By UN Staff Union Standing Committee on the Security and Independence of the International Civil Service
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 23 2026 – At least 21 United Nations personnel — 12 peacekeeping personnel and nine civilians — were killed in deliberate attacks in 2025, according to the United Nations Staff Union Standing Committee on the Security and Independence of the International Civil Service.

By nationality, the personnel killed in 2025 were from Bangladesh (6), the Sudan (5), South Africa (2), South Sudan (1), Uruguay (1), Tunisia (1), Ukraine (1), Bulgaria (1), State of Palestine (1), Kenya (1) and Zambia (1).

This does not include the personnel of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) who died in the war in Gaza, since they were not deliberately targeted. However, at least 119 UNRWA personnel were recorded as killed in 2025 (UNRWA Situation Report #201, 26 December 2025).

“While we remember with sorrow the many who have fallen in the line of duty, we call upon leaders and the public to confront the normalization of attacks on civilians, including humanitarian workers, and the impunity that undermines international humanitarian law,” said Nathalie Meynet, Chairperson of the Global Staff Council and President of the Coordinating Committee for International Staff Unions and Associations.

“There is an urgent need for public support to pressure parties in conflicts and world leaders to protect civilians. We need stronger protection for our colleagues who are staying and delivering in the most dangerous places in the world, as well as accountability for attacks on humanitarian workers.”

“We pay special tribute to our Palestinian colleagues in Gaza, where more than 300 United Nations staff have been killed since October 2023, the highest toll in United Nations history. They continue to serve under unimaginable conditions, often while enduring the same loss, hunger and insecurity as the communities they assist.”

The United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) was again the deadliest mission for peacekeepers, with six fatalities, followed by the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) and the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA), with three fatalities each.

In 2024, at least five United Nations personnel (four peacekeepers and one civilian) were killed in malicious attacks, and in 2023 at least 11 (seven peacekeepers and four civilians).

Deliberate attacks

Following is a non-exhaustive list of deliberate attacks in 2025 that resulted in the death or injury of United Nations and associated personnel, compiled by the United Nations Staff Union Standing Committee.

On 24 January, Mokote Joseph Mobe and Andries Tshidiso Mabele, two peacekeepers from South Africa serving with MONUSCO, were killed in clashes with M23 combatants in Sake.

On 25 January, Rodolfo Cipriano Álvarez Suarez, a peacekeeper from Uruguay serving with MONUSCO, was killed in Sake when the armoured personnel carrier he was traveling in was hit by an artillery weapon. Four other Uruguayan peacekeepers were injured.

On 12 February, Seifeddine Hamrita, a peacekeeper from Tunisia serving with MINUSCA, was killed near the village of Zobassinda, in Bamingui-Bangoran prefecture, Central African Republic, when his patrol, seeking to protect civilians, came under attack by an unidentified armed group.

On 7 March, Sergii Prykhodko, a Ukrainian member of a United Nations helicopter crew conducting an evacuation in Nasir, Upper Nile State, South Sudan, was killed when the helicopter came under fire. Two other crew members were seriously injured.

The evacuation was part of efforts by the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) to help prevent violence and de-escalate political tensions in Nasir. Mr. Pyrkhodko had volunteered for the mission because of his flight experience.

On 19 March, Marin Valev Marinov, a staff member from Bulgaria with the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) was killed in an explosion at two United Nations guesthouses in Deir al Balah, central Gaza Strip. At least six others — from France, Moldova, North Macedonia, Palestine and the United Kingdom — suffered severe injuries.

The explosion was apparently caused by an Israeli tank. UNOPS chief Jorge Moreira da Silva said that those premises were well known to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and were “deconflicted”. The Secretary-General added that “the location of this United Nations compound was well known to the parties.” The IDF subsequently expressed its regret for the incident.

On 23 March, Kamal Shahtout, a United Nations field security officer from the State of Palestine serving in Rafah and a UNRWA staff member, was killed by Israeli forces, along with eight Palestinian medics and six civil defence first responders, in an attack in southern Gaza. The clearly identified humanitarian workers from the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the Palestinian Civil Defence and the United Nations had been dispatched to collect injured people in the Rafah area when they came under fire from advancing Israeli forces.

Five ambulances, a fire truck and a clearly marked United Nations vehicle that arrived following the initial assault were all hit by Israeli fire, after which contact with them was lost. For days, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) sought to reach the site, but access was granted only on 30 March.

When aid workers reached the site, they discovered that the ambulances, the United Nations vehicle and the fire truck had been crushed and partially buried. According to news reports, Israeli forces said that the emergency responders had been fired upon after their vehicles “advanced suspiciously,” adding that a Hamas operative had been killed along with “eight other terrorists.”

On 28 March, Paul Ndung’u Njoroge, a peacekeeper from Kenya serving with MINUSCA, was killed when a group of around 50-to-70-armed elements ambushed his unit that was on a long-range patrol near the village of Tabane, Haut-Mbomou prefecture, Central African Republic.

On 2 June, five contractors from Sudan working for the World Food Programme (WFP) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) were killed and several others injured in an attack on a 15-truck aid convoy carrying assistance for the famine-affected area of North Darfur, Sudan. The convoy had travelled over 1,800 kilometres from the city of Port Sudan.

All parties on the ground had been notified about the convoy and its movements. “They were 80 kilometres from El Fasher, parked on the side of the road, waiting for clearance, and they were attacked,” said United Nations spokesperson Stephane Dujarric. This would have been the first convoy to reach El Fasher in over a year.

On 20 June, Stephen Muloke Sakachoma, a peacekeeper from Zambia serving with MINUSCA, was killed and another was wounded in an ambush by unidentified armed elements in Am-Sissia, Vakanga prefecture, Central African Republic, while conducting a patrol to protect civilians.

On 13 December, six peacekeepers from Bangladesh serving in the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) — Muhammed Masud Rana, Muhammed Sobuj Mia, Muhammed Jahangir Alam, Santo Mondol, Shamin Reza and Muhammed Mominul Islam — were killed in drone attacks targeting the United Nations logistics base in Kadugli, Sudan. Eight other Bangladeshi peacekeepers were injured. The attacks were reportedly carried out by a separatist armed group.

On 15 December, Bol Roch Mayol Kuot, a national staff member serving with the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), was abducted from an UNMISS vehicle by security actors while he was on duty and subsequently killed.

On 26 December, a United Nations peacekeeper was injured in southern Lebanon after a grenade exploded and heavy machine-gun fire from IDF positions south of the Blue Line hit close to a patrol of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). The incident occurred as the patrol inspected a roadblock in the village of Bastarra.

Violations of the independence of the international civil service

On 2 June, as the month marked one year since the arbitrary detention of dozens of personnel from the United Nations, non-governmental organizations and diplomatic missions by the Houthi de facto authorities in Yemen, the Secretary-General called again for their release, urging that they be freed “immediately and unconditionally”. The Secretary-General also condemned the death in detention of Ahmed, a Yemeni WFP staff member, on 10 February.

