By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Apr 15 2025 – As the world’s population of 8.2 billion people increases in size and becomes older due to demographic ageing, the number of people experiencing the long goodbye, or dementia, is rapidly rising.

In 2025, the number of people living with dementia worldwide is estimated to be approximately 60 million. That global number is expected to more than double by 2050, reaching approximately 153 million. That rise presents considerable challenges to social care and health systems as well as families over the coming decades. Again, dementia is rising largely due to world population’s growth and demographic ageing (Table 1).

Source: United Nations and World Health Organization.

By mid-century, the world’s population is expected to gain an additional 1.5 billion people, increasing to 9.7 billion with its median age increasing from 31 years to 36 years. Also over the next twenty-five years, people are expected to live longer with the world’s life expectancy at birth projected to increase from approximately 73 years to 77 years.

Over that same twenty-five-year time period, the world’s population is expected to experience demographic ageing. The proportion of the world’s population aged 65 years or older, for example, is projected to increase from 10% to 16% and the proportion aged 80 years or older is expected to more than double from 2% to 5%.

Dementia is the leading cause of disability and dependency among the elderly. Without individuals, families, communities and governments earnestly addressing and implementing the modifiable risk factors for dementia, the numbers of men and women living with dementia are expected to increase significantly throughout the 21st century.

Despite the expected worldwide rise in dementia, people living with the syndrome should continue to have the same human rights as other members of a population. Among those rights include the right to dignity, autonomy and participation in decision making about their lives.

Unfortunately, however, it is often the case that people living with dementia are denied the basic human rights and freedoms available to other members of a society.

It is also important for the general public, business leaders, healthcare providers and government officials to recognize and understand that dementia is NOT a part of the normal ageing process (Table 2).

Source: World Health Organization and Alzheimer’s Disease International.

Dementia is a syndrome caused by diseases that affect the brain. The condition is not just about memory loss but also affects thinking, behavior and emotion.

Dementia is a general term that results from a variety of diseases and injuries that affect the brain and affect memory, thinking and the ability to perform daily activities. Although many people with dementia can live reasonably well, the condition tends to get notably worse over time and is a significant cause of death among older adults.

Dementia may develop after a stroke or in the context of certain infections such as HIV; as a result of harmful use of alcohol; repetitive physical injuries to the brain; and nutritional deficiencies.

While currently there’s no cure for the long goodbye, various services and support are needed for people living with dementia and their caregivers.

Also, it is NOT the case that nothing can be done to prevent or reduce one’s chances of experiencing the long goodbye. The Lancet Commission on Dementia estimated that approximately 45% of all dementia cases worldwide could be prevented or delayed by addressing 14 modifiable risk factors.

Among the modifiable risk factors are alcohol abuse, smoking, obesity, physical inactivity, social isolation, hearing loss, lower levels of education and vision loss. Other modifiable risk factors for dementia include diabetes, high blood pressure, air pollution, brain injury, depression and high LDL cholesterol (Table 3).

Source: The Lancet Commission on Dementia.

Dementia mainly affects the elderly and is generally more common among women than men. Women tend to live longer than men, thereby increasing their risk of developing dementia. In addition, biological reasons differing between men and women are believed to contribute to the differences in the chances of having dementia.

Surveys indicate that nearly 80% of the general public are concerned about developing dementia at some point in their lives. However, it is important to recognize that not everyone will experience dementia as they age.

Alzheimer’s disease is the most common form of dementia, accounting for approximately 60% to 70% of the cases. Also, the large majority of those with Alzheimer’s disease are estimated to be women. Other types of dementia include vascular dementia, Lewy body dementia that may occur with Parkinson’s disease, frontotemporal dementia and mixed dementia.

The Lancet Commission on Dementia estimated that approximately 45% of all dementia cases worldwide could be prevented or delayed by addressing 14 modifiable risk factors

While Alzheimer’s disease is not a part of normal ageing, the chances of getting the disease rises as one grows older. Also, having a family history of Alzheimer’s increases one’s risk of contracting the disease. Some preliminary research suggests that antivirals, antibiotics, vaccines and anti-inflammatory drugs could possibly help to treat, prevent or reduce the risk of dementia.

