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’);  

By James Alix Michel and Dona Bertarelli
VICTORIA, Seychelles, Feb 3 2026 – The world is entering a decisive period for the future of the ocean. With the High Seas Treaty coming into force and meaningful progress being made on the World Trade Organization Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, global momentum for stronger marine governance is building. Yet, new pressures linked to the push for deep-sea mining — the extraction of minerals from seabed thousands of meters below the ocean surface — threaten to undermine these gains. To safeguard progress, global decision-making will have to keep pace with such emerging risks. In this context, Africa will host several global discussions in 2026, including those that will shape the ocean’s future, with a series of opportunities for leadership starting with the African Union Summit in February to the Our Ocean Conference in Mombasa, Kenya in June.

Dona-Bertarelli-and-James-Alix-Michel-meeting-at-Our-Ocean-Bali-in-2018. Credit: Dona-Bertarelli-Philanthropy

As two long-standing friends of the ocean who have witnessed both its fragility and its generosity, we view the ongoing discussions on deep-sea mining as a moment that calls for careful, science-based and inclusive reflection. This is especially true in a region of the world where people depend on a healthy ocean for livelihoods, culture, spirituality and climate resilience, and where more than 30 per cent of Africans, roughly 200 million people, rely on fish as their main source of animal protein.

These concerns are particularly relevant to the Western Indian Ocean (WIO), one of the most biodiverse marine regions in the world, with endemism as high as 22 per cent yet at the convergence of multiple environmental stresses. Coral reefs and mangrove forests are deteriorating, while illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and sand mining put additional pressure on already fragile ecosystems. The lasting impacts of the 2020 Wakashio oil spill in Mauritius show how quickly harm to the ocean can ripple across communities. In such a fragile setting, the introduction of a new extractive industry demands the highest level of scrutiny.

In the face of these emerging challenges, Seychelles has an important role to play. For decades, it has demonstrated leadership in championing the blue economy and protecting marine ecosystems. Early ratification of the BBNJ Treaty, along with advocacy for High Seas marine protected areas such as the Saya de Malha Bank, has positioned the country as a respected voice for responsible ocean governance. If deep-sea mining begins in the Pacific, the Indian Ocean is likely to follow, including on the mid-Indian Ridge east of Seychelles’ EEZ and within the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries agreement region. Catalyzing a new wave of continental leadership on deep-sea protection would advance a vision of ocean stewardship grounded in equity and sustainability. A precautionary pause on deep-sea mining would give concrete expression to that vision.

Polymetallic nodules on the deep seabed. Credit: Deep-Rising

Scientific research continues to underline this need for caution. Deep-sea mining would have an irreversible impact on seabed ecosystems and species. And recent studies of the midwater zone, where waste plumes from deep-sea mining would spread, show that mining particles could reduce the nutritional quality of the natural food supply for zooplankton by up to ten times. This would decrease food quality and trigger effects that move through the food web, ultimately affecting larger species and the overall health of the ocean millions of people rely on. In an environment where more than 99.99 percent of the deep ocean floor has yet to be explored or directly observed, introducing large scale industrial activity could cause damage that cannot be undone.

The economic risks for the region are equally significant. The Western Indian Ocean’s natural assets have been conservatively valued at 333.8 billion dollars, making the ocean one of the region’s most important sources of long-term wealth. Within this, fisheries represent the single largest asset and a cornerstone of economic resilience. The region generates about 4.8 percent of the global fish catch, roughly 4.5 million tonnes each year, underscoring how many economies and communities depend on healthy stocks. In Seychelles and across the region, tuna fisheries in particular underpin national revenue, employment and food security. Undermining the sustainability of fisheries could therefore not only threaten livelihoods but also diminish long-term economic opportunity.

Deep-sea-creature. Credit: Schmidt-Ocean-Institute

The accelerating push for deep-sea mining activities also raises concerns about repeating historic patterns seen in other extractive sectors across Africa. The uneven distribution of benefits from land-based resource exploitation has shown how easily local communities can be left with environmental impacts while external actors capture most of the value. Without strong governance frameworks that ensure fair participation and transparent decision-making, current deep-sea mining models risk following a similar trajectory, privileging short-term economic gain for multinational corporations over regional priorities.

Finally, the argument that deep-sea mining is necessary for the renewable energy transition is also increasingly at odds with current evidence. Rapid advances in recycling technologies, circular economy approaches, and alternative materials are already reducing the projected demand for minerals from new extractions. These pathways can support the global transition without the need to industrialize one of the least understood parts of the planet. The United Nations Environment Programme has also made clear in their 2022 report that “there is currently no foreseeable way in which investment into deep-sea mining activities can be viewed as consistent with the Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Principles”.

White-sand-and-clear-turquoise-water-on-a-Seychelles-beach. Credit: Unsplash—Alin-Mecean

In parallel, African-led nature-positive initiatives are demonstrating how ocean resources can be managed in ways that support both people and the environment. Initiatives such as the Great Blue Wall aim to create connected networks of protected and restored marine areas that strengthen biodiversity, climate resilience and community wellbeing across the WIO region. These efforts demonstrate what a regenerative blue economy can look like in practice. Preserving these gains requires ensuring that new activities do not compromise the progress already made.

