By Kizito Makoye
NICE, France, Jun 11 2025 – Under the surface of Tanzania’s turquoise waters, a miracle unfolds quietly every day.

Just off the coast of Zanzibar, in the Chumbe Island Coral Park, reef fish glitter like scattered gemstones, weaving between coral gardens that pulse with life. The air is heavy with salt, and the silence underwater is only broken by the rhythmic clicks of snapping shrimp and the steady heartbeat of the sea itself. Sea turtles slither over hard corals. Butterflyfish dart like flashes of sunlight. It’s a living display—one of the most pristine marine ecosystems in East Africa. Read more »

By Kizito Makoye
NICE, France, Jun 11 2025 – As the sun peeked through the French Riviera clouds and a dozen reporters sipped orange juice aboard the WWF Panda Boat docked at Port Lympia, Frankie Orona, a Native American rights advocate from the Society of Native Nations in San Antonio, Texas, stunned the room into a moment of absolute stillness.

“Imagine a baby in the womb, completely reliant on its mother for air, water, and nutrients—and yet, plastic chemicals are already finding their way into that sacred space,” he said, his voice trembling with emotion. “That baby has no choice. And neither do future generations if we don’t act now.”

Orona’s stark imagery marked a powerful appeal to the high-level delegation at the UN Ocean Conference on June 10 in Nice, where ministers and representatives from 95 countries backed The Nice Wake-Up Call—a collective demand for an ambitious, legally binding U.N. plastics treaty that addresses the full lifecycle of plastic pollution.

For Orona, the issue is deeply personal and spiritual. “In our culture, the womb is the beginning of the circle of life. Polluting it with plastics is like violating a sacred trust,” he said.

A Crisis in the Making

Plastics are now everywhere—in our oceans, our food, and even our bodies. In 2019 alone, an estimated 28 million metric tons of plastic ended up in the environment—equivalent to dumping the weight of the Titanic into nature every day. Without aggressive intervention, that figure could nearly double by 2040.

For  Orona, who doubles as UNEP co-chair of the Indigenous Peoples Major Group, the negotiations unfolding ahead of the August talks in Geneva are a fight for survival.

Speaking to reporters aboard the WWF Panda, Orona, a descendant of the Tonkawa and Apache tribes, did not mince words. “For Indigenous peoples and frontline communities, plastic pollution is not just an environmental issue—it is a human rights crisis that has been going on for generations,” he said.

With the Mediterranean breeze brushing across the harbor, Orona’s voice cut through the chatter of press briefings and policy handouts. “Our communities live near the extraction sites, the refineries, the chemical plants, the incinerators, and the waste dumps. We are the first to feel the impacts—in our lungs, our water, our food, and our children’s health. And too often, we are the last to be consulted.”

The declaration known as The Nice Wake-Up Call, endorsed by 95 countries at the conference, was a welcome shift in tone for many in the Indigenous rights movement. “It sends a strong signal that many governments are now recognizing what we’ve been saying for decades—that ending plastic pollution means addressing the full life cycle of plastics: from extraction to production to disposal,” Orona said.

From Environmental Damage to Systemic Injustice

Orona, who also represents the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Plastics and is part of the Plastics Environment Justice Delegation, emphasized that plastic pollution must be understood in the context of historical and ongoing systems of exploitation.

“This is a continuation of environmental racism and systemic injustices. The human rights violations and violence that have been normalized in our communities for generations must stop,” he said.

Citing the disproportionate exposure of Indigenous populations to toxic chemicals used in plastics—some linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and endocrine disruption—he called for a global ban on these additives. “Many of these chemicals are dumped, burned, and leached into our waters, into our sacred lands,” Orona said. “We cannot talk about justice if these harms continue.”

A Just Transition Rooted in Indigenous Knowledge

While many governments are pushing for ambitious production caps and bans on single-use plastics, Orona warned that these measures must not shift the burden onto those least responsible for the crisis.

“A just transition means phasing out fossil fuel-based plastics while investing in community-led solutions, including Indigenous knowledge and science,” he said. “This isn’t just about cleaning up trash; it’s about restoring balance and protecting future generations.”