On 21 July, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported attacks by the Israeli military on a building housing WHO staff in Deir al Balah, Gaza. The WHO staff residence was attacked three times and the main warehouse was destroyed. The Israeli military entered the premises, forcing women and children to evacuate on foot toward Al-Mawasi amid active conflict. Male staff and family members were handcuffed, stripped, interrogated and screened at gunpoint. Two WHO staff members were detained.

On 31 August, the Secretary-General condemned the arbitrary detention of at least 11 staff members in Yemen by the Houthis. He said that the Houthis had entered the premises of WFP in the capital, Sana’a, and seized United Nations property. On 19 December, the Secretary-General condemned the arbitrary detention of 10 more United Nations personnel. The latest incident, which occurred on 18 December, brought the number of staff being held to 69, some of them detained since 2021.

On 11 September, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) called for the de facto Taliban authorities to lift restrictions barring women national staff from entering its premises. On 7 September, the de facto security forces prevented female Afghan staff members and contractors from entering United Nations compounds in the capital, Kabul.

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, Jan 23 2026 – The two current ongoing conflicts, which have claimed the lives of hundreds and thousands of people, are between nuclear and non-nuclear states: Russia vs Ukraine and Israel vs Palestine, while some of the potential nuclear vs non-nuclear conflicts include China vs Taiwan, North Korea vs South Korea and the United States vs Iran (Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia, Cuba and Denmark).

The growing list now includes another potential conflict: nuclear China vs non-nuclear Japan is the world’s only country devastated by US atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 which killed over 150,000 to 246,000, mostly civilians.

A statement last month by Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi warned that her country could intervene militarily if China were to attack Taiwan—a statement that has the potential for a new conflict in Asia.

According to the New York Times, Beijing has “responded furiously,” asserting that self-governing Taiwan is an integral part of Chinese territory. The government has also urged millions of tourists to avoid Japan, has restricted seafood imports and increased military patrols.

Meanwhile, amidst rising military tension, the Japanese government has called for a snap general election on February 8, to seek a fresh public mandate for the new administration.

In an article titled “An Anxious Nation Restarts One of its Biggest Nuclear Plants,” the Times said on January 22 that “Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO)—the same utility that operated the Fukushima plant—has restarted the first reactor, Unit 6, at its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa complex, one of the world’s largest nuclear facilities.”

Before 2011, nuclear power provided about 30 percent of Japan’s electricity, the Times pointed out.

According to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute, Japan’s military budget in 2024 had grown to the 10th largest in the world. China’s military budget has also been growing, in 2024 being second only to that of the United States.

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, California, and North American Coordinator for “Mayors for Peace,” told IPS that Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s recent statement that an armed attack on Taiwan by China could constitute an “existential threat” to Japan is very worrying indeed.

In 1967, she said, Japan’s then-Prime Minister Eisaku introduced the Three Non-Nuclear Principles of not possessing, not producing, and not permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons, and they were adopted by a formal resolution of the Diet in 1971.

“However, Japan’s commitment to these Principles has been called into question over the years, and it is widely believed that Japan has the capability to rapidly produce nuclear weapons, should the decision be made to do so.”

Beijing is ratcheting up the rhetorical heat. Whether true or not, a recent report by the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association and the Nuclear Strategic Planning Research Institute, a think tank affiliated with the China National Nuclear Corporation, alleges that Japan is engaged in a secret nuclear weapons program and poses a serious threat to world peace. Meanwhile, China is rapidly modernizing and increasing the size of its own nuclear arsenal, said Cabasso.

“Japan, as the only country in the world to have experienced the use of nuclear weapons in war, has the unique moral standing to be a champion for dialogue and diplomacy, peace, and nuclear disarmament.”

Japan and China’s leadership—and for that matter, all world leaders—should listen to the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who on January 20 issued a Joint Appeal on behalf of the 8,560 members of Mayors for Peace in 166 countries and territories, declaring, “We urge all policymakers to make every possible diplomatic effort to pursue the peaceful resolution of conflicts through dialogue and to take concrete steps toward the realization of a peaceful world free from nuclear weapons.”

Dr. M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and Director pro tem, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS even without nuclear weapons being utilized, the use of military force in Taiwan would be disastrous for global security, and especially for the people of Taiwan.

“Any resolution of the dispute over Taiwan should follow two fundamental principles: it should be settled through dialogue and discussion, and it should prioritize the wishes of the inhabitants of Taiwan. Finally, all parties should avoid provocative remarks,” he declared.

The new developing story also figured at a recent UN press briefing.

Question: We know that there is a long-standing policy of Japan, called the three non-nuclear principles, which basically says that Japan shall neither possess nor manufacture nuclear weapons nor shall it permit their introduction into Japanese territory. But currently, the Japanese Government is under a discussion of revision of some of those security documents, including this policy, which draws quite anger from people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and some of the Nobel Peace Prize winners. What’s the position of the UN?

UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric: Look, I think the Secretary-General’s position on denuclearization has been clear and he has stated it a number of times. Obviously, Member States will set whatever policy they wish to set. What is important for us is that the current tensions between the People’s Republic of China and Japan be dealt through dialogue so as to lower the tensions that we’re currently seeing… I think the Secretary-General’s position on denuclearization and non-proliferation is well known and has been unchanged.

At a party leaders’ debate last November, Tetsuo Saito, representative of the New Komei Party, which was founded in 1964 by Dr. Daisaku Ikeda, leader of Japan’s Soka Gakkai Buddhist movement, questioned Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in the Diet about the government’s stance on the Three Non-Nuclear Principles and Japan’s security policy.

He criticized remarks by a senior government official suggesting Japan should possess nuclear weapons, calling them contrary to Japan’s post-war policy and damaging to diplomatic and security efforts.

He emphasized that the principles—not to possess, not to produce, and not to permit nuclear weapons on Japanese soil—and Japan’s obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are fundamental and must remain unassailable.

• Saito stated that the Takaichi administration’s position leaves room for ambiguity, especially when Takaichi’s replies were perceived as non-committal about maintaining the principles.
• He expressed concern that this ambiguity could open the door to future revision and said Komeito will continue to press the government to uphold the principles without qualification in future Diet sessions.
• In December 2025, Saito reiterated in public remarks that the Three Non-Nuclear Principles and Japan’s policy against nuclear weapons should be preserved.
• He has urged the government to reaffirm this commitment clearly to both domestic and international audiences and to listen to hibakusha (atomic-bomb survivors) and civil society voices advocating nuclear abolition.

Elaborating further, Cabasso said that given Japan’s brutal invasion of China during World War II and China’s growing threats to reclaim Taiwan, dangerous long-simmering tensions between the two countries have reemerged. In an increasingly unstable and unpredictable geopolitical world, Japan and China’s war of words is a train wreck waiting to happen.

Article 9 of Japan’s 1947 Peace Constitution, imposed on Japan by the United States in an act of victor’s justice, states, “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right and the threat of use of force as a means of settling disputes,” and armed forces “will never be maintained.”