Across the continent, young leaders, civil society and scientific institutions are calling for greater accountability in decisions that shape our collective future. Their message is clear: long-term wellbeing for everyone must come before short-term gains for a select few. This call also echoes a growing movement worldwide, with more than 40 countries now supporting a pause on deep-sea mining, including France, Fiji, Chile and Mexico. A precautionary pause on deep-sea mining is not a rejection of economic progress, but a commitment to sound science, inclusive dialogue and responsible stewardship. We are hopeful that countries in Africa and elsewhere in the world will hear this call and secure the future of the ocean for generations to come.

James Alix Michel is the former President of Seychelles (2004–2016) and a global advocate for the blue economy, ocean conservation and climate resilience.

Dona Bertarelli is a Swiss philanthropist, IUCN Patron of Nature and biodiversity champion, deeply committed to a healthy balance between people and nature.

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 Busani Bafana
BULAWAYO, Feb 3 2026 – British Monarch King Charles says science is the solution to protecting nature and halting global biodiversity loss, which is threatening humanity’s survival.

In a message to the 12th session of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which opened in Manchester, United Kingdom, this week, King Charles said nature is an important part of humanity but is under serious threat, which science can help tackle.

“We are witnessing an unprecedented, triple crisis of biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution at a pace that far outstrips the planet’s ability to cope,” said King Charles in a message delivered by Emma Reynolds, United Kingdom Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Science is the Solution

“The best available science can help inform decisions and actions to steward nature and, most importantly, to restore it for future generations, “ King Charles noted, pointing out that humanity has the knowledge to reverse the existential crisis and transition towards an economy that prospers in harmony with nature.

Delegates representing the more than 150 IPBES member governments, observers, Indigenous Peoples,  local communities and scientists are meeting for the  IPBES’ 12th Session, expected to approve a landmark new IPBES Business & Biodiversity Assessment. The report,  a 3-year scientific assessment involving 80 expert authors from every region of the world, will become the accepted state of science on the impacts and dependencies of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. It will provide decision-makers with evidence and options for action to measure and better manage business relationships with nature.

The King lauded IPBES for bringing together the world’s leading scientists, indigenous and local knowledge, citizen science and government to share valuable knowledge through the Business and Biodiversity Report—the first of its kind.

“I pray with all my heart that it will help shape concrete action for years to come, including leveraging public and private finance to close by 2030 the annual global biodiversity gap of approximately USD 700 billion,” said King Charles.

IPBES Chair, Dr. David Obura, highlighted that the approval of the IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment is important just days after the World Economic Forum’s 2026 Global Risks Report again spotlighted biodiversity loss as the second most urgent long-term risk to business around the world.

“In transitioning and transforming, businesses should all experience the rewards of being sustainable and vibrant, benefiting small and large,” Obura emphasized. “The Business Biodiversity assessment synthesizes the many tools and pathways available to do this and provides critical support for businesses across all countries to work with nature and people and not to work against either or both.”

Addressing the same delegates, Emma Reynolds,  UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, highlighted the urgency of collective action, the critical role of science, and the opportunities for business in nature.

Reynolds noted there was momentum around the world as countries were restoring wetlands and forests, communities were reviving degraded landscapes and businesses were increasingly investing in nature after realizing that nature delivers real returns.

“The tide for nature is beginning to turn, but we cannot afford to slow down,” said Reynolds. “The window to halt diversity loss by 2030 is narrowing. We need to build on that momentum, and we need to do it now.”

Multilateralism, a must for protecting nature

Paying tribute to IPBES for supporting scientific research, Reynolds emphasized that the rest of the world must step forward when others are stepping back from international cooperation. This is to demonstrate that protecting and restoring nature was not just an environmental necessity but essential for global security and the economy.

“The UK’s commitment to multilateralism remains steadfast,” she said. “We believe that by working together, sharing knowledge, aligning policies, and holding one another accountable, we can halt and reverse the diversity loss by 2030,.“

In January 2026, the United States withdrew its participation in IPBES, alongside 65  international organizations and bodies, including the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement.

The United States was a founding member of IPBES, and since its establishment in 2012, scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders—including Indigenous Peoples and local communities—from the United States have been among the most engaged contributors to its work.

The approval of the Business and Biodiversity Assessment by IPBES government members this week will be multilateralism in action, she said, noting that the assessment would not be possible without the critical role of science.

Reynolds underscored the need to base sound policy on solid scientific evidence. Decisions made in negotiating rooms and capitals around the world must be guided by the best and most up-to-date science available. IPBES  exists to provide exactly that.

Noting that the business depends on nature for raw materials, clean water, a stable climate, and food, Reynolds said companies that recognize their dependency on nature are proving that nature-positive investment works.

“Business as well as the government must act now to protect and restore nature… we have the science. We have the frameworks… What we need now is action.”

“Nature loss is now a systemic economic risk. That’s precisely why the assessment on business impact and dependencies is both urgent and necessary,” said  Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

“The first-ever business and diversity assessment will deliver authoritative evidence on how businesses depend on nature, how they impact it, and what that means for risk, for resilience, and for long-term value creation.”