In a system long dominated by fossil fuel interests and extractive economies, Indigenous communities have often led the way in conservation and sustainable living. “Our knowledge systems are not just cultural—they are scientific. They are proven. And they are part of the solution,” Orona noted.

Follow the Money—and Ensure It Reaches the Frontlines

Orona’s final message was financial. Any treaty, he insisted, must include a mechanism that guarantees direct access to funds for Indigenous and frontline communities.

“Too often, we are shut out of global financing streams—even when we are the ones on the front lines, creating the very solutions the world needs,” he said. “That must end.”

While images of floating plastic bottles and entangled turtles often dominate headlines, experts at the Nice panel were adamant: the crisis begins long before a straw hits the ocean.

Disproportionate Impacts

Plastic production facilities are often located in marginalized communities—adding a layer of environmental injustice to the crisis.

“Indigenous peoples, rural communities, and minority populations suffer the worst impacts,” said Orona. “We’re talking about asthma, cancers, and cardiovascular diseases—especially in children. These are not abstract consequences; these are lived experiences.”

Reporters on the Panda Boat scribbled notes between bites of Mediterranean pastries, visibly moved by Orona’s personal account.

“This is genocide by pollution,” he added. “Our people are dying, and it’s largely invisible to the rest of the world.”

Wildlife at Risk

The panel also underscored the devastating effects of plastic on marine life. Every species of sea turtle has been documented ingesting or getting entangled in plastic. For blue whales, the planet’s largest animals, the reality is even more daunting—they are believed to ingest up to 10 million pieces of microplastic every day, sometimes weighing as much as 44 kilograms.

The next round of negotiations for the plastics treaty is scheduled for August in Geneva, where pressure is mounting to solidify a legally binding agreement that includes all five critical points outlined in the Nice declaration.

The sense of urgency also echoes in the corridors of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the U.N. agency overseeing the global shipping industry. Tasked with ensuring environmental safety on the high seas, the IMO has stepped up efforts to address plastic waste, among other pressing marine threats.

In response to a question about the devastating 2021 marine spill in Sri Lanka—where a burning cargo vessel released over 1,680 metric tons of plastic pellets into the Indian Ocean—IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez noted that the agency has been developing new regulations specifically targeting the handling, packaging, and cleanup of plastic pellets. These measures, initially adopted by the European Union, mark a significant step in tightening maritime controls on plastic pollution.

Dominguez stressed that tackling marine pollution also demands inclusive governance. The IMO is increasingly encouraging the participation of Indigenous communities and young people—groups historically sidelined from international maritime decision-making. Their voices, he said, are crucial for shaping policies that are both just and effective.

Next Steps

Professor Bethany Carney Almroth—a renowned environmental toxicologist and one of the leading scientific voices in the negotiations—believes the business world is not the obstacle many assume it to be. Instead, she says, it’s a matter of giving business the legal clarity to act.

“Business follows the rule of law,” she said. “The situation we have today is a mix—some laws are written, others are absent. That’s the problem. If we create new regulations, then it’s no longer a question of whether businesses are voluntarily doing enough. It becomes a question of compliance.”

Carney Almroth, who has worked extensively on the science-policy interface for chemicals and plastics, said that a strong, enforceable treaty is essential to shift the status quo.

“The status quo is broken,” she said plainly. “We need to change the framework so regulations guide businesses to do the best thing possible—for the economy, for the environment, and for people.”

As one of the few experts who has consistently called for systemic reform in how plastics are managed, Carney Almroth said that relying on voluntary industry movements is simply not enough.

“We’ve seen global treaties deliver meaningful results before,” she said. “The Montreal Protocol worked. It changed how we handled chlorofluorocarbons, and it protected the ozone layer. People may not even realize how much their lives have improved because of those decisions—but they have.”

The Hidden Cost of Profit

Responding to a question about the profitability of the plastics industry—especially in countries where it contributes significantly to government revenues—Carney Almroth offered a sobering perspective.

“When we say plastics are profitable, that’s only because we’re not accounting for the real costs,” she said. “Those costs aren’t paid by the companies producing plastics. They’re paid by nature, and they’re paid by people.”

