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman, but one country stands out with its exceptionally low fertility rate.

So, which country currently has the lowest fertility rate on the planet? Is that country

• Singapore
• South Korea
• Spain
• Sweden
• Switzerland?

Some additional demographic information may be helpful. This country’s fertility rate, which has been below the replacement level for forty years, declined to approximately one-third the replacement level in 2023, or 0.72 births per woman. The fertility rate in 2023 was a fraction of levels about fifty and seventy years ago, which were 3.8 and 6.2 births per woman, respectively (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

The fertility rate of this country is expected to remain less than half the replacement level for the next thirty years and stay well below the replacement level for the rest of the 21st century.

The country has implemented various measures to address its low fertility rate, including childcare subsidies, tax reductions, childcare services, cash payments to parents, and extended maternity and paternity leave.

Fertility rates below the replacement level are becoming the global norm. In over half of all the countries in the world, representing over two-thirds of the world’s population, the fertility rate is below 2.1 births per woman

The country’s president declared population decline a national emergency and established a committee to prepare a plan to address its low fertility rate, population decline, and demographic ageing. A new Ministry of Population Strategy Planning has also been established to manage these issues.

The answer to the question of which country currently has the lowest fertility rate on the planet is the Republic of Korea, commonly referred to as South Korea.

Because of its high fertility rate in the recent past, the population of South Korea grew relatively rapidly over the past 75 years. From a population of nearly 20 million in 1950, the population of South Korea reached approximately 36 million by 1975 and about 52 million in 2025.

The past rapid growth of South Korea’s population is over and is being replaced by a rapid decline of its population.

By the end of the 21st century, the population of South Korea is expected to be approximately the same size as it was in 1950, around 22 million.

Population projections for South Korea consistently show a declining population over the coming 75 years. The various variants of United Nations population projections, for example, all show a rapidly declining population for South Korea over the coming decades.

The United Nations medium variant population projection expects South Korea’s current population of about 52 million to decline to approximately 22 million by the year 2100.

The UN’s high and low variants also project South Korea’s current population to be smaller in 2100 at approximately 32 and 14 million, respectively. The constant variant, which assumes the country’s fertility rate will remain constant at its current level, projects South Korea’s population to be 17 million by the century’s close (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

Besides population decline, South Korea is also expected to experience rapid demographic ageing. South Korea’s young population of the recent past has been replaced by an older population that is expected to be even older in the coming years.

In 1950, the median age of South Korea’s population was about 18 years, and the proportion of the population 65 years or older was about 3%. The country’s current median age is 46 years, and about 20% of the population is 65 years and older.

South Korea’s median age is expected to continue increasing, reaching 57 years in 2050 and 60 years by the close of the century. Also, the proportion of the population aged 65 years or older is projected to reach 40 percent in 2050 and 45 percent by 2100 (Table 1).

Source: United Nations.

Why do the population projections show a declining population for South Korea over the coming decades?

The answer to that question is relatively straightforward. South Korea is simply experiencing fewer births than deaths. In 2023, for example, the numbers of births and deaths were approximately 236 thousand and 346 thousand, respectively, yielding a natural change (births minus deaths) of -109 thousand.

The reason births outnumber deaths in South Korea is that the country’s fertility rate is well below the replacement level.

And why is South Korea’s fertility rate so far below the replacement level?

The answer to that vital question is more speculative and complex than explaining the country’s demographic trends. The answer to that question needs some context and explanation about South Korean couples having children.

It is important to recognize world demographic trends. Fertility rates below the replacement level are becoming the global norm. In over half of all the countries in the world, representing over two-thirds of the world’s population, the fertility rate is below 2.1 births per woman.

Among those many countries are some fifty populations, including South Korea, that have a fertility rate well below the replacement level. Those countries, which include China, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Spain and Sweden, have a fertility rate below 1.5 births per woman (Figure 3).

Source: United Nations.

Because of low fertility rates, countries are having fewer births than deaths, and that difference yields negative rates of population growth. And because of sustained levels of that negative population growth, countries are facing population decline and demographic ageing.

Various critical factors are believed to be behind the exceptionally low fertility rate in South Korea. Among those factors are higher education, a declining marriage rate, high rates of contraceptive use, lifestyle choices, difficulties finding a suitable mate, personal goals and serious concerns about the future.

Also, additional factors across South Korean society that are contributing to the country’s low fertility rate include a work culture with an exceptionally lengthy workweek, long work hours, and stiff career competition, the high costs of living, especially for housing, education, and childcare, difficulties juggling parenthood with employment, gender inequality in the workplace, particularly the gender pay gap, and the traditional gender roles and inequalities in family and household matters.

Although South Korea’s fertility rate may increase slightly in the coming decades, it is expected to remain substantially below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman, resulting in a continuing trend of fewer births than deaths throughout the 21st century.

