By Anwarul K. Chowdhury
NEW YORK, Feb 3 2026 – In the month of February 2025, one year ago, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres commenced his briefing of the media by announcing that “I want to start by expressing my deep concern about information received in the last 48 hours by UN agencies — as well as many humanitarian and development NGOs — regarding severe cuts in funding by the United States.” He went on to warn that ““The consequences will be especially devastating for vulnerable people around the world.”

Anwarul K. Chowdhury

UN80 Initiative – Reform or Pressure?

That budgetary crisis was attempted to be put off by launching the anniversary-rationaled and liquidity-crunch-panic-driven, window-dressing reform agenda – the so-called UN80 Initiative. These long overdue structural and programmatic reforms of the UN system have been on the agenda of at least for the last four Secretaries-General but without having much significant impact, except acronym-changing, mandate-creeping and structure-tweaking, and now these days, staff-relocating.

An Alarm Bell for Financial Collapse

End of this January again the Secretary-General said in a letter to all UN Member States that cash for its regular operating budget could run out by July, which could dramatically affect its operations. He also called on the to fundamentally overhaul the UN’s financial rules to prevent an “imminent financial collapse”.

Why now ask the member states to do something concrete? Why not in February 2025 when he sounded the alarm himself?

It reminds me of the somewhat similar Aesop’s fable about boy who cried wolf.

Lamenting Limited Power – No Power, No Money

In the past, Secretary-General Guterres lamented to the media asserting that “… it is absolutely true that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has very limited power, and it’s also absolutely true that he has very little capacity to mobilize financial resources. So, no power and no money.”

That is the reality which every Secretary-General faces and has been aware of. That is also known generally to the people who follow the United Nations regularly and thoroughly understand the functional complexity of the world’s largest multilateral apparatus.

Why then does this reality surfaces and brought to public attention only when the UN leadership fails to carry out the mandated responsibilities?

I believe strongly that this “very limited power”, as worded by SG Guterres, should be highlighted as often as possible to avoid unnecessary and undue expectations of the global community about the UN and its top leadership. No Secretary-General has pointed out these limitations as he campaigned for the post and on assuming the office, as far as I know.

Current SG Guterres is no exception. He would have been realistic and factual if he had pointed out the limitations – better termed as obstacles – to his leadership as he took office in 2017, and not in 2026 after being in office for nearly nine years. This built-in operational weakness and inability of the world’s most important diplomat have always been there.

Controlling Or Quitting?

Some people speculate that the US is using its financial clout and pressure to threaten the collapse of the UN.

The US has always been using its huge power of veto and almost one-fourth of the budgetary contributions to the operations of the UN system. That is a reality which should be kept in mind by the leadership of the UN and its Member States, unless the Charter of the UN is changed to create a more democratic organization in the true sense.

For a long time, the US has used the part payment arrangements for its legally due contributions, with full understanding and acceptance of the Secretary-General, so that it can avoid losing its voting power and get its own pound of flesh each time such instalment payments are made.

I believe the US wants to use the world body in its own way by controlling, not quitting.

A Woman at the Helm for The UN

In this context, let me reiterate that after eight decades of its existence and choosing nine men successively to be the world’s topmost diplomat, it is incumbent on the United Nations to have the sanity and sagacity of electing a woman as the next Secretary-General in 2026 when the incumbent’s successor would be chosen.

There is a need for creative, non-bureaucratic and pro-active leadership initiative for a real change to ensure avoidance of “crying wolf” syndrome disrupting the work and activities of the most universal multilateral body with the mandate for working in the best interest of humanity.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury is a former UN Under-Secretary-General, one-time Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the United Nations, Chairman of the UN General Assembly’s Administrative and Budgetary Committee (1997-1998), former Senior Special Adviser to UN General Assembly President (2011-2012) and President of the UN Security Council (2000 and 2001) and a two-term Vice Chairman of the all-powerful UN Committee on Programme and Coordination (1984-85).

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 Pietro Bertazzi and Oliver Tanqueray
AMSTERDAN / LONDON, Feb 3 2026 – “The ocean’s health is humanity’s health”, said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, in September 2025.

He was commenting after the High Seas Treaty (BBNJ) [1] finally achieved ratification, going on to call for “a swift, full implementation” from all partners. As of January 17, 2026, the treaty has come into force, meaning the time for implementation is now. What is the High Seas Treaty?

Only 1% of the high seas are currently protected. The new treaty will greatly increase safeguards, with significant implications for activities covering nearly 50% of the Earth’s surface.

The High Seas Treaty establishes, for the first time, a legal mechanism to govern activities affecting biodiversity in the areas of the ocean that lie outside the jurisdiction of any single country (ie their Exclusive Economic Zones, typically 200 miles from their coastline).