Among the common symptoms of dementia are: confusion; memory loss; needing help with daily tasks; problems with language and understanding; changes in personality including unusually anxious or irritable; getting lost when walking or driving; and having trouble following a conversation.

Although consciousness is not affected by dementia, the decline in cognitive function is common and may also be accompanied by changes in emotional control. In addition, sometimes changes in mood and behavior may precede the loss of memory.

In the early stages, the symptoms of dementia may be small, irregular and subtle. Over time, however, the symptoms tend to get worse and become more noticeable. Most people with dementia end up needing others, especially family members, to provide them assistance for their daily activities.

The various consequences of the long goodbye are considerable, impacting individuals, families, local communities and societies. The general lack of awareness and understanding of dementia by the public and government officials delays timely diagnosis and the provision of appropriate care as well as taking preventive actions.

If an individual is experiencing cognitive changes, that person should seek medical evaluation. It is also important to understand that many people with dementia can still live well.

However, it is estimated that up to three quarters of those living with dementia worldwide have not received a diagnosis. Moreover, those individuals that have a dementia diagnosis tend to be reluctant to indicate their condition because of the stigma associated with it. Also, surveys have estimated that approximately one-third of care givers worldwide report that they have hidden the diagnosis of dementia of a family member.

Besides dementia leading to dependency for the individual having the syndrome, it typically substantially increases the emotional burdens and health consequences on caregivers. Moreover, dementia often results in considerable economic costs relating to the provision of needed healthcare services.

The highest levels of dementia around 2024 are typically reported among the older populations of more developed countries. Finland and the United Kingdom have the highest reported rates of dementia of 55 and 43 per 100,000 population, respectively. The proportion of those aged 65 years or older having dementia is about 7% in both countries. In eighth place is the United States with a rate of dementia of 33 per 100,000 population, with approximately 10% of its population aged 65 years or older having dementia (Figure 1).

Source: CEOWORLD Magazine.

While dementia is rapidly rising worldwide, it is important for people to understand that dementia is NOT a normal part of ageing. Dementia is a syndrome caused by diseases that affect the brain and a number of things can be done to prevent or reduce an individual’s chances of getting the long goodbye.

In brief, staying mentally, physically and socially active, not smoking, eating a balanced healthy diet, keeping alcohol consumption within recommended limits, reducing hearing and vision loss, and keeping blood pressure and cholesterol levels in check contribute to maintaining healthy brains as men and women age.

In conclusion, the continuing growth of the world’s population and demographic ageing during the 21st century are contributing to the expected rise of dementia that present considerable challenges to social care and health systems as well as families. If individuals, families, communities and governments earnestly address dementia’s various modifiable risk factors, their collective efforts can contribute significantly to reducing the worldwide rise of the long goodbye.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends, and Differentials”.

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Apr 15 2025 – The recent US court case that ordered three Greenpeace organisations to pay damages of over US$660 million to an oil and gas company was a stunning blow against civil society’s efforts to stop runaway climate change and environmental degradation. The verdict, following a trial independent witnesses assessed to be grossly unfair, came in reaction to Indigenous-led anti-pipeline protests. It’s vital for any prospects of tackling the climate crisis that Greenpeace’s appeal succeeds, because without civil society pressure, there’s simply no hope of governments and corporations taking the action required.

Civil society is more used to winning climate and environmental court cases than losing them. As CIVICUS’s 2025 State of Civil Society Report outlines, litigation has become a vital part of civil society’s strategy. Just last year, a group of Swiss women won a groundbreaking precedent in the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled the government was violating their rights by failing to cut greenhouse gas emissions. South Korea’s Constitutional Court found that the lack of emissions reduction targets breached young people’s constitutional rights. Other positive judgments came in countries including Ecuador, India and Italy. At the last count, climate lawsuits had been filed in 55 countries.

But fossil fuel companies have noticed civil society’s litigation successes and are also taking to the courts. They have the deep pockets needed to hire expensive lawyers and sustain legal actions over many draining years. Fossil fuel companies have filed over 150 lawsuits intended to silence criticism in the USA alone since 2012.