Many countries, including South Korea, are concerned about the decline and ageing of their respective populations. The governments of those countries are attempting to increase their low fertility rates with pro-natalist policies, incentives, and programs.

A final question concerns whether those pronatalist policies, incentives, and programs of governments will raise today’s low fertility rates back to the replacement level.

Such policies and programs may increase low fertility rates slightly. However, those increases are typically temporary and relatively small, with fertility rates remaining significantly below the replacement level.

Based on the experiences of countries over the past several decades, once a fertility rate falls below the replacement level, especially to 1.5 births per woman or less, the rate remains at low levels. Most population projections for countries with low fertility rates do not expect a return to the replacement level soon.

In conclusion, most countries with low fertility rates, including South Korea, which currently has the world’s lowest fertility rate, are expected to experience population decline and demographic ageing throughout the remaining decades of the 21st century.

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

By Naureen Hossain
NEW YORK, May 21 2025 – The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons must not be allowed to collapse under the weight of geopolitical cynicism, the preparatory committee at the UN heard.

This year, the Third Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) (April 28-May 9) was intended to address procedural issues related to the treaty and the upcoming conference next year. The meeting was the third and final preparatory session before the review conference next year. As such, the session was an opportunity for countries to reaffirm the principles of the NPT by agreement.

Throughout the two weeks, delegations expressed their positions and deliberated over recommendations that would shape the agenda for the 2026 conference. Beyond member states, other stakeholders such as civil society groups were emphatic in expressing the urgency of the nuclear issue and calling for member states to take action.

“The continued existence of nuclear weapons remains one of the most urgent and existential dangers facing life on this planet,” said Florian Eblenkamp, an advocacy officer for the International Coalition Against Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). He went further to state, “The non-proliferation norm must not be allowed to collapse under the weight of geopolitical cynicism. If the NPT is to have a future, States Parties must send an unambiguous signal: Nuclear weapons are not to be spread. Not to be shared. Not to be normalized.”

The committee’s chair, Ambassador Harold Agyeman, who serves as the Permanent Representative of Ghana to the United Nations, told reporters early on that the success of the review conference in 2026 would be “dependent on the political will of state parties” in demonstrating progress on their obligations of the treaty and to “strengthen accountability for the related implementation of existing commitments.”

“Indeed, many around the world are concerned by the lack of raw progress on nuclear disarmament, and emerging proliferations risk that could undermine the hard-won norms established to bring about a world free of nuclear weapons and a regime to achieve that goal,” said Agyeman.

The third preparatory session took place in a time of increasing global anxiety over nuclear proliferation and even escalation. The most recent conflict between India and Pakistan has the world on edge that two nuclear powers might engage in war. Since April, Iran and the United States have been in negotiations over a new nuclear deal, which at times has seen both sides at a deadlock over limiting Iran’s nuclear programme.

Given that context, plus pre-existing tensions between other global powers, such as Russia and the war in Ukraine, this session was an opportunity for countries to act with urgency towards non-proliferation and to respect their obligations under the NPT. By the end of the conference, however, it seemed no agreement was reached. Revised recommendations for the review conference failed to reach consensus. This continues a concerning pattern of preparatory meetings that also failed to adopt an outcome.

As the meeting reached its conclusion on May 9, delegations expressed regret that the draft agreement did not reach consensus. “We regret that the desired breakthrough on transparency and accountability in the context of the strengthened due process was not reached,” said one delegate from Egypt. “The discussion was mature and based itself on mutual respect and commitment to multilateralism.

Many delegations made sure to reaffirm their commitment to the NPT and to strengthening the review process. Yet there was also a recurring acknowledgement of the “complex geopolitical situation” that presented a challenge in reaching consensus.

Civil society organizations have also been vocal in their disappointment at the lack of agreement or outcome document. ICAN stated that the lack of an agreement reflected a “horrifying lack of urgency in response to current risks.” Reaching Critical Will went further to criticize nuclear-armed states for refusing to comply with international law and their obligations to the NPT, which calls for them to eliminate nuclear weapons.

The NPT Review Conference (RevCon) is expected to be held in New York from 27 April to 22 May 2026. The PrepComm nominated Vietnam to chair the RevCon. Ambassador Dang Hoang Giang, Permanent Representative of Vietnam to the United Nations, stated that the presidency would be “characterized by inclusive, transparent, and balanced proceedings” that would ensure that the perspectives and interests of all state parties would be respected.

“The road ahead will be challenging, but we remain confident that through collective wisdom and shared determination, meaningful progress is not only possible but achievable. A robust and effective treaty ensures a safer and more secure work for everyone,” said Giang.