The agreement was achieved after nearly 20 years of dialogue, much of which was carried by Small Island Developing States (SIDS), Indigenous peoples and coastal communities. For them, the relationship with the ocean is most direct and the threats to it are most existential.

The entry into force of such a significant legal instrument sends a powerful message on the value of collaboration, and its importance in confronting the environmental risks facing the economy and humanity.

The agreement will change the ways that activities taking place in the High Seas – and those affecting them – will be planned, monitored, managed and reported on. This level of transparency will drive a cycle of accountability and improvement in the relationship between our economy and the natural world on which it depends.

What you need to know

The treaty’s role as an international legal mechanism will have significant effects on companies and financial institutions to respond to.

Key outcomes

1. Increased transparency on ocean-based activities

The agreement sets out monitoring and transparency requirements of countries – including Environment Impact Assessments (EIA) – alongside high seas genetic material, samples and digital sequence data, as well as a publicly accessible database to promote publicly available real economy data and data exchange.

This means that many aspects of companies’ high seas-related projects will be accessible to stakeholders.

Anticipating increased public information on environmental studies and mitigation plans, companies should prepare to report on high seas activities, such as fishing, shipping, energy infrastructure, mining and bioprospecting, as well as potential impacts of new activities such as carbon dioxide removal technologies.

Companies can also further identify opportunities through new publicly available data and recognize the halo benefits that increased coverage of marine-protected areas brings.

2. Increased expectations on corporate disclosure

New EIAs will amplify the need for standardized corporate data on marine impact – coupled with growing investor and policy focus on companies’ high seas activities, strategies and governance.

Financial institutions (FIs) and regulators will expect companies to report on how they comply with treaty obligations such as the number of high seas environmental assessments completed, presence in protected areas, and contributions to capacity building.

Asset owners will ask for metrics on exposure to high seas biodiversity risks. Governments may require reporting from firms to compile national reports and monitor compliance.

Companies should expect new jurisdictional regulations on ocean activities, as Member States take steps to implement the Agreement, via enhanced environmental rules and disclosure obligations.

For FIs, there is increased focus on integrating ocean health into Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) analysis, with risks and opportunities in blue finance and sustainable ocean industries only going to grow.

This creates a need to ensure that portfolio companies are equipped to comply with new regulations and secure relevant permissions to operate in international waters. Failure to do so creates risks to ongoing operations as well as litigation and reputational exposure.

3. Strengthened multilateral collaboration

The agreement creates legal mechanisms for area-based management tools, including Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). For disclosers and financial institutions, this means enhancing readiness to adapt to exclusions or operating conditions on shipping lanes, fishing grounds, mining sites, and cable routes. Industries will need to track MPA designations and adjust operations (for example by rerouting vessels or ceasing extraction) to remain compliant.

CDP stands ready to support the ocean

Working with companies and data users, CDP will integrate and standardize key metrics needed to implement the High Seas Treaty. This ensures that stakeholders have the reliable, comparable data needed to implement collective goals, and companies can demonstrate their leadership on ocean stewardship.

From 2026 onwards, CDP will be expanding its questionnaire to gather ocean-related data. In the first year of disclosure, we will generate insights on processes for identifying, assessing, and managing ocean-related dependencies, impacts, risks, and opportunities.

This work is being done in collaboration with our Capital Markets Signatories – many of which have already shown demand for ocean-related data – and disclosing companies, focusing on those with the most significant ocean impacts and dependencies.

High Seas, higher ambitions

There is still much to do to improve the protection of marine areas and restoration of ocean health. But the BBNJ is a significant step forward in this effort.

In a year where nature is placed on the main stage of the international agenda, companies, FIs and governments alike have an opportunity to embed ocean health into global financial systems.

Countries must also complement the agreement with a drive to protect coastal waters not part of their direct control. Many ocean-impacting activities will not be constrained by the BBNJ. Only 4.2% of fishery production, for example, takes place on the high seas[2]. This means there will be a continued role for Member States to conserve and sustainably use the biological diversity in areas within their jurisdiction.

We must build momentum behind the opportunities enabled by this historic deal – collaboration and transparency will play a vital part in turning this momentum into action.

Footnotes

1. The treaty is formally called the ‘Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction’, or ‘BBNJ’.
2. By volume, the total catch from the high seas accounts for 4.2% of annual marine capture fisheries production. Schiller L, Bailey M, Jacquet J, Sala E. ‘High seas fisheries play a negligible role in addressing global food security.’

Pietro Bertazzi is Chief Policy and interim Growth Officer, CDP, and Oliver Tanqueray is Head of Ocean, CDP.

Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) is a global non-profit that runs the world’s only independent environmental disclosure system for companies, capital markets, cities, states and regions to manage their environmental impacts.

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 Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 3 2026 – A sharp cut in funding for “South-South Cooperation” (UNOSSC) has triggered a strong protest from the 134-member Group of 77 (G-77), described as the largest intergovernmental organization of developing countries within the United Nations.