Business and Biodiversity are linked

Underscoring that biodiversity loss is linked to the wider planetary crisis, Astrid Schomaker, executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, paid tribute to IPBES as a provider of science as a public good.

“IPBES has remained a  ‘beacon of knowledge at a time when science  and knowledge itself is under strain and when the voices of disinformation are sometimes louder than the facts,” said Schomaker, noting that ahead of the first global stocktake of progress in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), the science provided by IPBES would be invaluable.

“The Business and Biodiversity assessment constitutes a win for everyone. Clarifying that biodiversity loss isn’t just an environmental issue; it’s a serious threat to economic systems, livelihoods, business profitability, and societal resilience. Biodiversity simply underpins and provides the stability we all need.”

Target 15 of the KMGBF, focuses on business reducing negative impacts on biodiversity and global businesses need to assess and disclose biodiversity-related impacts.

IPBES executive secretary, Dr. Luthando Dziba, said IPBES was on track to deliver, in the coming years, crucial knowledge and inspiration to support the implementation of current goals and targets of the KMGBF, and to provide the scientific foundation needed by the many processes now shaping the global agenda beyond 2030.

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 Busani Bafana
BULAWAYO, Zimbabwe, Feb 3 2026 – Our food, fuel, and fortunes come from nature, but as these resources are turned into profits, the balance between exploiting and replenishing the planet is ever more precarious.

Global businesses impact nature through mining, manufacturing, processing and retail operations. At the same time, nature impacts business operations because there is a loss of biodiversity and extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and high temperatures.

How global business is affecting nature and vice versa is the focus of a new assessment by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to be launched next week as part of the 12th session of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

IPBES is the global science-policy body tasked with providing the best-available evidence to decision-makers for people and nature. IPBES assessment reports respond directly to requests from governments and decision-makers, making them immediately relevant around the world.

The plenary session got underway earlier today (February 3, 2026) with a keynote address from Emma Reynolds, MP, UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and remarks by Astrid Schomaker, executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity; Kaveh Zahedi, FAO director of the Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment; IPBES chair Dr. David Obura; and IPBES executive secretary Dr. Luthando Dziba.

“This week you will work to agree on the business and biodiversity assessment; I pray with all my heart that it will help shape concrete action for years to come, including leveraging public and private sector finance,” King Charles said.

Reynolds sounded an optimistic note.

“Around the world, momentum is building. Countries are restoring wetlands and forests. Communities are reviving degraded landscapes. Businesses are discovering that investing in nature delivers real returns. The tide for nature is beginning to turn. But we cannot afford to slow down. The window to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 is narrowing. We need to build on that momentum—and we need to do it now. That is why platforms like IPBES matter more than ever. At a time when some are stepping back from international cooperation, the rest of us must step forward. Together we will demonstrate that protecting and restoring nature isn’t just an environmental necessity; it’s essential for our security, our economy, and our future.”

Obura said the plenary in Manchester was symbolic, as it had been at the forefront of historical and business transformation.

“This is especially important just days after the World Economic Forum’s 2026 Global Risks Report again spotlighted biodiversity loss as the second most urgent long-term risk to business around the world.”

Dziba said IPBES was on course.

“IPBES is therefore on track to deliver—over the coming years—crucial knowledge and inspiration to support the implementation of current goals and targets and to provide the scientific foundation needed by the many processes now shaping the global agenda beyond 2030.”

Professor Ximena Rueda-Fajardo, Co-chair of the BizBiodiversity Assessment. Credit: IPBES

The Business and Biodiversity Assessment report, the first of its kind, presents scientific evidence on how global business depends on and affects nature. Aimed at governments, businesses, financial institutions, civil society, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities, the assessment will provide key insights and options for businesses and financial institutions to derive better outcomes for biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.

After three years of work by 80 of the world’s leading experts from science, the private sector, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities across 35 countries, the assessment will help promote business accountability and transparency while improving producer and consumer knowledge of their impacts and dependencies on nature. The Business and Biodiversity Assessment was completed in a shorter time than other IPBES assessments, which typically cover four years. It was completed in two years at a total cost of more than USD 1.5 million.

Why the Assessment on Business and Biodiversity?

The assessment comes at a time scientists are warning of a climate crisis, as we are off track to reducing carbon emissions and slow progress on phasing out fossil fuels. Global business has a complex link with nature, which provides resources that drive industry, yet nature  impacts global business too.

Speaking to IPBES’s Nature Insight Speed Dating with the Future podcast, co-chair of the IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment, Professor Ximena Rueda Fajardo, says engaging with nature is not a business option but a necessity.

“Businesses are both beneficiaries of nature and major contributors to its decline—so they have a critical role in ensuring the wise stewardship of our environment,” says Fajardo, adding that, “This is vital for their bottom line, long-term prosperity and the transformative change needed for more just and sustainable futures.”

IPBES highlights that over half of global GDP (USD 117 trillion of economic activity in 2025) is generated in sectors that are moderately to highly dependent on nature.

Matt Jones, chief impact officer at the UN Environment Programme’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre and co-chair of the report. Credit: Anastasia Rodopoulou ENB/IISD

Business and nature depend on each other. However, there are opposing views between those who advocate for nature and those involved in business on the relationship between the two. But science has found that there are interdependent linkages between nature and business.

