By Joyce Chimbi
NAIROBI, Aug 1 2025 – Landlocked developing countries face a unique set of challenges. Without coastal ports, they rely on transit nations, causing higher trade costs and delays.

To explore solutions to these complex hurdles, the Third UN Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs) or LLDC3, will take place in Awaza, Turkmenistan, 5–8 August 2025.

May Yaacoub, LLDC3 spokesperson and head of Advocacy and Outreach at the United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and the Small Island Developing States (UNOHRLLS), told IPS that the conference is “an opportunity to unlock the full potential of landlocked countries and address the challenges faced by some of the world’s most marginalized countries.”

“In every LLDC the map itself shapes the economy. Without a coastline, even the simplest export, whether cotton lint, copper cathode or cloud‑based software, must first cross at least one foreign border and frequently an entire transit corridor before it reaches a port,” Tomás Manuel González Álvarez, Senior Programme Management Officer and LLDC Team Lead at UNOHRLLS told IPS.

“The UN estimates that this physical detour means average transport costs in LLDCs are about 1.4 times higher than in comparable coastal economies. Those added costs depress profit margins, narrow the range of viable products and deter investors who value just‑in‑time delivery.”

Against this backdrop and while lacking direct sea access causes and exacerbates hurdles in trade, connectivity, and development, Yaacoub says LLDCs host vibrant communities with untapped potential and that these countries “have the ideas and know what they need to prosper. By supporting them at LLDC3 with partnerships, innovations and cooperation, we can help to build a more equitable and prosperous future for all.”

“This conference comes at the heels of the expiration of the Vienna Programme of Actions, which was adopted in Vienna, Austria, in November 2014, during LLDC2. LLDC3 will continue the work of LLDC2 and serve as a platform to explore innovative solutions, build meaningful and strategic partnerships, and increase the investment in LLDCs,” she observed.

The theme of the conference is ‘Driving Progress through Partnerships’, which she says underscores a shift from donor-recipient dynamics to mutual accountability and co-investment. And, that his includes a stronger role for transit countries, enhanced multilateral cooperation, and alignment with the SDGs, Paris Agreement and the Pact of the Future.

Álvarez emphasizes that this key, landlockedness, is experienced very differently and that the conference agenda reflects an understanding of these complexities. In Africa, “for countries such as Niger or Zambia, the critical pain point is the sheer length and fragility of overland routes—1,800 km from Niamey to Cotonou; 1,900 km from Lusaka to Durban.”

“Road and rail bottlenecks meet frequent customs stops and, in parts of the Sahel, insecurity. The result is chronic delays and freight rates that can exceed the f.o.b. (a term that defines who pays for the transportation costs) value of low‑margin agricultural commodities.”

He says in Asia, Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan possess better road and rail grids yet face. At the same time, these economies are accelerating an energy transition, moving from hydrocarbons to renewables and green hydrogen so they now need corridors that can carry high‑voltage electricity and fiber as well as bulk ore.

“Bolivia and Paraguay rely on the 3,300‑km Paraguay–Paraná waterway for almost four‑fifths of their trade. Low river levels during recent droughts have stranded barges and cost Paraguay an estimated USD 300 million in 2024 alone. Moreover, new tolls levied by Argentina highlight the vulnerability that comes with dependence on a single transit state,” he says.

Within this context, Yaacoub says LLDC3 represents a major change in both scope and ambition compared to its predecessors—LLDC1 held in Almaty in 2003, which was a ministerial meeting, and LLDC2 in Vienna in 2014. The first conference of this nature, or LLDC1 focused primarily on transit policy, infrastructure development, international trade, and technical and financial assistance.

LLDC2 expanded to include structural economic transformation, regional integration, and means of implementation. Notably, she says, LLDC3 “introduces a more holistic and forward-looking agenda, emphasizing climate resilience and adaptation, digital transformation and technology access, sustainable industrialization, reforming the global financial architecture, shock-resilience and disaster risk reduction.”

Yaacoub says the LLDC3 agenda reflects the unprecedented global complexities of the current era—climate change, pandemics, geopolitical tensions, and economic shocks. Key thematic areas include climate vulnerability and financing, with an emphasis on operationalizing the Loss and Damage Fund, doubling adaptation finance, and ensuring access to concessional resources.