However, these provisions have been eroding in the 21st century, with Japan in 2004 sending its Self-Defense Forces out of area – to Iraq – for the first time since World War II. And in 2014, then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reinterpreted Article 9, allowing Japan to engage in military action if one of its allies were to be attacked.

The following year, she pointed out, the Japanese Diet enacted a series of laws allowing the Self-Defense Forces to provide material support to allies engaged in combat internationally in an “existential crisis situation” for Japan. The justification was that failing to defend or support an ally would weaken alliances and endanger Japan.

References

Japan Secretly Building Nukes, Could Go Nuclear Overnight Under Takaichi’s Policy Shift, Chinese Report Claims
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/japan-secretly-building-nukes-could-go-nuclear/

Mayors for Peace Joint Appeal, January 20, 2026
https://www.mayorsforpeace.org/en/

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (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’);  

By CIVICUS
Jan 23 2026 –  
CIVICUS speaks with Belarusian activist, blogger and journalist Mikola Dziadok about his experiences as a two-time political prisoner and the repression of dissent in Belarus. Mikola was jailed following mass protests in 2020.

Mikola Dziadok

Amid continued repression, Belarus experienced two limited waves of political prisoner releases in 2025. In September, authorities freed around 50 detainees following diplomatic engagement, and in December they pardoned and released over 120, including Nobel laureate Ales Bialiatski and opposition figure Maria Kolesnikova. Many were forced into exile. Human rights groups stress that releases appear driven by geopolitical bargaining rather than systemic reform, with over 1,200 political prisoners believed to remain behind bars.

Why were you arrested following protests in 2020?

I was arrested because I was not silent and I was visible. During the 2020 uprising, I ran Telegram and YouTube channels where I shared political analysis, explained what was happening and gave people advice on how to resist repression. I talked about strategies to protect ourselves, counter state violence and survive under authoritarian pressure. The regime viewed this as extremely threatening.

By that time, I had around 17 years of experience in the anarchist movement, which is a part of a broader democratic movement in Belarus. But most people who joined the protests weren’t political at all: they’d never protested before, never faced repression, never dealt with police violence. They were desperate for guidance, particularly as there was an information war between regime propaganda, pro-Kremlin narratives and independent voices.

Authorities made a clear distinction between ‘ordinary people’ who apologised and promised never to protest again, who were released, and activists, organisers and others who spoke publicly, who were treated as enemies. I was imprisoned because I belonged to the second category.

What sparked the 2020 uprising?

By 2020, Belarus had already lived through five fraudulent elections. We only had one election the international community recognised as legitimate, held in 1994. After that, President Alexander Lukashenko changed the constitution so he could rule indefinitely.

For many years, people believed there was nothing they could do to make change happen. But in 2020, several things came together. The COVID-19 pandemic left the state’s complete failure exposed. As authorities did nothing to protect people, civil society stepped in. Grassroots initiatives provided information and medical help. People suddenly saw they could do what the state couldn’t. From the regime’s perspective, this was a very dangerous realisation.

But what truly ignited mass mobilisation was violence. In the first two days after the 9 August presidential election, over 7,000 protesters were detained. Thousands were beaten, humiliated, sexually abused and tortured. When they were released and showed their injuries, the images spread through social media and Telegram, and people were shocked. This brought hundreds of thousands onto the streets, protesting against both election fraud and violence against protesters.

What’s the situation of political prisoners?

Since 2020, over 50,000 people have spent time in detention, in a country of only nine million. There have been almost 4,000 officially recognised political prisoners, and there are now around 1,200, although the real number is higher. Many prisoners ask not to be named publicly because they fear retaliation against themselves or their families.

Repression has never subsided. Civil society organisations, human rights groups and independent media have been destroyed or forced into exile. Belarussians live under constant pressure, not a temporary crackdown.

Political prisoners are treated much worse than regular prisoners. I spent 10 years as a political prisoner: five years between 2010 and 2015, and another five years after 2020. During my second sentence, I spent two and a half years in solitary confinement. This is deliberate torture designed to break people physically and psychologically.

How did your release happen?

My release was a political transaction. Lukashenko has always used political prisoners as bargaining chips. He arrests people, waits for international pressure to reach its peak and then offers releases in exchange for concessions. This time, international negotiations, unexpectedly involving the USA, triggered a limited release.

The process itself was terrifying. I was taken suddenly from prison, handcuffed, hooded and transferred to the KGB prison in the centre of Minsk. I was placed in an isolation cell and not told what would happen. It was only when I saw other well-known political prisoners being brought into the same space that I realised we were going to be freed, most likely by forced expulsion.

No formal conditions were announced, but our passports were confiscated and we were forced into exile. We were transported under armed guard and handed over at the Lithuanian border. Many deportees still fear for relatives who remain in the country, because repression often continues through family members. That’s why I asked my wife to leave Belarus as quickly as possible.

What should the international community and civil society do now?

First, they should make sure Belarus continues receiving international attention. Lukashenko is afraid of isolation, sanctions and scrutiny. Any attempt to normalise relations with Belarus without real change will only strengthen repression and put remaining prisoners at greater risk.

Second, they should financially support independent Belarusian human rights organisations and media. Many are struggling to survive, particularly after recent funding cuts. Without them doing their job, abuses will remain hidden and prisoners will be forgotten.

Most importantly, activists should not lose hope. We are making history. Dictatorships fall and fear eventually breaks. Freedom always returns – but only if we hold fast to our values and sustain the struggle.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram

SEE ALSO
‘Belarus is closer than ever to totalitarianism, with closed civic space and repression a part of daily life’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Human Rights House 14.Oct.2025
Belarus: ‘The work of human rights defenders in exile is crucial in keeping the democratic movement alive’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Natallia Satsunkevich 15.Feb.2025
Belarus: a sham election that fools no one CIVICUS Lens 31.Jan.2025

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 Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 23 2026 – Nearly four years into Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine faces another winter marked by widespread humanitarian suffering and continued indiscriminate attacks. The final months of 2025 were particularly volatile, characterized by routine bombardment of densely populated areas and repeated strikes on residential neighborhoods, critical civilian infrastructure, and humanitarian facilities. As hostilities expanded into new territories over the past year, humanitarian needs grew sharply, with many war-torn communities residing in uninhabitable areas.

According to figures from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), at least 55,600 civilians have been killed or injured since the wake of the full-scale invasion, with 157 civilians killed and 888 injured across Ukraine and Russian Federation-occupied areas in the final months of 2025 alone. Additionally, The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reports that over 3.7 million people have been internally displaced since the invasion.

Additional figures from OHCHR indicate that 2025 marked the deadliest year for civilians since the start of the full-scale invasion, with the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU) reporting that 2,514 civilians were killed and 12,142 were injured as a direct result of conflict-related violence. This marks a 31 percent increase from 2024.