More than half of the global economy is dependent on nature through the goods and services it provides, known as ecosystem services.

According to the World Economic Forum, biodiversity is shrinking faster than at any point in human history, and if left unchecked, up to 50 percent of all species may be lost by mid-century. In the last 50 years, land and sea-use change, climate change, natural resource use and exploitation, pollution and invasive alien species have been the major drivers of over 90 percent of the loss of biodiversity.

While it is difficult to quantify ecosystem services like food, medicines, clean air, disease control and climate regulation, they are estimated to be worth more than USD 150 trillion a year. Conservative estimates suggest that the loss of nature could cost the global economy at least USD 479 billion per year by 2050.

The Nature of Business Is Not Always Nature Friendly

Business operations have had a profound impact on nature, from pollution of the environment to waste and loss of biodiversity as a result of manufacturing and processing activities. What’s more, the current use of fossil fuels in powering industries has contributed to the rise in carbon emissions. Should businesses be adopting a new economic model that protects and preserves nature?

The rapid expansion of economic activity, without proper attention to its negative side effects, has taken its toll on nature, which in turn poses serious threats to business, IPBES found.

Engaging with nature is not optional for business but a necessity, says  Ximena Rueda, Co-chair of the IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment Fajardo and Professor at the School of Management at Universidad de los Andes in Colombia.

“Businesses are both beneficiaries of nature and major contributors to its decline—so they have a critical role in ensuring the wise stewardship of our environment,” says Fajardo, adding that, “This is vital for their bottom line, long-term prosperity and the transformative change needed for more just and sustainable futures.”

A Map for Business To Impact Biodiversity and Nature

The IPBES methodological assessment of the impact and dependence of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people is expected to be approved at the 12th session of the IPBES Plenary, which opened in Manchester, United Kingdom, this week.

According to IPBES, the assessment categorizes dependencies and impacts of businesses and financial institutions on biodiversity and  nature’s contributions to people. The assessment will further highlight collaborations needed between governments, the financial sector, consumers, Indigenous Peoples, local communities and civil society. It will also, through recommendations, strengthen efforts by businesses to achieve the goals and targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework by 2030 and the global vision of a world living in harmony with nature by 2050.

Expected Impacts

The IPBES Business and Biodiversity Report will provide critical information to governments, businesses and the financial sector to best measure the dependencies and impacts of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. It will also inform more integrated business and financial decisions and actions to simultaneously achieve the SDGs, the Global Biodiversity Framework and the Paris Agreement

Matt Jones, chief impact officer at the UN Environment Programme’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre and co-chair of the report, is convinced that there is no business that doesn’t depend on biodiversity. For example, do hairdressers depend on biodiversity?

“There are so many personal care products. There are so many things to do with shampoos that are derived from botanicals, which are derived from the natural world. A huge amount of their value chain is actually contingent on people being able to access products that are naturally derived. Think about it. You look at the adverts for these products. How often are they somebody in a waterfall or somebody in a forest… So even a hairdresser, where you go to get your haircut, absolutely depends on nature.”

Jones notes that the economic system encourages businesses to extract resources from nature. It is almost by default that business will have an impact on nature.

“As soon as you start talking about nature loss and the dependency that businesses have, the conversation changes,” he said. “What we found after people started understanding the risk to the business from nature loss was actually that the level of the conversation fundamentally changed. A business doesn’t just impact nature, but it depends on it.”

“And those interactions, they all create risk to the business if we see nature continuing to decline.”

Conservative estimates suggest that a collapse of essential ecosystem services, including pollination, marine fisheries and timber provision in native forests, could result in annual losses to the global GDP of USD 2.7 trillion by 2030. Similarly, biodiversity loss is believed to be costing the global economy 10 percent of its output annually.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report,

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Feb 3 2026 – The delicate balance of international migration relies on the high demand for labor and the enforcement of stricter immigration controls. This equilibrium is especially crucial when considering the international migration of students and skilled workers.

International students and skilled migrant workers play essential roles in economic development and addressing labor shortages in many countries. However, these individuals are facing increasing obstacles in entering and integrating into destination countries.

Essentially, most major destination countries are shifting from a policy of expanding migrant labor to one of selectivity and restriction in order to manage immigration within their borders, especially unauthorized immigration.

A notable exception to this global trend is Spain, which is granting legal status to half a million undocumented migrants. This policy aims to reduce labor exploitation in Spain’s underground economy and meet the need for around 300,000 migrant workers annually to sustain its economy.

The stricter immigration controls in many destination countries are primarily driven by political shifts to the right, national security concerns, public pressure, unauthorized migration, unlawful border crossings, visa overstays, and anxieties about changing population composition and social integration. These controls are also limiting asylum seekers and low skilled migrants while favoring highly skilled migrants.

Major destination countries have also implemented stricter immigration controls in terms of international student migration.

These controls include stricter visa rules and entry requirements, fixed-term visas, limited years of study, work permit restrictions, higher financial costs, and restrictions on bringing dependents. These measures are driven by high net migration, efforts to curb visa misuse, university enrollment caps, housing pressures, higher financial requirements, and restrictions on bringing family dependents.