Álvarez says the conference is particularly focused on converting the narrative from landlocked to land‑linked and that unlocking these countries potential relies on a strategy built on mutually reinforcing pillars that include “how Multibillion‑dollar investments in regional corridors, the Central and Northern Corridors in East Africa, the Trans‑Caspian route into Europe, and new dry‑ports on the Paraguay‑Paraná system can cut door‑to‑port time by 30 percent within the decade.”

He says building climate resilience is critical due to a “heavy reliance of LLDCs on agriculture, especially rain-fed agriculture, as a primary source of income, employment, and sustenance. Climate variability has already begun to disrupt agricultural cycles, reduce crop yields, and threaten food security. These effects ripple across rural economies, deepening poverty and forcing difficult choices for households.”

Álvarez says these issues are critical, as the same remoteness that inflates freight costs also hampers relief when drought, flood or storm strikes. Many LLDCs suffer disproportionately from climate‑related disasters because they lack redundant road and telecom links, and that “as extreme weather intensifies, production shocks travel quickly through thinly diversified economies and can wipe out years of growth.”

Overall, he says, “collectively these headwinds jeopardize progress on at least six Sustainable Development Goals—most visibly Goals 1 (No Poverty), 9 (Industry and Infrastructure) and 13 (Climate Action). Unless structural constraints are eased, many LLDCs risk missing the 2030 milestones by a full generation.”

Álvarez says the “developmental drag created by geography is not merely inconvenient; it is systemic.”

Stressing that high logistics costs shrink the set of competitive exports and that “many LLDCs remain reliant on two or three unprocessed commodities, leaving them vulnerable to price swings and limiting the spill‑overs that normally accompany industrial clustering.”

He says limited fiscal space means that governments struggle to finance education, health and social protection at scale. LLDCs as a group record poverty rates 50–60 percent higher than the global developing‑country average and score lower on the World Bank’s human‑capital index, 0.36 versus 0.48 in 2024.

Yaacoub confirms that all these issues will be explored in depth across key thematic areas that also include the private sector, civil society and youth engagement to foster inclusive partnerships and South-South and Triangular Cooperation with an emphasis on regional and interregional collaboration.

“This inclusive process ensures that the new Awaza Programme of Action is grounded in the lived realities of LLDCs and their partners,” she observes.

After all is said and done, Yaacoub says the most desirable outcome from the Third UN Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries would be the global endorsement and operationalization of the Awaza Programme of Action, which is a transformative and actionable framework that empowers LLDCs to overcome their structural challenges and thrive in a rapidly evolving global landscape.

Stressing that LLDC3 will serve as “a high-level platform to present, promote, and mobilize support for the implementation of the Awaza PoA that was adopted in December 2024. The second outcome would be the mobilization of resources and investment commitments from development partners to support infrastructure, climate resilience, and digital transformation.”

Ultimately, she is optimistic that the conference will lead to strengthened partnerships and regional cooperation to renew and expand transit agreements and regional integration initiatives, including enhanced South-South and Triangular Cooperation frameworks and commitments to multilateral collaboration aligned with the SDGs, the Paris Agreement and the pact of the Future.

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({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 Kirsten Stade
SAINT PAUL, Minnesota, USA, Aug 1 2025 – While recent heat waves were causing thousands of deaths, the Trump administration was busy dismantling policies that regulate greenhouse gases on the theory they don’t harm human health.

Meanwhile, the international community appears to be getting serious about climate change, as evidenced by a new ruling by the International Court of Justice that countries harmed by climate change can sue those responsible.

The ruling, triggered by a group of Pacific Island students facing inundation of their homes from sea level rise, opens a pathway to financial compensation from countries that emit the most greenhouse gases, as well as assistance in restoring ecosystems and infrastructure damaged by climate change.

The ICJ ruling comes amid the planned evacuation of the Pacific Island nation of Tuvalu, with 80% of its 11,000 residents seeking climate visas to emigrate to the Australian mainland. Island nations like Tuvalu and Vanuatu, which led the ICJ case, stand to suffer the most from climate change.