She cited staggering health implications, pointing out that plastics contain thousands of chemicals—many of which are toxic, carcinogenic, or endocrine-disrupting. “The human healthcare costs associated with exposure to these chemicals are astronomical—running into billions of dollars each year. But they’re not included in the price tag of plastic production.”

Building Standards that Protect People and the Planet

So what does it take to eliminate hazardous plastics from global markets?

According to Carney Almroth, we’re still missing a critical piece: effective, fit-for-purpose international standards.

“Right now, most of the existing standards—developed by organizations like ISO or OECD—are geared toward material quality or industrial use. They were never designed to protect human health or the environment,” she explained. “We need new standards. Ones that are developed by independent experts and shielded from vested interests.”

For such standards to be truly effective, she said, they must be holistic and interdisciplinary. “We need to move away from just focusing on economic sustainability. That’s what we’ve done in the past—and it’s failed us. Environmental and social sustainability must be given equal weight.”

As the panel wrapped up, Orona gazed over the Port Lympia waters.

“We have a choice right now,” he said. “To continue poisoning the womb of the Earth—or to become caretakers, protectors.”

And as the reporters descended the gangway of the Panda Boat, the symbolism was not lost: we’re all adrift in this ocean of plastic. Whether we sink or swim depends on what happens next.

IPS UN Bureau Report

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 11 2025 – On June 10, the United Nations (UN) held a conference titled Artificial Intelligence for Inclusion: Strengthening Workforce Participation for Persons with Disabilities. This conference, which was organized by the Permanent Mission of Canada to the UN, featured a discussion by a panel of experts from various sectors, looking to shed light on the ways AI tools can be used to create inclusive workforces that maximize fairness and accessibility.

Since the mainstream adoption of generative AI systems in the early 2020s, many industries have been restructured. For many workers around the world, the implementation of AI tools have streamlined work processes, making once tedious tasks easier than ever before. Efficiency has been revolutionized, with many human workers being pushed to higher-level positions and creating a host of new jobs across numerous industries.

Despite these benefits, AI systems produce risks of unintentional bias and discrimination, particularly during the hiring process, limiting inclusivity and merit-based employment in the workforce. Additionally, AI systems that have been designed for able-bodied users have effectively shut out members of the disabled community.

Throughout this conference, the panel of experts discussed the methods through which AI systems can be transformed to benefit disabled individuals who have been disproportionately affected by job displacement and discrimination. Due to AI tools being a relatively new development in the global workforce, many industries lack the necessary structures to keep them from compromising a fair and equitable work environment.

“AI is transforming the way that we live, not just how we do business. Because of its rapid arrival to users, because of its regulation, free space is posing huge questions around inclusion, ethics, privacy, and some of our most fundamental institutions,” said Patty Hajdu, Canada’s Minister of Jobs and Families.

According to Dr. Jutta Treviranus, the Director and Professor at Inclusive Design Research Centre, OCAD University, the majority of AI tools used in the workforce use algorithms that create biases for those that are considered different from the vast majority. Treviranus states that roughly 90 percent of U.S. organizations rely on AI tools to hire and determine disciplinary action for employees. These systems are often trained to detect individuals who are perceived as outliers and cast them aside, creating “organizational monocultures” which harm the disabled community.

“Bias toward optimal patterns means bias towards difference. As AI gets better and better, it gets better at discrimination. Many of you are using programs that help with efficiency and help produce systems that eliminate anyone that is not optima,” said Treviranus. “We have created an international community that hopes to address statistical inequality and cumulative harm. In U.S.risk and impact assessments, anything that happens to an outlier is deemed to be statistically insignificant. We are facing statistical discrimination with these protections as well.”

Additionally, AI systems that are designed to support disabled individuals often only account for physical disabilities while neglecting individuals with intellectual disabilities. Disabled women are also disproportionately affected by data bias. Without considering these groups, AI systems are effectively working against promoting a diverse array of perspectives in the workplace, which in turn, hurt decision-making processes and innovation.