In 2024, there were approximately 304 million international migrants worldwide, representing about 3.7% of the world’s population of 8.2 billion. This figure is nearly double the number of international migrants in 1990, which was approximately 154 million, representing 2.9% of the world’s population of 5.3 billion at that time (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

The top five migration destination countries and their percentage of all migrants are the United States (17%), Germany (6%), Saudi Arabia (5%), the United Kingdom (4%), and France (3%) (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

In contrast, the top five emigration countries and their percentage of all emigrants are India (6%), China (4%), Mexico (4%), Ukraine (3%), and Russia (3%) (Figure 3).

Source United Nations.

As of 2024–2025, there were approximately 7 million internationally mobile students globally. The key destinations for these international students were the United States (17%), Canada (12%), the United Kingdom (11%), France (7%), and Australia (6%). Other major destination countries were Germany, Russia, South Korea, China, and Spain (Figure 4).

Source: United Nations.

In addition to internationally mobile students, there were approximately 168 million migrant workers in 2022, accounting for about 5 percent of the global labor force. About two-thirds of all migrants of working age are in the labor force, with 60% of them being men.

In many of the more developed countries, the percentage of migrant workers in the labor force is significantly higher. For example, in the United States, approximately 20% of the labor force, totaling over 30 million people, consists of immigrants and foreign-born workers who are concentrated in the construction, farming, and service sectors. Canada has an even higher proportion of 30%, with many migrant workers represented in the tech sector, manufacturing, and healthcare.

Migrant workers can be found across all skill levels. Despite many possessing higher qualifications, they are often concentrated in lower-skilled industries such as services, agriculture, construction, and tourism. However, sectors and occupations related to high-skilled information technology and professional work often rely on skilled migrant labor to address labor shortages.

Migrant workers can be found across all skill levels. Despite many possessing higher qualifications, they are often concentrated in lower-skilled industries such as services, agriculture, construction, and tourism. However, sectors and occupations related to high-skilled information technology and professional work often rely on skilled migrant labor to address labor shortages

The populations of most developed countries and many developing countries are experiencing declining, ageing, and diversifying trends in the 21st century. These three profound demographic changes present significant social, economic, political, and ethical challenges.

As populations rapidly evolve during the 21st century, changes in fertility, mortality, and migration are shaping the demographics of many regions. These changes are based on past trends, current data, and projected future patterns over the next eighty years.

Projections suggest that population decline will persist because of low fertility rates remaining below the replacement levels of about two births per woman. Many countries have experienced low fertility rates for an extended period. The population of the more developed countries is expected to decrease by 14 million by 2050, while the least developed countries are projected to grow by 733 million during the same period.

Regarding mortality rates, life expectancies are anticipated to continue rising throughout the century. For instance, the current life expectancy at birth of 80 years in more developed countries is projected to reach approximately 84 years by 2050 and 90 years by the end of the 21st century.

In addition to declining populations and increasing life expectancy, many countries have experienced a “historic reversal” in their age structures. By 2025, 55 countries and areas had experienced this reversal, with more countries expected to undergo the same soon.

This significant demographic milestone occurs when the percentage of individuals aged 65 and older exceeds the percentage of those aged 17 and younger. In simpler terms, it is when older adults outnumber children in a population.

Population ageing is expected to continue throughout the remainder of the 21st century. The median age for more developed countries currently at 42 years is projected to increase to 45 years by 2050 and 48 years by 2100.

Additionally, the proportion of elderly individuals is projected to continue rising. For example, Europe’s elderly population is expected to increase to approximately 30 percent by mid-century.

Major destination countries are also becoming more ethnically diverse due to increasing levels of international migration. For instance, the estimated number of foreign-born individuals in Europe, which was around 57 million at the beginning of the 21st century, has risen to approximately 87 million by 2020.

The population compositions of many countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, are becoming significantly more ethnically diverse. Population projections suggest that the US and the UK populations will become “minority white” around 2045 and 2065, respectively.

In addition to high levels of legal migration, increasing levels of unauthorized migration pose mounting challenges for many destination countries and for international students and skilled migrant labor.

Notable among these challenges are the negative attitudes and hostilities towards immigrants and their families, as well as the increasing political influence of far-right nationalist parties advocating anti-immigrant policies. These parties are concerned that the growing numbers of immigrants will have a negative impact on their traditional culture, shared values, and national identity. They believe that immigration, especially unauthorized migration, undermines their way of life, national security, ethnic heritage, and social cohesion.

A significant factor fueling the unprecedented high levels of unauthorized migration to many destination countries is the rapid demographic growth of sending countries. Many of these countries, which are struggling with poverty, political instability, civil strife, and climate change, are in the less developed regions of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

The number of people desiring to emigrate permanently is approximately 1.3 billion. This number significantly exceeds the number of immigrants countries are willing to admit, leading many individuals to migrate without authorization.

Of particular note is Africa’s population, which currently includes 33 of the 46 least developed countries in the world. Africa’s population is expected to more than triple during the 21st century, increasing from approximately 800 million to nearly 4 billion.

In summary, the major demographic features of traditional destination countries for the 21st century are declining, ageing, and diversifying. In contrast, the populations of most sending countries are increasing and remain relatively young, with many of them wishing to emigrate to a developed country.