“The 31 per cent increase in civilian casualties compared with 2024 represents a marked deterioration in the protection of civilians,” said Danielle Bell, head of HRMMU. “Our monitoring shows that this rise was driven not only by intensified hostilities along the frontline, but also by the expanded use of long-range weapons, which exposed civilians across the country to heightened risk.”

The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reports that roughly 10.8 million people across Ukraine are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance, with 3.6 million identified as particularly vulnerable and prioritized in relief operations. OCHA underscores the exacerbation of humanitarian conditions over the past few months, noting that front-line areas and northern border regions face higher rates of military shelling, destruction of civilian infrastructure, mass civilian displacement, and repeated disruptions to essential services.

Civilians residing in Russian Federation-occupied zones remain largely cut off from essential services and protection measures, facing heightened risks of serious human rights violations.

According to Matthias Schmale, The UN Human Coordinator for Ukraine, the nation is currently in the midst of a severe protection crisis, marked by rapid shrinking of humanitarian resources, consistent escalations of insecurity, and no signs that 2026 will be safer for civilians or humanitarian aid personnel. “The nature of warfare is evolving: more drone attacks and long-range strikes increase risks for civilians and humanitarians, while causing systematic damage to energy, water and other essential services,” said Schmale.

The first few weeks of 2026 saw a sharp escalation in targeted attacks on civilian infrastructure, particularly water and energy systems. According to figures from the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, between January 8 and 9, Russian authorities launched 242 drones and 36 missiles toward Ukraine. These attacks struck the port city of Odesa, disrupting electricity and water supplies there and in the cities of Dnipro and Zaporizhzhia. The strikes also crippled mobile communications and public transport, prompting the mayor of Dnipro to declare a state of emergency.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reported that Russia had launched roughly 1,300 drones between January 11 and 18 alone. For the following two days, more than 300 drones struck the Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, Sumy, Dnipro, Odesa, and Khmelnytskyi regions, killing two civilians and injuring dozens.

On January 19, the Russian Federation launched a series of attacks on energy facilities in Ukraine, shutting down heating and electricity in numerous major urban areas, including Odesa and Kyiv. The mayor of Kyiv informed reporters that approximately 5,635 multi-story residential buildings were left without heating the following morning, 80 percent of which had only gained back access to heating after prolonged outages caused by a similar attack on January 9.

“Civilians are bearing the brunt of these attacks. They can only be described as cruel. They must stop. Targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure is a clear breach of the rules of warfare,” said UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk. According to figures from OHCHR, hundreds of thousands of families across Ukraine lack access to heating—an especially dire development as freezing temperatures persist. Numerous communities in Kyiv also lack access to water, which has disastrous consequences for the most vulnerable, including children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.

“For people in Druzhkivka and in many communities along the front line, daily life is overshadowed by violence and attempts to survive. A strict curfew means they can only go outside for a few hours a day, timing their lives around shelling patterns and the increased risk of drone attacks. They face hard choices: to flee for safety, leaving their homes and lives behind, or remain under constant shelling,” Schmale added.

The UN’s Ukraine office underscored that the consequences for civilians will be long-lasting, even when they reach a definitive end to hostilities. They noted that the war’s impact will “long outlive the current emergency and humanitarian phase.” Psycho-social harm is widespread, with severe mental health needs reported among adults, children, former combatants, and their families- many of whom have endured displacement, the damaging or destruction of their homes, and repeated exposure to explosions and shelling.

The strain on Ukraine’s health and education systems compounds these effects, with UN Ukraine warning that “fractures in social cohesion” will shape the country for years to come.

In response, the UN and its partners launched the 2026 Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan to provide life-saving support to affected communities, aiming to reach 4.1 million people in 2026. The plan includes operations to deliver food, healthcare, protection services, cash assistance, and other essential needs to besieged communities, calling for USD $2.3 billion.

“I urge all humanitarian, development and governmental partners to work together around our shared values and key identified strategic priorities, respecting the distinct role of principled humanitarian action and recognizing where others must lead,” said Schmale.

He added: “We ask our donors to sustain flexible, predictable funding so that we can respond rapidly to new shocks while maintaining essential services for those who cannot yet stand on their own feet. Only together we can ensure that the most vulnerable, like the family I met in Druzhkivka, receive timely assistance.”

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’);  

By Umar Manzoor Shah
NAIROBI & SRINAGAR, India, Jan 22 2026 – The world is pouring trillions of dollars each year into activities that destroy nature while investing only a fraction of that amount in protecting and restoring the ecosystems on which economies depend, according to a new United Nations report released on today  (January 22).

The State of Finance for Nature 2026 report by the United Nations Environment Programme finds that finance flows directly harmful to nature reached USD 7.3 trillion in 2023. By contrast, investment in nature-based solutions amounted to just USD 220 billion in the same year. The imbalance means that for every dollar invested in protecting nature, more than USD 30 is spent degrading it.

“Globally, finance flows continue to be heavily skewed toward negative activities, which threaten ecosystems, economies and human well-being,” the report titled Nature in the red. Powering the trillion dollar nature transition economy says. Nearly half of global economic output depends moderately or highly on nature, yet current financial systems continue to erode what the authors describe as humanity’s collective nature bank account.

Nathalie Olsen of the Climate Finance Unit at UNEP  and the report’s lead author said that the barriers to reforming environmentally harmful subsidies are primarily political and structural, rather than economic.

“Our report identifies several key challenges in this regard. On the political front, entrenched interests pose a significant obstacle. Many harmful subsidies benefit powerful industries, such as fossil fuels and industrial agriculture, which actively resist change,” she said in an exclusive interview with IPS.

An ex-coal mine reworked as North Macedonia’s first large solar plant. Credit: WeBalkans EU/Climate Visuals

She added subsidy reform often leads to increased costs for consumers or producers in the short term, making such reforms politically unpopular, even when the long-term benefits are clear. Furthermore, many subsidies are deeply embedded within tax codes and budget structures, making them difficult to isolate and reform.

According to Olsen, structural challenges also play a crucial role. She says that the subsidies tend to create path dependency, establishing business models and infrastructure investments that lock in nature-negative practices.

“For instance, free or underpriced water can lead to the depletion of aquifers for irrigation, while fossil fuel subsidies artificially lower energy costs across the economy, including for products like fertilizers. Despite international commitments, such as the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) Target 18—which aims to reduce harmful incentives by at least USD 500 billion per year—implementation remains weak due to a lack of political will.”

Economically, however, the case for reform is strong, according to Olsen.  She says that reforming harmful subsidies would free up government resources for nature-positive investments and reduce economic risks.

“Currently, the USD 2.4 trillion in public environmentally harmful subsidies far exceeds the USD 220 billion invested in Nature-based Solutions.

Successful reform is feasible.

As highlighted in our Nature Transition X-Curve framework, it requires just transition strategies to support workers and businesses during the shift, clear communication about long-term economic benefits, concurrent investment in nature-positive alternatives, and gender-responsive approaches to ensure equitable outcomes,” She said.