“AI can be a powerful equalizer and tool, only if it is developed with intentionality,” said A.H. Monjurul Kabir, the Senior Global Adviser and Team Leader at Gender Equality and Disability Inclusion at UN Women. “It is critical that (AI) does not deepen existing stigma, discrimination, and inequalities, especially for women and girls who face compounded layers of discrimination.”

“The unfortunate thing is that even if proportional representation was possible, AI will still rule against outliers and small minorities. It’s extremely difficult to get cluster analysis in disability…We need to look at what is done with that data and how it’s analyzed. Privacy protections do not work if you are highly unique. Differential privacy removes the pieces of data that are helpful to create AI data that will serve you,” added Treviranus.

Furthermore, disabled individuals around the world lack adequate access to AI-powered assistive technologies. With AI tools being implemented in all major sectors of industry, it is imperative that disabled workers are supplied with tools that streamline their work processes and keep their physical and/or intellectual conditions in mind.

“To some extent, addictive tech is a broken business model. The weight of the costs is on disabled individuals and public service…People with disabilities are paying far more for access that works poorly and is often broken,” said Treviranus. “AI using these life changing technologies usually work the least from people who need them the most. The farther you are from the average, the less it works. If the products you have are in a different language or your environment is poor, it will not work well,” she added.

According to Jürgen Dusel, theFederal Government Commissioner for Matters relating to Persons with Disabilities for Germany, workers with intellectual disabilities are currently receiving tablets that help them navigate their daily responsibilities in hotel jobs. Additionally, Hajdu states that in many parts of the world, disabled individuals face limited access to breathing technologies due to a lack of electricity in their environments.

To create comprehensive systems that benefit a wide spectrum of individuals, AI technology must be accessible for the most underserved communities. With disabled individuals persisting in every corner of the world, there must be reforms in accessibility to ensure that all people are afforded a fair chance to survive and succeed in their fields.

“The unexplored knowledge terrain is that entire area that faces intersectional barriers…..If you work with individuals who experience greatest barriers you will create a much more adaptive system with less need for help. In the long term, you are saving money and you don’t need to engage so many people. …I think there is an imperative to do this work we need to ensure these people creating this intelligence actually act intelligent,” said Treviranus.

IPS UN Bureau Report

By Naureen Hossain
NICE, France, Jun 11 2025 – “There is no climate action without ocean action,” President Hilda Heine of the Marshall Islands told reporters, as she and other representatives of Pacific island states reiterated that countries must honor their climate action agreements.

“The ocean is bearing the brunt of our failure to address climate change and transition away from fossil fuels.”

Heine remarked that countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) must include how they will transition toward renewable energy sources in line with the 1.5 degree limit under the Paris Agreement.

President Surangel Whipps Jr. of Palau remarked that protecting the oceans requires countries to deliver on 1.5-aligned NDCs. He called on all countries, including major emitters from the G20 to deliver on them by September this year. “We need to adapt to shield our oceans from further harm. And that means, plain and simple, money—and money that we can use,” said Whipps Jr.

On the second day of the UN Ocean Conference, leaders and representatives from Pacific island states spoke to reporters following the Pacific-France Summit with President Emmanuel Macron. The leaders sat down with Macron to discuss the role that France could play in supporting climate resilience in the Pacific islands. They hoped that he would be an advocate for the Pacific island states and climate action within the European Union (EU), the G20 and the G7. Heine acknowledged that their meeting was not a “formal negotiating venue.” Rather, it was an opportunity to share concerns from the Pacific island states.

Whipps Jr. said that he invited Macron to invest in the Blue Pacific Prosperity Initiative and Pacific Resilience Fund. “The gap between what we need and what we have is growing dangerously wide,” said Whipps Jr. Macron was said to have committed to investing in climate financing in the region, as Whipps stressed that financing should reach the communities that would benefit from it the most without it taking months or even years to reach them.

“In the Pacific, our security depends on climate action,” said Ralph Regenvanu, Minister of Climate Change Adaptation, Meteorology and Geo-Hazards, Energy, Environment and Disaster Management, Vanuatu. “Without climate action, we face a very dangerous future.”