These potent, pervasive, and differing demographic trends are creating a delicate balance of high demand for labor and the implementation of stricter immigration controls. This balance is especially relevant for international students and skilled migrant labor as it impacts their entry and integration into destination countries.

Joseph Chamie is an independent consulting demographer and former director of the United Nations Population Division.

Hunger shadowed Mercy Lung’aho’s childhood, fueling her campaign to promote nutrition as a foundation for Africa’s development. As lead for the Food Security, Nutrition and Health Program at the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), this certified nutritionist and researcher, with more than 20 years of championing development, is advocating for an integrated approach combining […]

By Azza Karam
NEW YORK, Feb 2 2026 – Several events, meetings, consultations, initiatives, etc. taking place among faith-inspired, ‘faith-based’ and a variety of other similar efforts, over the past year, in the United States especially, concern me.

Coming from a background of human rights, international development, and humanitarian service, I have witnessed the arc of ‘none’ to increasing interest by Western governments in ‘religion’ – religious engagement, religion and development, religion and foreign policy, religious freedom, religious peacebuilding, or religion and peace, and more, including even religion and agriculture. Basically, religion and everything.

Non-Western governments within Africa and Asia, including areas overlapping with what we call (variably) “the Middle East”, have long been interested, and indeed actively engaging religious leaders and religious institutions.

As many scholars, observers, and foreign policy pundits have noted, the interest of such governments has often transcended any genuine fascination with faith, towards rather obvious instrumentalization of religious leaders, religious organisations and religious groups, in support of specific political agendas (e.g., making peace with Israel, legitimacy of corrupt – and violent – politically repressive leaders and regimes, etc.).

In fact, the marriage between select religious leaders/institutions/groups and some political actors goes back to the empires we have inherited pre-Westphalian states).

I recall some stories from my time serving as a staff member at the United Nations, and in other international fora. The first story revolves around one Arab and one Indian diplomat speaking with a European counterpart, during one of several UN Strategic Learning Exchanges on Religion, Development and Diplomacy, which I coordinated and facilitated, this one in 2014.

The discussion concerned how best to “benefit” from working with religious leaders to affirm a message of certain political parties, especially, albeit not only, around elections. The Arab patted the European on the back and said, with a smile and a wink: “you are finally catching up on how to use these religious leaders – congratulations my friend”. The Indian one, looking bemused, added “Yes. And be careful”.

Another story concerns another meeting I organised – in one of the basement meeting rooms of the UN – between UN officials and a diverse array of religious actors, around peace and mediation efforts, in select African and Asian conflict settings, early 2015.

A European Christian religious leader of a renowned multi-religious organisation made an intervention to address the concerns about “instrumentalization” of religious actors, which some faith-based NGO leaders were articulating.

While some faith representatives cautioned against religious actors being used to “rubber stamp decisions already made by governments and some intergovernmental organisations” (in the room were both UN and EU officials), this particular Western Christian religious leader spoke up and said, “I am not worried about that at all, in fact, I would like to say to my secular colleagues in this room, please use us… we can certainly benefit you… we are not common civil society actors, our mission makes us exceptional”.

My last story, is from my time serving as the secretary general of an international multireligious organisation which convenes religious leaders from diverse religious institutions around “deeply held and widely shared values”.

As soon as I became a member of the UN Secretary-General’s High Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism, I arranged a meeting between some of my multi-religious Board members (religious leaders), and some members of this high Level UN SG’s Advisory Board.

The idea was to nurture a quiet but candid dialogue between pollical and religious leaders, around why and how multilateralism can be significantly strengthened by multireligious engagement.

I hasten to note that multireligious engagement, if served well, can be – as I have written and persistently argued – resistant to instrumentalization of select religious actors to serve any one particular governmental agenda. The latter is a feature I warn against, and small wonder, given developments from India to the United States, from Russia to Israel, and beyond.

Once again, I heard a religious leader invite the members of the SG’s Board to “use” their (religious) wisdom because of their “exceptional” mission (presumably the godly one). This time, later reflection among members of the UN SG Board led to noting that such multireligious engagement would be inadvisable, due to a concern about “Muslims” involved in such multireligious spaces.

Fast forward to 2026, one year after an increasingly belligerent US Presidential Administration’s record, which includes relatively ‘minor’ policy decisions such as transforming the name of the Ministry of Defence to the “Ministry of War”. And not so minor human rights abuses of citizens and immigrants, and some pointing to manipulation and outright disregard of the rule of law, both at home and abroad (I hope this is polite enough wording). Of course one dares not mention support to certain genocidal regimes killing thousands in the name of self-protection.

In this environment, I listen to conversations among some of the United States’ most esteemed faith-based organisations, all with a remarkable track record of serving humanity in all corners of the world. Who, apparently, are seeking to engage this Administration “constructively”, with some praising the “unprecedented” outreach of members of this Administration in engaging, largely (some would say exclusively), with certain Christian NGOs, certain Christian religious leaders, and certain Christian faith protagonists – no doubt to further noble objectives. Apparently, this is a form of strategic engagement of/with religion.