Olsen  says that notable examples, such as Costa Rica’s fossil fuel levy financing reforestation and Denmark’s energy taxes supporting the transition to wind energy, demonstrate that reform is politically achievable when accompanied by visible investment in sustainable alternatives.

The report warns that business as usual will deepen ecosystem degradation and expose economies to rising risks. It argues that governments, businesses, consumers and investors still have the power to redirect capital flows and unlock resilience, equity and long-term growth if they act quickly.

In 2023, public and private finance that directly damaged nature totaled USD 7.3 trillion. About USD 2.4 trillion came from public sources, mostly in the form of subsidies that hurt the environment. These included USD 1.1 trillion for fossil fuels, about USD 400 billion each for agriculture and water use, and significant support for transport, construction and fisheries.

Private finance made up the larger share, at about USD 4.9 trillion. A small number of high-impact sectors received the majority of these flows. Utilities alone accounted for around USD 1.6 trillion, followed by industrials at USD 1.4 trillion, energy at about USD 700 billion and basic materials, including fertilizers and agricultural inputs, at a similar level.

The report notes that public subsidies and private investment often reinforce each other, locking capital into nature-negative sectors. Below-market prices for water, energy and other government-provided goods encourage overuse of natural resources and increase financial risks over time.

Against this backdrop, finance for nature-based solutions remains limited. Total global spending on nature-based solutions reached USD 220 billion in 2023, a modest five percent increase from the previous year. Public finance dominated, accounting for about USD 197 billion, or roughly 90 percent of the total.

Transition pathways to nature-positive outcomes. Credit: UNEP

“Our Nature Transition X-Curve framework shows these tools work best when deployed together—combining regulatory “push” (disclosure, subsidy phase-out) with financial “pull” (de-risking, incentives). Over 730 organizations representing $22.4 trillion in assets have adopted TNFD, showing willingness exists when clear frameworks are provided. The challenge isn’t lack of tools—it’s political will to deploy them at scale,” Olsen said.

Public domestic expenditure was the single largest source of funding, reaching USD 190 billion in 2023, as per the report. Spending on biodiversity and landscape protection grew by 11 percent, although support for agriculture, forestry and fisheries declined. Even so, public spending on nature-based solutions remains small compared to the more than USD 2 trillion governments spend each year on environmentally harmful subsidies.

Official Development Finance targeted at nature-based solutions reached USD 6.8 billion in 2023. This represented a 22 percent increase from 2022 and a 55 percent rise compared to 2015. The report describes development finance as a critical enabler for scaling nature-based solutions in developing countries, while warning that geopolitical pressures could constrain future budgets.

Private finance for nature-based solutions reached USD 23.4 billion in 2023. Although small in absolute terms, the report says these flows show positive momentum. Biodiversity offsets channelled more than USD 7 billion, certified commodity supply chains attracted over USD 4 billion, and biodiversity-related bonds and funds mobilized around USD 5 billion. Nature-based carbon markets accounted for about USD 1.3 billion.

“With the right enabling environment, standards and risk-sharing instruments, private capital could scale rapidly and become a game changer in closing the nature-based solutions finance gap,” the report says.

To meet global commitments under the three Rio Conventions on climate change, biodiversity, and land degradation, the report estimates that annual investment in nature-based solutions must rise to USD 571 billion by 2030. This would require a two-and-a-half-fold increase from current levels. The report projects that annual investment needs will reach approximately USD 771 billion by 2050.

The report frames investment in nature-based solutions as a form of essential maintenance for natural infrastructure. It highlights evidence that restoring degraded land can yield returns of between USD 7 and 30 for every dollar invested, if ecosystem services such as water regulation, soil fertility and disaster risk reduction are taken into account.

A review cited in the report found that in 65 percent of disaster risk reduction projects, nature-based solutions were more effective at reducing hazards than traditional engineering approaches. Floodable wetlands and permeable pavements in cities are two examples. They soak up stormwater and take some of the stress off drainage systems.

Despite these benefits, the authors contend that increasing investments in nature won’t suffice unless they eliminate harmful finance. Nature-negative finance, they say, remains the single biggest obstacle to a transition toward nature-positive outcomes.

The report introduces a new analytical framework called the Nature Transition X curve. The framework illustrates the dual challenge facing policymakers and investors. On one side, harmful activities and finance flows must be reduced and phased out. On the other hand, investment in nature-based solutions and other nature-positive activities must be scaled up rapidly.

Olsen said that the X-Curve is a diagnostic tool helping policymakers identify context-specific leverage points, sequence reforms to build political support, and ensure coherence between phasing out harmful finance and scaling up nature-positive alternatives.

“This is not just an environmental agenda but an economic transformation,” the report says. Redirecting harmful subsidies, integrating nature into fiscal frameworks and mobilizing private finance are described as central to building resilient and inclusive economies.

Olsen told IPS news that there is a need for a “Big Nature Turnaround” that repurposes trillions of dollars currently flowing into destructive activities. Key priorities include reforming environmentally harmful subsidies, aligning national budgets with biodiversity and climate targets, and mandating disclosure of nature-related risks and impacts.

More than 730 organizations have now adopted the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures framework, representing assets under management worth USD 22.4 trillion. According to the report, this growing awareness of nature-related financial risks is starting to influence corporate and investment decisions, although progress remains uneven.

The report also points to rising legal and regulatory pressures. In some jurisdictions, courts are increasingly questioning whether financial leaders are meeting their fiduciary duties if they ignore environmental risks. At the same time, the authors warn that regulatory rollbacks in other regions could create uncertainty and delay action.

While the scale of the challenge is daunting, the report strikes a cautiously optimistic tone. Better data, a clearer framework, and growing awareness are creating conditions for faster action. The transition to a nature-positive economy, the authors argue, could unlock a trillion-dollar nature transition economy across sectors ranging from food and agriculture to construction, energy and urban infrastructure.

“Turning the wheel towards nature-positive finance is essential,” the report concludes. Without a decisive shift in how money flows through the global economy, the gap between what nature needs and what it receives will continue to widen, with profound consequences for ecosystems, livelihoods and long-term economic stability.

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’);  

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 22 2026 – In 2025, global ocean temperatures rose to some of the highest levels ever recorded, signaling a continued accumulation of heat within the Earth’s climate system and raising deep concern among climate scientists. The economic toll of ocean-related impacts—including collapsing fisheries, widespread coral reef degradation, and mounting damage to coastal infrastructure—is now estimated to be nearly double the global cost of carbon emissions, placing immense strain on economies and endangering millions of lives.

On January 14, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirmed that global temperatures have reached record highs over the past 11 years, with ocean heating continuing at an alarming pace. Despite the cooling influence of La Niña, 2025 became the third hottest year ever recorded. In just the past year, ocean temperatures increased by an estimated ∼23 ± 8 zettajoules—an amount of heat roughly equivalent to 200 times the world’s total electricity generation in 2024.