Venues such as the Ocean Conference provide opportunities for underrepresented communities  and smaller countries to bring global attention to their challenges with the hope of effecting forward momentum, even as the process can be slow-moving.

“A lot of these changes that happen at the International level, when they do happen, are a result of these coalitions of the willing,” said Regenvanu, pointing to how nearly 50 countries have ratified the Agreement on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) and that 37 countries have issued a moratorium on seabed mining.

“It’s the way you get to change—building support.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

By Melek Zahine
BORDEAUX, France, Jun 11 2025 – During President Trump’s tour of Gulf monarchies last month, he mentioned Gaza only two times. The first time was in Doha, when he expressed his desire to make Gaza a “freedom zone.” Gaza’s 2.1 million residents, nearly half of whom are children, would like that, too.

Just as the Israeli hostages being held by Hamas in violation of the Geneva Convention have the right to immediate and unconditional freedom, Gazans also have the right to live free of the inhumane and illegal collective punishment they’ve been forced to endure for more than 600 days.

Melek Zahine

They would like freedom from the brutal bombardment, starvation, forced displacement, siege, and blockade of Gaza. They would also like the freedom to safely collect food and basic humanitarian supplies from the UN and other legitimate and experienced aid providers, the freedom to return to their communities to search for and bury their dead with dignity, and the freedom to rebuild Gaza even if it takes a generation.

The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Dresden, Stalingrad, and Le Havre, were free to rebuild their cities. Why should this freedom be denied to Gazans?

When President Trump mentioned Gaza for the second time during his Gulf tour, he was in Abu Dhabi, where he briefly acknowledged the humanitarian crisis. He said, “We’re looking at Gaza. A lot of people are starving.”

The world now knows that President Trump’s words were nothing more than a virtue-signaling smoke screen. He wasn’t actually seeing the scale of the human suffering in Gaza, which the United States helped create.

Instead, he was talking about the so-called Gaza “Humanitarian Foundation,” a cynical and deadly tool designed by Israeli and U.S. officials to replace an established, functioning, independent, and credible international aid system in order to accelerate the ethnic cleansing and annexation of Gaza.

Since its launch ten days after Trump made his comments in Abu Dhabi, the G.H.F. has delivered more death than food and proven itself to be anything but humanitarian.

It’s just another lethal weapon in Israel’s vast Western-subsidized war arsenal and a way to appease Israel’s patrons in the U.S. Congress. How, after all, can “Hamas tunnels” and fighters hide beneath the emaciated, dying, and dead bodies of Gaza’s starved children?

Aftermath of a 6 May Israeli airstrike on an UNRWA school turned-shelter in Gaza where dozens of people were reportedly killed, including women and children. Credit: UNRWA

President Trump had a real chance to prove that his concerns for Gaza and his persistent claims of being a peacemaker were genuine during the 4 June U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire and full, unhindered humanitarian access.

Like President Biden before him, President Trump instructed his Acting U.N. Ambassador to cast the lone, shameful vote against a resolution meant to prevent the further loss of life in Gaza, including for the remaining Israeli hostages whose families have been pleading for a lasting ceasefire every day since November 2023.

This U.N. resolution wasn’t a political call for sanctions or an arms embargo against Israel. Nor was it a call to recognize the State of Palestine. It was simply a call for humanitarian action in order to get life-saving aid into Gaza at scale and to get the hostages out of captivity.

The political wisdom and courage to vote in favor of this ceasefire was the bare minimum President Trump and his administration could have offered. More importantly, it’s what a majority of American citizens have wanted for some time now, including those who voted for President Trump.

According to a March 2025 AP-NORC poll, 60% of Republicans now believe that “it’s essential” for the U.S. to “facilitate a permanent ceasefire in Gaza,” and in May, a Data for Progress poll showed that 76% of Americans across political lines are in favor of an immediate ceasefire and would like to see the U.S. do its part to de-escalate the crisis in Gaza.

By voting against the ceasefire and providing numerous misleading reasons for doing so afterward, President Trump ignored the views of a majority of Americans towards the increasingly desperate situation faced by Gaza’s besieged and starving population.