The presence—and threat—of nuclear weapons looms large. For good reason, they cannot simply be relegated to history as a relic of hubris and ambition when we can observe their influence in modern geopolitics. If the spirit for nuclear nonproliferation is indeed still there, then the international community must be vigilant in advocating for the NPT and other disarmament treaties, rather than let a small percentage of parties dictate the global agenda. This must be an ongoing process, lest we see the continued undermining of nonproliferation and multilateralism.

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.

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’);  

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report, NUCLEAR ABOLITION

By Busani Bafana
BULAWAYO, May 20 2025 – More people are dying from once treatable infections because the medicines we rely on are no longer working as they should. The culprit? A growing health threat called antimicrobial resistance (AMR).

What is AMR?

AMR happens when bacteria, viruses, fungi, or parasites evolve and become resistant to the drugs meant to kill them—this makes common infections harder and sometimes impossible to treat. Without effective drugs, diseases last longer, spread more easily, and cause more deaths. Why? Antimicrobials are becoming less effective in treating infections because disease-causing germs are becoming resistant.

“AMR is a global crisis that is already here,” Dr. Arshnee Moodley, a microbiologist and team leader for Antimicrobial Resistance at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), told IPS via email.

“It makes infections in people, animals, and even plants harder—or sometimes impossible—to treat,” Moodley says. “Without working medicines, illnesses that were once routine can become life-threatening.”

The rise in AMR has made it more difficult to prevent and treat infections with medicines like antimicrobials.

What are antimicrobials and are they important for health?

Antimicrobials are very important medicines and include antibiotics, antifungals, antivirals, and antiparasitics, which are used to either prevent or treat infections in humans, animals, and plants. They are essential to modern medicine and veterinary care. Without them, we risk losing the ability to treat infectious diseases and protect our food systems.

Why is this happening? Should we be worried about AMR?

Imagine not having medicine that works when you get an infection. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the world scrambled to find ways to treat and manage a new disease.

AMR is largely driven by the overuse and misuse of antimicrobials in humans, animals, and agriculture. They are often used when they’re not needed or in the wrong doses. In farming, they are sometimes used to promote growth or make up for poor hygiene rather than treat disease. This overuse gives microbes more chances to adapt and become resistant, turning these life-saving medicines into useless tools.

The World Bank, the World Organisation for Animal Health, and AMR all warn that without action, AMR could cause significant economic harm on the scale of the 2008 global financial crisis. The World Bank estimates that by 2050, AMR could wipe away 3.8 percent of global gross domestic product each year and push 28 million people into poverty. The loss of productivity in agriculture, especially livestock systems, could severely affect food systems and livelihoods.

Who is most affected?

While AMR is a global burden, low- and middle-income countries like Kenya bear the greatest burden. Limited access to diagnostics, vaccines, and appropriate treatment means that drug-resistant infections often go undetected or are treated incorrectly. Farmers can lose entire herds or flocks due to untreatable infections, leading to food insecurity and loss of income. According to recent estimates, AMR directly causes 1.27 million deaths annually and contributes to nearly 5 million more. That’s on par with HIV/AIDS and malaria.

Researchers at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) use waste bins to collect empty containers, packaging, and used vials as a simple and effective way to monitor what antimicrobials are used on farms. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

Does climate change have a role in AMR?

Yes, climate change is an emerging factor in the spread and worsening of AMR. Rising temperatures, extreme weather, and flooding can alter the spread of pathogens and the application of antimicrobials, according to a recent review in which ILRI participated. For example, warmer conditions help bacteria grow faster and share resistance genes more easily. Floods can spread drug-resistant pathogens from sewage into water supplies, increasing the risk of infections in both people and animals. Animals stressed by heat may become more vulnerable to disease, leading to increased use of antimicrobials.

“There is also another link between AMR and climate change,” Moodley told IPS. “Residues of antimicrobials in manure can disrupt microbial processes in soil, potentially affecting greenhouse gas emissions. And we at ILRI are studying how antibiotics in livestock manure—because of treatment—affect greenhouse gas emissions and soil health.”

Can we fight AMR?

Yes. AMR is preventable, but it requires urgent action across all sectors. Vaccination can prevent infections and reduce the need for antibiotics. Improved diagnostics can ensure the right drug is used only when necessary. Better hygiene and infection prevention in hospitals, farms, and communities can reduce disease spread. Responsible antimicrobial use in both animals and humans is key to slowing AMR.

“While drug-resistant infections are a concern,” Moodley says, “We must not forget that many people still don’t have access to the basic health and veterinary services they need—including the very medicines, vaccines, and diagnostics that could save lives and prevent AMR.”

The bottom line

AMR threatens the future of healthcare, agriculture, and global development. It undermines progress toward Universal Health Coverage and Sustainable Development Goals like zero hunger (SDG 2) and good health and well-being (SDG 3). This silent pandemic is unfolding now and without urgent, coordinated action, the world risks entering a post-antibiotic era where even the smallest infections can once again kill.

Note: This feature is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.

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’);