With an estimated 90 percent of excess heat from global warming absorbed by the world’s oceans, rising ocean temperatures have become one of the clearest indicators of the accelerating climate crisis—carrying profound risks for ecosystems and human life. The ocean is central to global prosperity, supporting livelihoods, market economies, and overall human well-being.

“Global warming is ocean warming,” said John Abraham, a professor of thermal science at the University of St. Thomas. “If you want to know how much the Earth has warmed or how fast we will warm into the future, the answer is in the oceans.”

Zeke Hausfather, a climatologist and research scientist at University of California, Berkeley, described the ocean as the “most reliable thermostat of the planet.”

According to figures from WMO, roughly 33 percent of the Earth’s total ocean area ranked among the top three warmest conditions for ocean ecosystems in history, with roughly 57 percent falling within the top five, such as the tropical and South Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, North Indian Ocean, and Southern Oceans.

The primary impact of human-generated carbon dioxide emissions on the ocean is the rapid warming of ocean waters, which significantly reduces the ocean’s capacity to hold oxygen—a critical lifeline for species survival. Rising temperatures also drive ocean acidification—weakening marine organisms, disrupting ecosystems, altering the physiology of numerous species, and triggering mass die-offs.

These effects have catastrophic consequences for biodiversity, fueling widespread coral reef bleaching, the collapse of seagrass beds, and the decline of kelp forests—all of which directly harm the benefits that humans yield from healthy marine environments. Rising ocean temperatures also intensify extreme weather events and accelerate sea-level rise, which in turn increase coastal flooding, erosion, and displacement, placing millions of people, particularly those in low-lying coastal communities, at heightened risk.

While some ocean-based benefits—such as seafood and maritime transport—are reflected in market prices, many others, including coastal protection, recreation, and marine biodiversity, remain overlooked, becoming part of the invisible social “blue cost” of carbon emissions, despite being essential to the deeply interconnected relationship between oceans, people, and economic systems.

“If we don’t put a price tag on the harm that climate change causes to the ocean, it will be invisible to key decision makers,” said environmental economist Bernardo Bastien-Olvera, who led a Scripps Institution of Oceanography study at the University of California San Diego, examining the social cost of carbon emissions and the economic toll of ocean degradation.

“Until now, many of these variables in the ocean haven’t had a market value, so they have been absent from calculations. This study is the first to assign monetary-equivalent values to these overlooked ocean impacts,” added Bastien-Olvera.

According to findings from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography study, accounting for the social impacts of ocean-related carbon emissions nearly doubles the estimated global cost—showing that ocean degradation is a major driver of climate-related economic losses. Researchers found that without ocean impacts included in their model, the average cost per ton of carbon dioxide was roughly USD 51. When accounting for ocean losses, the total costs increased by USD 41.6 per ton, reaching a total of USD 97.2, marking a 91 percent rise.

With the WMO Global Carbon Budget estimating global carbon dioxide emissions at roughly 41.6 billion tons in 2024, this translates to nearly $2 trillion in ocean-related losses in a single year—which is currently absent from standard climate cost assessments. Furthermore, the study found that market damages as a result of ocean degradation account for the largest costs to society and could reach global annual losses of $1.66 trillion in the year 2100.

Furthermore, damages in non-use values—such as recreational benefits provided by ocean ecosystems—now amount to an estimated USD 224 billion annually, while non-market values, including nutritional losses from collapsing fisheries, contribute an additional USD 182 billion in yearly damages. Bastien-Olvera stressed that many of these losses are not traditional market losses but cultural and societal losses, which carry different and often deeper forms of significance for affected communities.

“When an industry emits a ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, as a society we are paying a cost. A company can use this number to inform cost-benefit analysis — what is the damage they will be causing society through increasing their emissions?”, asked Bastien-Olvera.

In response to the rapid warming of the Earth’s oceans, governments, scientific institutions, and international organizations are mobilizing new strategies to reduce carbon emissions and protect marine ecosystems, including expanding green energy infrastructure and advancing large-scale ecosystem restoration efforts.

The United Nations (UN) has renewed pressure on member states to meet their Paris Agreement commitments, while initiatives like the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) and the High Seas Treaty work to strengthen ocean monitoring and protect marine biodiversity.

Scientists are also testing emerging methods to counteract climate-driven changes in the ocean. In late 2025, marine scientist Adam Subhas and his team released 16,200 gallons of sodium hydroxide into the ocean in an effort to neutralize rising acidity levels. Though controversial and still in early development, the experiment reflects a growing interest in exploring non-traditional tools that could stabilize marine ecosystems.

“As long as the Earth’s heat continues to increase, ocean heat content will continue to rise and records will continue to fall. The biggest climate uncertainty is what humans decide to do. Together, we can reduce emissions and help safeguard a future climate where humans can thrive,” said Abraham.

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’);  

By Krishna Srinivasan and Sarwat Jahan
WASHINGTON DC, Jan 22 2026 – Nepal has a unique opportunity for transformation. The recent youth-led protests underscored aspirations for greater transparency, governance and a more equal distribution of economic opportunities and resources. This yearning resonated in Nepal and beyond.

Now, Nepal must find a balance in setting prudent political, economic and financial policies to steer a difficult transition in an orderly manner. Adding to the complex domestic situation is the lingering uncertainty in the global economy. The transition process in this challenging environment should ensure an inclusive future for Nepal’s people.

Economic challenges

History shows that more equal societies tend to be associated with greater economic stability and more sustained growth. This will be a helpful guiding strategy as Nepal charts its own path to change. Indeed, a solid strategy needs to be founded on two key pillars: economic stability and inclusive growth.

In 2022, stability was among the top priorities when the country’s leaders approached the IMF for support. The collapse of tourism in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic took a heavy toll on Nepal’s economy, including on its job market.

The IMF’s financing package assisted the authorities’ Covid-19 response in mitigating the pandemic’s impact on economic activity, protecting vulnerable groups and laying the groundwork for sustained growth. The program also supported reforms to foster durable growth and reduce poverty over the medium term, including by implementing cross-cutting institutional reforms to improve governance and reduce corruption vulnerability.

In October, Nepal completed the sixth of seven program reviews, showing tangible improvement in the economy. Indeed, Nepal has been seeing the green shoots of recovery with real GDP growth rising from a mere 2 percent in FY 2023, to 3.7 percent in FY 2024, to an estimated 4.3 percent in FY 2025—more than double the pace in just a few years.

In FY 2026, we still expect the country’s economic recovery to continue, though at a more moderate pace amid a complex domestic environment and global uncertainty.

Nepal has also been very successful in rebuilding policy buffers. Foreign exchange reserves have risen to nearly $20 billion, enough to cover almost a full year of imports. Fiscal discipline has helped stabilise public debt. Inflation remains well below the Nepal Rastra Bank’s target.

This hard-won economic stability should be safeguarded. At the same time, the economy hasn’t fully recovered. Domestic demand remains subdued, investor confidence is waning, and more efforts are needed to protect vulnerable people.