The ruling is an acknowledgement that those who bear most of the responsibility – especially the richest 1% of humanity who generate 66% of GHG emissions – should share more of the costs.

Reparations from high-emitting countries are a first step toward climate justice, a partial remediation of wildly uneven distribution of the wealth and harms of global economic growth, which has caused emissions to skyrocket. Billionaires’ net worth climbed by $2 trillion in the past year, while the number of people in poverty has changed little since 1990.

Climate change compounds the misery of those left behind in this system. They will comprise many of the one to two billion displaced or killed by climate change this century.

Globalization and endless economic growth was sold with the promise of alleviating poverty for billions of people. Yet the majority of the benefits flow to the few at the top, leaving less than 10% of wealth for the bottom 50%. The rest flows to the global middle class, set to grow to 5.3 billion by 2030, with most of that growth concentrated in Asia.

This rapidly growing class of consumers means rapidly growing demand for fossil fuels, transportation, appliances, processed and packaged foods, and meat-centric diets, all of which spell enormous increases in greenhouse gases.

This explains why population growth and accompanying global consumption growth account for most of the increase in carbon emissions since 1990, according to the International Panel on Climate Change. It cancels out most of the reduction in emissions from clean energy, efficiency, and alternative technologies.

The hundreds of millions of people emerging from poverty deserve a better standard of living. But the middle-class lifestyle marketed to the world through globalization spreads at the cost of diverse, traditional, more Earth-centered lifeways. Its spread is not a simple “development” success story; it demands redressing unsustainable levels of consumption across all socioeconomic classes and the vast inequalities that remain.

There is no greater inequality than ecological overshoot, where we use resources faster than Earth can regenerate, and our pollution, including climate pollution, surpasses what warming oceans, disappearing forests, and degraded ecosystems can absorb. This year, July 24 marked Earth Overshoot Day, the date past which that capacity is exceeded for the rest of the year. It comes earlier each year as our consumption and waste accelerate, signifying we are increasingly stealing from future generations by destroying planetary life support systems they and all other species need to survive.

Climate reparations are a step toward climate justice for people alive today, but do nothing about the profound intergenerational and interspecies injustice of ecological overshoot. To address that, there is no escaping the need to scale back our economies, our consumption, our waste production, and our numbers.

Finally, after decades of economic and population growth at the expense of the future, contraction may be on the horizon. Unrestrained extraction has brought our economic system to a point of diminishing returns. From fossil fuels to fresh water to trace minerals used to build renewable energy systems, resources are running short, and we can expect this to limit future economic growth.

Given these realities, global fertility declines should be cause for celebration, yet recent news about record low fertility rates of 1.6 children per woman in the United States has been met with alarm by political leaders and wealthy interests who benefit from perpetual growth.

But those who care about the well-being of humanity and the planet ought to welcome declining population growth in the U.S. and other industrialized countries. It is a partial reprieve for the climate, and a relief valve for growing inflationary pressures from resource scarcity.

Climate reparations and broader conversations about climate justice are necessary but not sufficient. Protecting and restoring our planet’s climate and ecosystems will require fundamental re-ordering of our economic system, away from endless growth, ecological overshoot, and enriching a few, towards rational contraction, operating within Earth’s limits, and providing for the basic needs of all.

Kirsten Stade is a conservation biologist and communications manager of the NGO Population Balance

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 Nathalie Meynet
GENEVA, Aug 1 2025 – The Coordinating Committee for International Staff Unions and Associations of the United Nations System (CCISUA)* staff federation has conducted a quick survey of staff in its member unions of their thoughts on the UN80 initiative.