Protest restrictions

Civil society is doing all it can to demand climate action that matches the scale of the crisis, winning victories by combining tactics such as street protest, non-violent direct action and litigation, but it’s coming under attack. Peaceful protesters are being jailed and activists are facing violence in many countries. Alongside the chilling effect on protests of lawsuits such as the one against Greenpeace, governments in several countries are criminalising legitimate forms of protest. Globally, climate activists and defenders of environmental, land and Indigenous rights are among the groups most targeted for repression.

Security force violence and mass arrests and detentions, particularly of protesters, are in danger of becoming normalised. Last year in the Netherlands, authorities detained thousands for taking part in mass roadblock protests demanding the government keep its promise of ending fossil fuel subsidies. In France, police used violence at a protest against road construction in June and banned another in August. In Australia, activists opposing a huge coal terminal and a gas project were among those arrested in 2024.

In Uganda, campaigners against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline continue to face state repression. Last year, authorities arbitrarily arrested 11 activists from the campaign. These activists have faced intimidation and pressure to stop their activism.

Campaigners from Cambodia’s Mother Nature group paid a heavy price for their work in trying to stand up to powerful economic and political interests seeking to exploit the environment. Last July, 10 young activists were given long jail sentences after documenting river pollution.

Some states, like the UK, have rewritten protest laws to expand the range of offences, increase sentences and strengthen police powers. Last July, five Just Stop Oil activists were handed brutally long sentences of up to five years for planning a roadblock protest. The UK now arrests environmental protesters at three times the global average rate.

Italy’s right-wing government is introducing new restrictions. Last year, parliament passed a law on what it calls ‘eco-vandals’ in response to high-profile awareness-raising stunts at monuments and cultural sites. Another repressive law is being introduced that will allow sentences of up to two years for roadblock protests.

The struggle continues

Yet civil society will keep striving for action, which is more urgent than ever. 2024 was the hottest year on record, and it was crammed with extreme weather events, made more likely and frequent by climate change. Far too little is being done.

Fossil fuel companies continue their deadly trade. Global north governments, historically the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, are watering down plans as right-wing politicians gain sway. International commitments such as the Paris Agreement show ambition on paper, but not enough is achieved when states come together at summits such as last December’s COP29 climate conference.

There’s a huge funding gap between what’s needed to enable countries to transition to low-carbon economies and adapt to climate change. Global south countries want the most powerful economies, which have benefited from the industries that have caused the bulk of climate change, to pay their share. But of an estimated annual US$1.3 trillion needed, the most global north states agreed to at COP29 was US$3 billion a year.

Nor are fossil fuel companies paying their share. Over the past five decades the oil and gas sector has made profits averaging US$2.8 billion a day. Yet companies are currently scaling back renewable energy investments and planning still more extraction, while using their deep pockets to lobby against measures to rein them in. Making the global tax rules fairer and more effective would help too: US$492 billion a year could be recovered by closing offshore tax loopholes, while taxes on the excessive wealth of the super-rich could unlock US$2.1 trillion a year, more than enough to tackle the climate crisis.

Civil society will keep pushing, because every fraction of a degree in temperature rises matters to millions. Change is not only necessary, but possible. For example, following extensive civil society advocacy, last September the UK shut down its last coal-fired power station.

Civil society played a major role in campaigning for the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which requires large companies to align with the Paris Agreement. And last December, the International Court of Justice began hearing a case brought by a group of Pacific Island states, seeking an advisory opinion on what states are required to do to address climate change and help countries suffering its worst impacts. This landmark case originated with civil society, when student groups urged national leaders to take the issue to the court.

Trump’s return to the White House has made the road ahead much rockier. The world’s biggest historical emitter and largest current fossil fuel extractor has again given notice of its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, torn up renewable energy policies and made it easier to drill for fossil fuels. In response, other high-emitting nations must step up and show genuine climate leadership. They should start by committing to respecting the right of civil society to hold them to account. States and companies must cease their attacks on climate and environmental activists and instead partner with them to respond to the climate emergency.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

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 Gareth Evans and Jennifer Welsh
NEW YORK, Apr 15 2025 – April marks Genocide Prevention and Awareness Month, a time to reflect on the history, causes and victims of past genocides and to mobilize the necessary resolve to confront risks facing populations around the world today who face the threat of genocide and other mass atrocity crimes not for anything they have done, but for who they are.