Nepal has achieved significant milestones on structural reforms, in part with support from the IMF capacity development. On the fiscal front, frameworks for increasing government revenue and fiscal transparency have improved with the publication of the domestic revenue mobilization strategy, fiscal risk statement and the tax expenditure report. The National Planning Commission has issued revised guidelines for the National Project Bank, which will strengthen capital project selection and execution.

Likewise, in the financial sector, bank supervision has improved through the Supervisory Information System. The Nepal Rastra Bank has also recently launched a loan portfolio review of 10 large commercial banks, which is expected to provide deep insights into the health of the banking sector.

Measures have been taken to improve governance and transparency, including by improving the anti-money laundering framework, though further efforts are needed to enhance implementation.

As part of the program, four priority nonfinancial public enterprises had their financial statements audited. Work is underway to amend the Nepal Rastra Bank Act to strengthen its autonomy and governance.

Yet, unresolved structural issues and emerging headwinds are testing these gains. Policymakers must ensure that the fruits of macroeconomic stability and growth are broadly shared. Continued reforms will help. In the near term, this implies accelerating budget execution and improving project readiness—particularly in areas such as hydropower and trade-related infrastructure—and reducing logistics frictions, which will crowd-in private investment.

This will also lay the foundation for a more diversified, higher value-added growth model that creates more domestic jobs.

Unlocking private sector growth to deliver more jobs and better livelihoods is critical. This can only be accomplished when the basic building blocks of private enterprise are in place: Strong institutions, free and fair markets and a stable macroeconomic environment.

Over the medium term, strengthening governance and anti-corruption institutions, improving the investment climate, enhancing financial oversight, trade integration and expanding targeted social protection will be key to unlocking inclusive and sustainable growth.

Reason for hope

Let us conclude by expressing our deep sympathy for the profound loss during the recent social unrest. We are deeply saddened by the loss, but also heartened by the resilience of the Nepali people striving for a better future.

While global economic prospects remain dim amid uncertainty, Nepal gives reason for hope—a nation reimagined with greater equality and good governance. The country faces a challenging transition, but it can make the most progress if the people work together. For policymakers, this implies steering the economy on the course of continued reforms that safeguard macroeconomic and financial stability while laying strong foundations for durable and inclusive growth, coupled with good governance.

This is a unique moment in the country’s long history, and a time to set a new standard for the future. The IMF is ready to support Nepal in its journey.

Krishna Srinivasan is the head of the Asia and Pacific Department at the IMF. Sarwat Jahan is the mission chief for Nepal and a deputy division chief in the Asia and Pacific Department.

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 Jackson Okata
NYERI, Kenya, Jan 21 2026 – For the last twenty years, Sarah Nyaga, a smallholder farmer from Embu County in central Kenya, has farmed coffee. Like most across Kenya, she relies on the export market. A greater percentage of Kenya’s coffee ends up within the European Union market, but a new law threatens to disrupt what has been a source of income for thousands of farmers like Nyaga.

As the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) takes effect, smallholder coffee farmers in Kenya face an existential threat. EUDR is a new law adopted by the European Union to prevent the import and sale of products linked to deforestation and forest degradation. It targets seven key products, among them cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, soy, timber, and rubber.

And even though smallholders like Nyaga have an extra six months to comply with EUDR, many are not aware of its existence.

Farmers are in rural areas, and many have no access to the internet. They rely on vernacular media houses for information, and many have never heard of EUDR. Government and cooperative society officials who have been tasked with breaking it down have done very little,’’ said Nyaga.

Peter Maina, a farmer in Nyeri county, says, “The EUDR language is too technical for an illiterate farmer to understand.”

“The only people who seem to understand EUDR are Ministry of Agriculture officials in Nairobi. For the ordinary farmer, it is business as usual, and many do not understand the implications of not complying with these regulations,” said Maina.

Tech Challenges

Across Kenya’s coffee-growing zones, farmers, cooperative societies, and coffee exporters fear losing the EU market for failure to comply with the EUDR policy. According to George Watene from the Global Coffee Platform, insufficient access to infrastructure and technical support is a significant barrier to EUDR compliance for many farmers.

“Farmers have limited access to essential information and communication technology (ICT) resources, such as reliable internet and suitable digital tools like smartphones. This undermines the ability to implement traceability systems effectively,” said Watene.

Watene says most coffee farmers are faced with logistical and technical difficulties posed by the requirement for detailed geolocation mapping, particularly polygon mapping.

“This requirement is challenging to meet not only for smallholder farmers but also for cooperatives and estates that may lack the necessary resources and technical capabilities, he said.

Coffee exporters are required to file a due diligence statement declaring that their product is deforestation-free, which means farmers must provide some personal data to help traders complete this statement. Some farmers are worried about the safety of their data.

EUDR requires farmers to provide exact GPS coordinates for their coffee farms. This allows EU regulators to check satellite images and determine whether deforestation or land degradation occurred.

“Sharing data is essential for EUDR compliance and maintaining EU market access, but data must be collected and used responsibly, with safeguards to prevent misuse and protect farmer rights,” Watene said.

Revenue Loss Risk

Bruno Linyuri, Director General of Kenya’s Agriculture and Food Authority, says that so far only 30 percent of the national coffee farms have been geo-mapped in 16 out of the 33 coffee-growing regions of Kenya. This means that only 32,688 Ha out of the 109,384 Ha of coffee plantations have met the EUDR regulations.

Felix Mutwiri, head of Kenya’s coffee Directorate, told IPS that a multi-agency team on compliance had been set up to ensure compliance. He said that Kenya is keen on remaining a leading exporter of coffee to the EU Market.

“The government has already developed a concept for implementing the regulations. To help farmers comply, we have rolled out Geolocation mapping drives and training on EUDR requirements for smallholder farmers,” said Mutwiri.

Smallholder farmers produce approximately 70 percent of Kenya’s coffee. There are an estimated 800,000 small-scale coffee growers and over 2,500 coffee estates operating under some 500 cooperatives.

With an estimated 1.5 million household employees, Kenya’s coffee sector constitutes 30 percent of agricultural labor. The Kenyan coffee market is projected to reach USD 2.4 billion by 2033. Kenya could lose an estimated KES 90 billion (USD 695 m) in export earnings over five years for EUDR non-compliance.

According to Linyuri, the EU buys 60 percent of Kenya’s coffee exports. In 2024, Kenya exported 53,519 tons of coffee with an estimated value of KES 38.4 billion (USD 296.8m). In 2025, the country’s coffee production rose by 13% to 850,000 bags (51,000 tons), with exports increasing by 10% to 840,000 bags (50,400 tons).

Linyuri says the EUDR is not only about coffee and other products, but also about protecting the environment

“We have a problem of people clearing forests to plant coffee and other crops, and this policy will help us address this,’’ said Linyuri.

He added, “If we keep on destroying the environment through deforestation, there will come a time when farmers will have nowhere to farm because our land will be a desert. EUDR is here to help us dignify farming while protecting our environment.”