The protest has been reinforced by four UN ambassadors, two of them former chairs of the G77—Colombia (1993) and South Africa (2015), along with Brazil and India.

Traditionally, the G77 has been backed by China, the world’s second largest economy, and a veto wielding member of the Security Council

A letter of protest, addressed to Alexander De Croo, Administrator, UN Development Programme (UNDP), which funds and oversees the UNOSSC, says South-South cooperation remains a central pillar of the work of the United Nations and is of particular importance to the Group of 77 and China.

The UNOSSC, established by the UN General Assembly at the initiative of the G-77, “plays a critical role in supporting, coordinating and implementing South-South and triangular cooperation initiatives and projects across the United Nations development system, including in support of the UN development agenda”.

“Against this background, the G-77 and China wish to express its serious concern regarding the significant reduction in resources proposed to be allocated by UNDP to UNOSSC under the 2026–2029 Strategic Framework,” says Ambassador Laura Dupuy Lasserre, Permanent Representative of Uruguay to the United Nations and Chair of the Group of 77, in a letter to the UNDP Administrator.

The scale of the proposed reduction is described as “substantial and, if implemented, would severely constrain the Office’s ability to effectively deliver on its mandate.”

The reduction is estimated at 46% of funds allocated by UNDP to UNOSSC under the proposed 2026-2029 Strategic Framework. And in dollar terms, the proposed allocation amounts to USD 16.6 million, down from the USD 30.7 million under the 2022-2025 Strategic Framework. (the amount actually disbursed was approximately USD 22 million).

Of particular concern, is the potential impact of these funding reductions on the management and operational capacity of Trust Funds administered by UNOSSC, including the Perez-Guerrero Trust Fund for South-South Cooperation (PGTF) and other financing mechanisms that provide critical support to developing countries.

The G77 Chair has received a demarche from the Chair of the Committee of Experts of the PGTF conveying the concerns that the ability of the PGTF to continue fulfilling its regular operations might be at stake.

“Reduced institutional capacity to manage these Trust Funds would undermine their effectiveness and would have adverse consequences for beneficiary countries that rely on these instruments to advance development priorities”, warns the letter.

The Group of 77 (and China) is of the view that consideration of the proposed Strategic Framework requires further clarification before approval and should therefore be postponed.

Furthermore, the Group underscores the importance of continued transparency and structured dialogue with Member States.

“Any proposals involving the restructuring or reconfiguration of UNOSSC should be submitted for review and approval, in line with the fact that the Office was established by a resolution of the General Assembly and therefore falls under the authority of Member States.”

“In light of the above, the Group of 77 and China respectfully requests that UNDP give due consideration to all available options to substantially increase the allocation of resources to UNOSSC.”

Such action, the letter said, would be essential to safeguard the effective implementation of the Office’s mandate, protect the integrity and functionality of Trust Fund operations, and avoid negative impacts on developing countries.

Meanwhile, the letter from the four ambassadors reads:

1 “South-South cooperation remains a central pillar of the work of the United Nations and is of particular importance to developing countries. The United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation plays a vital role in supporting, coordinating and implementing South-South cooperation initiatives across the United Nations development system, including in support of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

2. It is, therefore, with grave concern that we note the dramatic reduction (46%) of funds allocated by UNDP to UNOSSC under the proposed 2026-2029 Strategic Framework: only USD 16.6 million, down from the USD 30.7 million allocated under the 2022-2025 Strategic Framework, the amount actually disbursed having been approximately USD 22 million.

3. While we fully understand the current financial difficulties faced by the UN system as a whole, we believe that the allocation of funds proposed to South-South cooperation imposes losses that are considerably higher than the average reduction experienced by UNDP programs. In addition, given the said current difficulties, it is even more likely that, in 2026-2029, the actual disbursement could be significantly less than the original allocation.

4. In this case, UNOSSC would be left with very modest funding. It is beyond doubt that expected deep cuts in funding will negatively and profoundly impact the Office’s ability to continue providing its invaluable support to developing countries, including in trust fund management. In this particular regard, reduced capacity in UNOSSC to properly support trust funds would be detrimental to the best interests of dozens of developing countries.

5. In light of the foregoing, we kindly request that UNDP promptly consider all means at its disposal to substantially increase allocation to UNOSSC, thus allowing for the effective implementation of the Office’s mandate and avoiding damage to many developing countries.

6. A second concern relates to the proposed shift of the Office toward a more policy-oriented approach, which could aggravate the steep cut in funding mentioned above. While we fully recognize the importance of policy guidance, we strongly believe that an appropriate balance between policy and programming functions must be preserved in UNOSSC, thus ensuring that strategic orientation is underpinned by adequate programmatic capacity.

7. We trust that these considerations will be duly taken into account, acted upon and unambiguously reflected in the final version of the Strategic Framework for 2026-2029.”

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’);