Even though there were likely some who felt uncomfortable with aspects of this rhetoric, the studiously diplomatic silences – including my own – about challenging anything said, was noteworthy. The bottom line is, “we need access to the White House… we need more resources to do our (good) work”.

Why was I silent? Because I am the quintessential ‘other’ whose outspokenness has already earned me the loss of a sense of ‘home’ and security, many times over. This is neither excuse nor justification, rather, an acknowledgement of cowardice.

Into this Kafkaesque reality, let me ask a few questions I am battling with: what will it take to speak truth to power publicly – the way Minnesotans and Palestinians are having to do with their own regimes? Is it strategic to be silent, or such consummate diplomats, especially when we work in the name of the ‘godly’ – being such “exceptional” actors?

Conversely, is this Administration which we endeavour to be so tactful with, being silent about it’s “divine mission”? Is being “nice and essentially a kind person with their heart in the right place”, and doing godly work, a good reason to work with those who are serving regimes which ignore the rule of law in their own nation and abroad? Does faith-based diplomacy mean we either collude, remain silent, or take the struggle to the streets?

If so, what difference is faith-based diplomacy and engagement actually making to civic engagement, to honoring human rights and the rule of law, or to serving principled leadership? Or do these simply not matter since it is the self-interests of the ruling and rich few, are what matters to determine the integrity of life, planet and leadership?

Perhaps we should ponder the advice of the Indian Diplomat, given to his Western counterpart 22 years ago: how can we “be careful”?

Professor Azza Karam serves as President of Lead Integrity; and Director of the Kahane UN Program, for Occidental College’s Diplomacy and World Affairs.

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 Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Feb 2 2026 – When US special forces seized Nicolás Maduro and his wife from the presidential residence in Caracas on 3 January, killing at least 24 Venezuelan security officers and 32 Cuban intelligence operatives in the process, many in the Venezuelan opposition briefly dared hope. They speculated that intervention might finally bring the democratic transition thwarted when Maduro entrenched himself in power after losing the July 2024 election. But within hours, those hopes were crushed. Trump announced the USA would now ‘run’ Venezuela and Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez was sworn in to replace Maduro. Venezuela’s sovereignty had been violated twice: first by an authoritarian regime that usurped the popular will, and then by an external power that deliberately violated international law.

A cynical intervention

Under Trump, the USA has abandoned any pretence of promoting democracy. Trump wrapped the intervention in the rhetoric of anti-narcotics operations while openly salivating over Venezuela’s oil reserves, rare earth deposits and investment opportunities. He repeatedly made clear that US regional hegemony is the number one priority. His contempt for Venezuelans’ right to self-determination was explicit: when asked about opposition leader María Corina Machado, Trump dismissed her as lacking ‘respect’ and ‘capacity to lead’. The message to Venezuela’s democratic movement was clear: your struggle doesn’t matter, only our interests do.

Ironically, the US intervention achieved what years of Maduro’s propaganda failed to do, giving anti-imperialist rhetoric a shot in the arm. For decades, Latin American authoritarian regimes have justified repression by pointing to the threat of US intervention, even though this was a largely historical grievance. Not anymore: Trump has handed every Latin American dictator the perfect justification for continuing authoritarian rule.

The global response has been equally revealing. The loudest defenders of national sovereignty are authoritarian powers such as China, Iran and Russia: states that routinely violate their citizens’ rights expressed their ‘solidarity with the people of Venezuela’ and positioned themselves as champions of international law. By blatantly violating a foundational principle of the post-1945 international order, Trump made the leaders of some of the world’s most repressive regimes look like the adults in the room. And across Latin America, the political conversation has now shifted dramatically: the question is no longer how to restore democracy in Venezuela, but how to prevent the next US military adventure in Latin America.

Authoritarianism continues

Meanwhile, Venezuela’s authoritarian regime remains intact. Maduro may be in a New York courtroom, but the structures that kept him in power – the corrupt military, embedded Cuban intelligence, patronage networks and the repressive apparatus – continue unchanged. Rodríguez will likely try to run down the clock, claiming Maduro could return at any moment to avoid calling elections while quietly negotiating oil deals with US companies and reasserting authoritarian control. For both Rodríguez and Trump, democracy seems like an inconvenient obstacle to resource extraction.

For Venezuelan civil society, this creates real dilemmas. As she was sworn in, Rodríguez denounced the operation that put her in charge and vowed that Venezuela would ‘never again be a colony of any empire’. She has wrapped herself in the flag, framing regime continuity as a patriotic stand against western imperialism, and can now easily paint opposition activists who have long demanded international pressure for democracy as treasonous collaborators with foreign powers. This is despite being an insider of a regime that welcomed Cuban intelligence, Iranian oil traders and Russian military advisers, and is now negotiating oil deals with the USA and crossing its own red line by promising legal changes to enable private investment.

A Venezuelan solution for Venezuela

But there may be some cracks in the regime. With Maduro gone, frictions inside the ruling party have become apparent. For instance, there have been obvious disagreements on how to handle the pressure to free Venezuela’s over 800 political prisoners. These may yield opportunities the democracy movement can exploit.

This is the time for the democratic opposition to reclaim the narrative. In the immediate aftermath of the intervention, families of political prisoners mounted vigils outside detention centres, demanding releases the government has only partially delivered. Civil society must amplify these voices, making clear that any transitional arrangement requires the dismantling of the repressive apparatus, not merely a change of faces at the top.