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’);  

By UN University’s Institute for Water, Environment and Health
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 21 2026 – The world is already in the state of “water bankruptcy”. In many basins and aquifers, long-term overuse and degradation mean that past hydrological and ecological baselines cannot realistically be restored.

While not every basin or country is water-bankrupt, enough critical systems around the world have crossed these thresholds, and are interconnected through trade, migration, climate feedbacks, and geopolitical dependencies, that the global risk landscape is now fundamentally altered.

The familiar language of “water stress” and “water crisis” is no longer adequate. Stress describes high pressure that is still reversible. Crisis describes acute, time-bound shocks. Water bankruptcy must be recognized as a distinct post-crisis state, where accumulated damage and overshoot have undermined the system’s capacity to recover.

A group of women fetching water from a dam in Taha, Northern Region of Ghana. Credit: Evans Ahorsu. Source: UN University’s Institute for Water, Environment and Health

Water bankruptcy management must address insolvency and irreversibility. Unlike financial bankruptcy management, which deals only with insolvency, managing water bankruptcy is concerned with rebalancing demand and supply under conditions where returning to baseline conditions is no longer possible.

Anthropogenic drought is central to the world’s new water reality. Drought and water shortage are increasingly driven by human activities, over-allocation, groundwater depletion, land and soil degradation, deforestation, pollution, and climate change, rather than natural variability alone. Water bankruptcy is the outcome of long-term anthropogenic drought, not just bad luck with hydrological anomalies.

Water bankruptcy is about both quantity and quality. Declining stocks, polluted rivers, and degrading aquifers, and salinized soils mean that the truly usable fraction of available water is shrinking, even where total volumes may appear stable.

Managing water bankruptcy requires a shift from crisis management to bankruptcy management. The priority is no longer to “get back to normal”, but to prevent further irreversible damage, rebalance rights and claims within degraded carrying capacities, transform water-intensive sectors and development models, and support just transitions for those most affected.

Governance institutions must protect both water and its underlying natural capital. The existing institutions focus on protecting water as a good or service disregarding the natural capital that makes water available in the first place. Efforts to protect a product are ineffective when the processes that produce it are disrupted.

Recognizing water bankruptcy calls for developing legal and governance institutions that can effectively protect not only water but also the hydrological cycle and natural capital that make its production possible.

Water bankruptcy is a justice and security issue. The costs of overshoot and irreversibility fall disproportionately on smallholder farmers, rural and Indigenous communities, informal urban residents, women, youth, and downstream users, while benefits have often accrued to more powerful actors. How societies manage water bankruptcy will shape social cohesion, political stability, and peace.

Water bankruptcy management combines mitigation with adaptation. While water crisis management paradigms seek to return the system to normal conditions through mitigation efforts only, water bankruptcy management focuses on restoring what is possible and preventing further damages through mitigation combined with adaptation to new normals and constraints.

Water can serve as a bridge in a fragmented world. Water can align national priorities with international priorities and improve cooperation between and within nations. Roughly 70% of global freshwater withdrawals are used for agriculture, much of it by farmers in the Global South. Elevating water in global policy debates can help rebuild trust between South and North but also within nations, between rural and urban, left and right constituencies.

Water must be recognized as an upstream sector. Most national and international policy agendas treat water as a downstream impact sector where investments are focused on mitigating the imposed problems and externalities. The world must recognize water as an upstream opportunity sector where investments have long-term benefits for peace, stability, security, equity, economy, health, and the environment.

Water is an effective medium to fulfill the global environmental agenda. Investments in addressing water bankruptcy deliver major co-benefits for the global efforts to address its environmental problems while addressing the national security concerns of the UN member states.

Elevating water in the global policy agenda can renew international cooperation, increase the efficiency of environmental investments, and reaccelerate the halted progress of the three Rio Conventions to address climate change, biodiversity loss, and desertification.

A new global water agenda is urgently needed. Existing agendas and conventional water policies, focused mainly on WASH, incremental efficiency gains and generic IWRM guidelines, are not sufficient for the world’s current water reality. A fresh water agenda must be developed that takes Global Water Bankruptcy as a starting point and uses the 2026 and 2028 UN Water Conferences, the conclusion of the Water Action Decade in 2028, and the 2030 SDG 6 timeline as milestones for resetting how the world understands and governs water.

Global Water Bankruptcy: Living Beyond Our Hydrological Means in the Post-Crisis Era | UN University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH) (20 January) (press release)

Support Paper
Madani K. (2026) Water Bankruptcy: The Formal Definition, Water Resources Management, 40 (78) doi: 10.1007/s11269-025-04484-0)

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 Democracy Without Borders
BERLIN, Germany, Jan 20 2026 – As democracy faces pressure around the world and confidence in international law drops, a new global survey reveals that citizens in a vast majority of countries support the idea of creating a citizen-elected world parliament to deal with global issues.

The survey, commissioned by Democracy Without Borders and conducted across 101 countries representing 90% of the world’s population, finds that 40% of respondents support the proposal, while only 27% are opposed. It is the largest poll ever carried out thus far on this subject.

Support is strongest in countries of the Global South, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, and among groups often underrepresented in national political systems—young people, ethnic minorities, and those with lower income or education levels. In 85 out of 101 countries surveyed, more respondents support the idea than oppose it.

“The message is clear: people around the world are ready to expand democratic representation to the global scale,” said Andreas Bummel, Executive Director of Democracy Without Borders. “This survey shows there is a growing global constituency that wants a voice in decisions affecting humanity as a whole,” he added.

The findings come at a time when the international system is under increasing strain from climate change, war, geopolitical conflicts, authoritarian resurgence, and stalled global cooperation. The results suggest that many citizens—especially in less powerful countries—see a world parliament as a pathway to fairer and more effective global governance.

In countries with limited political freedoms, support for a world parliament is particularly high. According to Democracy Without Borders, this points to a public perception that global democratic institutions could help advance democracy at home as well.

A notable 33% of respondents globally selected a neutral stance, suggesting unfamiliarity with the concept. An analysis of the survey results argues that this indicates a wide-open space for public engagement. If the idea gains visibility, support could grow substantially, it says.

“The international system created in the last century to prevent war and mass violence is built on the United Nations. But many UN member states do not represent their people. They represent oppressive authoritarian elites who have seized power.

The proposed vision of a citizen-elected world parliament could be a vital step in the discussion about building a more democratic global order,” said Oleksandra Matviichuk, head of the Centre for Civil Liberties in Ukraine awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize.

According to the survey, net opposition found in individual countries is most concentrated in high-income democracies. “This is not a rejection of democracy. It is a reminder that privilege may breed complacency, and that those who benefit from existing arrangements may underestimate how urgently they need renewal,” commented George Papandreou, Greek Member of Parliament and former Prime Minister.

Democracy Without Borders, an international civil society organization, advocates for the establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly as a step toward a democratic world parliament. The organization says the survey results reinforce the urgency for democratic governments to consider this long-standing proposal.

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’);