The respondents expressed a lack of confidence in the way UN80 is being led and implemented, their disappointment in the lack of consultation and strong concerns about the outcome, and potential damage for the organization’s mandate and staff.
https://www.ccisua.org/about-us/

A summary is below:

Headline findings
72% do not feel that the proposed post cuts and relocations are based on a sound rationale
62% do not think the reforms will improve effectiveness and relevance
73% do not believe the decision to not reduce the number of USG posts is justified
60% do not believe it will make the UN more relevant to the needs of beneficiaries
51% do not have confidence in Guy Ryder’s leadership of UN80
18% have confidence in Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s leadership and 48% do not
55% are willing to support collective staff actions

Further findings
78% do not feel consulted or included in discussions on UN80
59% do not believe the overall impact will be positive
60% do not believe senior management understands staff concerns and needs
57% do not believe that senior management are the right people to lead the reforms
63% do not believe it will rebuild faith in the multilateral system
65% believe management has not communicated clearly on UN 80
56% do not have confidence in the overall leadership of their entity

Of those supporting collective staff actions, at least 40% supported one or more of the following: a petition, participating in symbolic workplace actions, joining peaceful protests, participating in staff assemblies, supporting walkouts or work stoppages

Analysis of the comments
The comments convey deep dissatisfaction with process, fairness, and leadership trust, alongside calls for genuine, inclusive reform that addresses inefficiencies without undermining staff morale or organizational credibility. The comments can be broadly categorized as follows:

Lack of transparency and communication
Many respondents feel UN80 reforms are poorly explained or not at all, with insufficient updates or details from senior management.

Staff perceive decision-making as opaque, with major announcements made without meaningful consultation.

Sample quote: “We have nearly no information about UN80; leaders act based on favoritism and retaliation.”

Disproportionate impact on lower-level staff
Cuts are seen as targeting GS and junior P-level positions, while USG/ASG posts remain untouched, leading to top-heaviness.

There is widespread frustration over perceived inequities: senior management’s high costs are maintained while frontline staff bear the brunt.

Sample quote: “Cuts are only foreseen at working level; USG and higher management are untouched.”

Low confidence in leadership
Many express distrust in the Secretary-General, USG Ryder, and other senior leaders, citing a lack of accountability and unwillingness to lead by example.

Some staff report that leadership appears disconnected from ground realities.

Sample quote: “Our senior management leadership have no idea what is going on at the ground level.”

Morale and anxiety
Staff morale is described as extremely low, with widespread anxiety about forced relocations, arbitrary cuts, and potential retaliation for speaking out.

Some note fear of participating in protests or even surveys.

Sample quote: “Morale is at an all-time low. Staff are anxious about relocations and post cuts.”

Perceived political motives and favoritism
Multiple comments allege favoritism, political appointments, and protection of allies in senior ranks.

There is skepticism about whether cuts are based on organizational need versus political convenience.

Sample quote: “It is illogical to have the same senior management that caused the crisis lead the reforms.”

Support for reform – but not this way
Many agree reforms are needed to address inefficiency, duplication, and outdated structures.

However, they criticize the approach as rushed, top-heavy, and lacking strategic vision.

Sample quote: “Reforms are necessary, but this rushed process without consultation will harm the UN.”

Broader concerns about UN credibility
Several comments link the crisis to a decline in multilateralism, lack of member state support, and the UN’s shifting priorities.

There is worry that the reforms risk making the UN less relevant and effective at serving beneficiaries.

Sample quote: “UN80 sends the wrong message to member states: cutting staff by 20% without impact will only lead to more reductions.”

About the survey
The survey was conducted by the Coordinating Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations.

It took place between 21 and 27 July 2025. A total of 3,850 staff took part. The results are statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence interval and thus representative of the views of staff in the respective entities.

The results presented above relate specifically to responses received from staff of the UN Secretariat as they are directly affected by UN 80. Responses from non-Secretariat entities will be shared with their respective governance mechanisms and in many cases show equal concern at the situation.

The member unions of CCISUA are: ECA, ECLAC, ESCAP, ESCWA, UNOG, UNON, ICC, ICJ, ILO, ITU, IRMCT, UNICEF, UNHCR, UNITAR, UNU, WFP.

The CCISUA is an international federation comprised of UN common system staff unions and associations committed to an atmosphere of constructive cooperation in order to provide equitable and effective representation of staff at all levels. CCISUA primarily represents member interests in inter-agency bodies that make decisions and recommendations on conditions of service.

Nathalie Meynet is President, CCISUA.

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’);