As we solemnly observe this month of commemoration, we also reflect on the 20th anniversary of the UN General Assembly’s unanimous adoption of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle – a concept which emerged in particular response to the international community’s failure to prevent the atrocity crimes committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

By shifting the focus to every state’s ‘responsibility to protect’ rather than the big powers’ ‘right to intervene,’ by emphasizing prevention as well as reaction, and by committing to international collective action – including, when necessary, through the collective security provisions of the UN Charter – R2P made possible a global consensus completely lacking in previous decades.

The 2005 World Summit brought us closer than ever to translating the post-Holocaust dream of “never again” into a meaningful reality. It was a significant diplomatic achievement for all heads of state and government worldwide to acknowledge that genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing – even when committed within a sovereign state – are matters of international concern and thus demand timely and decisive response.

But 20 years later – with all too obvious horrors and civilian suffering still occurring in Gaza, Sudan, the DRC, Myanmar and elsewhere – it is clear that R2P is still at best a work in progress. It is time to reflect on what we have learned about preventing and responding to the atrocity crimes outlined in the World Summit Outcome Document, and to focus on how we can do better.

On the plus side, considerable progress has been made in our collective knowledge of the risk factors, causes and dynamics that drive mass atrocity crimes and in enhancing our responsiveness to warning signs, including through the development of the UN’s Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes. There is now a solid understanding of the wide range of preventive measures available, which includes not only a response to imminent and emerging risks, but also instituting policies, practices and structures that build long-term societal resilience to atrocity crimes.

Alongside these advances is a growing awareness that the different tools available for changing the behavior of would-be perpetrators, or for making victims less vulnerable, must be situated in a more coherent preventive strategy that is tailored to each context.

Moreover, the atrocity prevention agenda has been operationalized across the UN system. The creation of the Joint Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect has been central to strengthening the UN’s early warning capabilities, as well as for developing the conceptual and practical aspects of R2P.

Since the inception of the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect role, successive Special Advisers have been instrumental in identifying risk factors and clarifying best practices by states, regional organizations and the UN system in response to the threat of atrocity crimes.

In addition, the regular cycle of UN Secretary-General reports and General Assembly debates has reinforced the principle and fostered greater consensus and shared understanding within the UN system. The Group of Friends of R2P, with over 55 members from across all regions, is an important mobilizing force within the UN to advance effective atrocity crime prevention and response.

Over 60 countries from all regions of the world, along with the European Union and Organization of American States, have also appointed an R2P Focal Point, an important step for institutionalizing atrocity prevention at the national level. The appointment of a national R2P Focal Point is crucial for strengthening domestic capacity to fulfill the responsibility to protect, including by improving intra-governmental and inter-governmental efforts to prevent and halt atrocity crimes.

Furthermore, the international community has also made strides in its willingness and capacity to hold perpetrators responsible through international investigative bodies and mechanisms, international courts and tribunals, and in national courts under the principle of universal jurisdiction. Transitional justice and memorialization also remain hallmarks of a broader commitment to deal with the past and promote truth, justice and non-recurrence.

Nonetheless, for all these significant institutional advances, we are all acutely aware that, 20 years on from the World Summit, the principle of R2P is under acute strain. There is a deeply troubling disconnect between the unanimous commitment to protecting populations from atrocity crimes and achieving consistent implementation and concrete preventive action.

All too often, effective national, regional and international action is inhibited by self-interested political arguments advanced in key institutions with a capacity to make a difference, including the UN Security Council. When principles and their practical application are contested it is time, more than ever, for UN member states to stand firm and do the hard work of continuing to find and build the consensus needed to protect populations at risk.

Moreover, there is a worrying decline in attention to atrocity crime prevention and the role of the Special Adviser on R2P within the UN Secretariat. This stands in stark contrast to the still very strong support from the great majority of UN member states and from civil society, human rights defenders, affected communities and victims’ and survivors’ groups around the world.