The urgent question now is whether the 14 sovereign states that voted in favor of the resolution will quickly honor their votes with meaningful action. There’s so much that can be done, from pausing trade talks and relations to arms embargoes and sanctions, but the following three measures will send a strong, immediate message that there’s serious determination behind the condemnation.

European, U.K., Turkish, and regional Arab States should join forces to provide a no-fly zone over Gaza. This action is the fastest way to stop Israel from prosecuting its deadly daily air strikes. I witnessed how it saved lives and paved the way to peace when NATO enforced a No Fly Zone over Bosnia for a thousand days between 1993 and 1995.

A no-fly zone over Gaza will help calm tensions in the region and build a political and humanitarian space for more seasoned mediators to ensure the safe release of the Israeli hostages and for legitimate humanitarian aid actors to resume operations through the Karem Shalom, Erez, and other crossings into Gaza.

Simultaneously, the deployment of French, Turkish, British, and Russian naval hospital ships already in or near the Mediterranean should sail to Gaza immediately, especially towards the North of the strip where no fully functioning hospitals remain and where people are dying for lack of basic medical supplies and infrastructure.

This action will help save lives and lift the burden from Gaza’s devastated healthcare system until it’s given a chance to recover. Furthermore, the governments that voted in favor of the resolution must pressure Israel to facilitate immediate access for international journalists into Gaza.

If a small sailboat in the Mediterranean and the thousands of ordinary citizens from 32 countries presently marching towards Gaza through Egypt can try to break Israel’s unlawful siege and blockade, surely the most powerful governments and navies from the Eurasian continent can do their part.

IPS UN Bureau

Excerpt:

Melek Zahine is an international humanitarian affairs and disaster response expert.

By Samuel King
BRUSSELS, Belgium, Jun 11 2025 – When the next pandemic strikes, the world should be better prepared. At least, that’s the promise states made at the World Health Organization’s (WHO) World Health Assembly on 19 May when they adopted the first global pandemic treaty. This milestone in international health cooperation emerged from three years of difficult negotiations, informed by the harsh lessons learned from COVID-19’s devastating global impacts.

Yet this step forward in multilateralism comes at a deeply difficult moment. The WHO, as the organisation tasked with implementing the agreement, faces its starkest ever financial crisis following the withdrawal of the USA, its biggest donor. Meanwhile, disagreements between states threaten to undermine the treaty’s aspirations. Some of the big decisions that would make the experience of the next pandemic a more equitable one for the world’s majority are still to be negotiated.

A treaty born from COVID-19’s failures

Processes to negotiate the Pandemic Agreement came as a response to the disjointed international reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic. When the virus spread across borders, global north countries hoarded vaccines for their populations but left much of the world unprotected – an approach that as well as being manifestly unfair enabled the virus to further mutate. The treaty’s text emphasises the need for proper pandemic prevention, preparedness and response in all states, with the potential to enhance multilateral cooperation during health crises.

With 124 countries voting in favour, 11 abstaining and none voting against, many diplomats presented the agreement’s finalisation as a victory for global cooperation. It comes at a time when multilateralism is being severely tested, with powerful governments tearing up international rules, pulling out of international bodies and slashing funding. The window of opportunity to reach some kind of agreement was rapidly closing.

A major absence loomed large over the final negotiations. Upon his inauguration in January, President Trump announced the USA would withdraw from the WHO and halt all funding. The withdrawal of a superpower like the USA harms the WHO’s legitimacy and sends a signal to other populist governments that withdrawal is an option. Argentina is following its lead and Hungary may too.

Funding crisis

US withdrawal will leave an enormous funding gap. In the pre-Trump era, the USA was the WHO’s biggest contributor: it provided US$1.28 billion in 2022-2023, amounting to 12 per cent of the WHO’s approved budget and roughly 15 per cent of its actual budget.

As the treaty was agreed, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus painted a disturbing picture of the organisation’s financial situation. Its 2022-2023 budget showed a US$2 billion shortfall and its current salary gap is over US$500 million. The proposed budget for 2026-2027 has already been slashed by 21 per cent, and this reduced budget is expected to receive only around 60 per cent of the funding needed. The WHO will likely have to cut staff and close offices in many countries.