A broad coalition of civil society organisations has issued 10 demands that chart a path to democratic transition. They call for the immediate and unconditional release of political prisoners, the dismantling of irregular armed groups, unfettered access for human rights monitors and humanitarian aid and, crucially, a free and fair presidential election with international observers. These demands deserve international backing, not as conditions for oil contracts, but as non-negotiable requirements for any government that can claim to represent Venezuela.

Venezuela’s democratic forces can either accept marginalisation as Trump and Rodríguez carve up their country’s resources, or use this chaotic moment to advance a genuinely Venezuelan democratic agenda. That means rejecting both Maduro’s authoritarianism and Trump’s intervention, and insisting that any legitimacy Rodríguez’s government claims must come from Venezuelan voters, not US armed forces or oil contracts. Any window of opportunity may however be closing fast. The question is whether Venezuela’s democratic movement can seize it to build the country they have strived for, or whether they will remain spectators while others decide their fate.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Head of Research and Analysis, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report. She is also a Professor of Comparative Politics at Universidad ORT Uruguay.

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

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 Harald Finger and Nujin Suphaphiphat
WASHINGTON DC, Jan 30 2026 – India’s productivity growth over the past two decades has been impressive, reflecting rapid expansion in high-value services, gradual efficiency-enhancing reforms, and scale advantages from a large domestic market.

That said, additional gains would support the country’s ambitions of becoming an advanced economy.

Better supporting innovation, including by removing business barriers, can boost the productivity growth rate by nearly 40 percent, as we show in our 2025 Article IV report. That significant productivity dividend would be like adding the output of the state of Karnataka, the fourth-largest state by output, to India’s economy each decade.

India’s productivity performance, measured by output per additional worker, has been uneven. Services have delivered strong productivity gains, benefiting from advances in adoption of digital technology and their integration into global value chains.

Manufacturing, however, has seen only small productivity growth, while agriculture—still employing over 40 percent of the workforce—remains far less productive than other sectors.

In fact, an additional worker in services produces more than four times the output of a worker in agriculture with the same education level, underscoring the large potential gains from shifting activity to other sectors of the economy.

India’s unusually large share of very small firms is one reason manufacturing productivity has fallen behind. Nearly three quarters of factories employ fewer than five paid workers—almost double the US share. Even more striking, the smallest enterprises produce less than 20 percent of the output per worker of large counterparts, compared with nearly 45 percent in the United States.

These challenges reduce India’s aggregate productivity. Many of these enterprises remain small for decades due to complex compliance requirements, rigid labor regulations, and product market rules that discourage growth. Easing these constraints would help businesses expand and, in turn, dramatically lift productivity. India’s welcome announcement to implement its new labor codes may set the stage for further reforms along this route.

Subdued dynamism

Another factor underlying India’s subdued manufacturing productivity is that business dynamism remains low. The frequency of new business creation and when firms close or exit a market is far lower than in economies such as Korea, Chile, or the United States. Subdued dynamism discourages competition and slows the reallocation of resources toward more productive entities.

Further, a sizable share are zombie firms, which don’t generate enough earnings to cover their borrowing costs yet are continuing to absorb capital and labor. Our analysis shows that firm entry and exit have only a small effect on productivity in India, highlighting the need for a more dynamic business environment in which unproductive firms can wind down while those that are newer and more innovative can grow and thrive.

Innovation, meanwhile, has remained constrained. India invests less in research and development than the average for emerging market economies in the Group of Twenty, and few firms engage in it, with limited adoption of foreign technology.

Larger firms tend to innovate more, while smaller ones have more barriers to scaling up and improving. Strengthening innovation could deliver substantial productivity gains, our analysis suggests.

Specifically, lifting India’s innovation metrics, including business sophistication and creative outputs, to the 90th percentile of emerging markets could raise productivity growth by almost 0.6 percentage point, or nearly 40 percent relative to India’s long-term average.

Role of AI

Artificial intelligence could reinforce these gains. Nearly 60 percent of Indian firms already use some form of AI—well above global averages. AI can make businesses more efficient, speed up technology diffusion, and strengthen innovation. But adoption remains uneven: employers cite skill shortages, inadequate tools, and integration challenges.

Ensuring that AI enhances productivity without widening disparities requires further investment in India’s already strong digital infrastructure, training workers, and protecting those who may lose jobs.

IMF staff simulations show that AI-driven productivity gains—scaled by AI preparedness and exposure—could raise total factor productivity in emerging Asia (including India) by roughly 0.3 to 3 percentage points over a decade—depending on sectors and scenarios.

India has already laid important foundations for productivity-enhancing reforms and can build on a world-class digital public infrastructure. Unlocking the next wave of growth requires a coordinated agenda: easing regulatory burdens so firms can grow, boosting innovation and university-industry collaboration to promote innovation, strengthening business dynamism, and enabling labor to move to higher-productivity sectors.

With these reforms, India can convert its structural strengths into sustained productivity gains, supporting its endeavors to become an advanced economy.

Harald Finger is the IMF mission chief for India. Nujin Suphaphiphat is a senior economist 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’);