This reflects a lack of political will: states are making the choice of cutting down on global cooperation while boosting their defence spending. The current WHO funding gap of US$2.1 billion is the equivalent of just eight hours of global military expenditure.

Big issues kicked down the road

Deteriorating political realities made it crucial to reach an agreement as soon as possible, even if this meant kicking some difficult decisions down the road. As a result, the text of the agreement has severe weaknesses.

The treaty lacks dedicated funding and robust enforcement mechanisms, which means the blatant inequalities that defined the global response to COVID-19 are likely to remain unconfronted. It doesn’t tackle the most critical and contested issues, including the international sharing of pathogens and vaccine access.

The treaty will open for ratification following the negotiation of an annex on a pathogen access and benefit-sharing system, a process that could take a further two years. This means implementation is likely still a long way away.

The current impasse reflects an enduring faultline between global south states that need better access to affordable health products and technologies, and global north states siding with powerful pharmaceutical corporations that want their assets protected. Wealthy governments are making their decisions safe in the knowledge they’ll be at the front of the line when the next pandemic starts, while the world’s poorest people will again face the brunt of the devastation.

Political will needed

The Pandemic Agreement is a step forward at a time when international cooperation faces increasing attacks. That 124 countries demonstrated their commitment to multilateral action on global health threats offers hope. But substantial work remains if the treaty is to enable a truly global and fair response to the next health crisis.

For that to happen, the world’s wealthiest states need to put narrow self-interest calculations aside. States also need to address the issue of long-term funding. Right now, global leaders have agreed on the need for coordinated pandemic preparedness, but the institution meant to lead this doesn’t have the resources needed to put goals into action.

The next pandemic will test not just scientific capabilities, but also collective commitment to the shared global values the treaty is supposed to represent. Political will and funding are needed to turn lofty aspirations into meaningful action.

Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation.

For interviews or more information, please contact [email protected]

By Cecilia Russell
NICE, France, Jun 11 2025 – To the outside world, a sea level rise of 34 cm (or slightly longer than a child’s ruler) may not seem dramatic, but it’s an existential threat to the Pacific island state of Vanuatu.

Vanuatu, in support of a youth movement, the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, has approached the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on how existing international laws can be applied to strengthen action on climate change and protect people and the environment. The opinion is expected later this year.

Already there has been some success in the international campaign Vanuatu has led on behalf of the Pacific states and territories and a 2024 advisory opinion from the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea confirmed states’ obligations to prevent climate-related harm, including from non-state actors, like fossil fuel corporations under signatory states’ control.

“So, this opinion is significant. It has provided crucial certainty that protecting our oceans from climate change is international law. It’s not optional,” said Ralph Regenvanu, Minister of Climate Change, Vanuatu, emphasizing these obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. He was speaking at a press briefing held today (June 11, 2025) at the 3^rd UN Ocean Conference underway in Nice, France.

In the case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Vanuatu has made a broad case that goes beyond climate conventions and includes human rights law and customary international rules, said Julian Aguon, Director, Blue Ocean Law.

Speakers at the conference emphasized the need for ambitious climate action, noting that the Pacific contributes less than 0.01 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions but faces severe impacts.

The case before the ICJ was crucial because its outcome could “essentially turn the page on business-as-usual and actually embark on a new course, a new era of climate change reparations,” said Aguon and the opinion, which will hopefully elaborate on the legal consequences of the breach of obligations, will mean “stepping into a new era of climate accountability.”

Vishal Prasad, Director, Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, added that communities on the frontlines of the effects of climate change should not have to pay the costs of rebuilding—whether this is seawall construction or mangrove regeneration—and bear the burdens of a group of historical polluters who fail to grasp their responsibility in exacerbating the climate crisis.

Asked by IPS about the increased reliance on fossil fuels and the poor response to reparations financing, as in the Loss and Damage Fund, Aguion said the opinion would mean countries would no longer be able to hide from their obligations.

“This will, once and for all, decisively dispel the legal ambiguity that has long hobbled the ability of the international community to respond effectively to the climate crisis.”

IPS UN Bureau Report