To consolidate the effectiveness of R2P, there is much more that needs to be done, and the work needs to start at home – not least at the UN Headquarters, but also on a national and regional level. At the core of R2P is a responsibility to invest in the institutional architecture to prevent the drivers of atrocity crimes from emerging or intensifying.

This anniversary year presents a crucial opportunity for the UN system, and particularly the UN Secretary-General and the Secretariat, to demonstrate ongoing commitment to fulfilling the responsibility to protect across all regions of the world.

The UN has proven time and again that it can mobilize resources and expertise to safeguard those at risk, with a notable track record of defending human rights and protecting vulnerable populations despite facing immense challenges. Rather than retreating from these efforts, it is critical that the UN and its member states redouble them, by honing and strengthening the capabilities needed to deliver effective prevention and response. Political and ideological differences must not be allowed to distract us from identifying signs of increased risk, wherever they may be, and taking early action to prevent atrocity crimes.

The strong commitments made in 2005 are as relevant today as they were 20 years ago. At a time of escalating conflicts, as well as threats to multilateralism and international justice, the UN Secretary-General and the UN must provide an alternative vision for the future in which a key element is the consistent implementation of R2P.

The future of R2P will only be secured if we – the UN system, intergovernmental and regional organizations, governments, civil society organizations and affected communities – fight for it and generate the political will to act. It would be a tragedy to give in to cynicism and skepticism, to overlook the continuing power of R2P as an inspiring ideal and to abandon the goal of seeing it fully and effectively implemented in all its dimensions.

This month of commemoration must serve as a reminder that indifference and inaction should never be an acceptable response whenever and wherever populations face the threat of genocide and other atrocity crimes.

Professor Gareth Evans is Co-Chair, International Advisory Board, Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect; Dr. Jennifer Welsh is Chair, International Advisory Board, Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect.

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 Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Apr 15 2025 – US President Donald Trump has again seized global attention by arbitrarily imposing sweeping tariffs on the rest of the world. He reminds us America is still boss, claiming to ‘make America great again’ (MAGA) by ensuring ‘America first’ at everyone else’s expense.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Liberation Day?
His April 2 Liberation Day announcement triggered wild speculation over his proposal’s final form, implications, significance, and likely impacts, not only for the near future but also well beyond.

Since then, the world has been scrambling to understand better the president’s intentions to protect their interests. This has also triggered much talk about managing adjustment and enhancing resilience.

Shocked by his unilateral abandonment of the revised free trade agreement renegotiated during Trump 1.0, its North American neighbours were the first to engage publicly.

More recently, China’s ironically reciprocal response gave Trump another excuse for more punitively escalating his ‘reciprocal tariffs’. With little left to lose even before Trump’s latest tariffs against China, it said No to the Orange Emperor, switching the impact from manufacturing to agriculture.

Only major economies dare to retaliate. However, due to its geopolitics, including Trump’s demands for more ‘equitable’ NATO cost-sharing, an appropriately strong European response seems unlikely.

Many prioritise the Western alliance, while a few prefer other options. Sensing the ‘silence of the lambs’, the president has gloated over the steady stream of foreign leaders coming to ‘kiss my arse’.

Trump’s tariff fetish
The tariff announcement was not set in stone. It remains to be seen how much Trump’s support base, especially from the US corporate elite, will succeed in revising his measures.

He is unlikely to respond positively to opposition from abroad or even within the US. The tariffs will be tied up in legal and legislative procedures for some time, even after they go into effect.

The dissent of some Senate Republicans suggests the US Congress may reject the tariffs as a significant infringement on their Constitutional prerogatives.

Announced as executive orders, they are subject to judicial scrutiny. Of course, the White House will have to reconsider which battles to fight and which to concede without appearing to do so.

A face-saving compromise between the Republican-controlled Congress and the White House is increasingly likely. Attention can thus be diverted abroad to preferred targets such as China and Iran.

Some other countries, especially the BRICS, may also be hit to ‘save face’. The president can then claim he tried his best to MAGA but was foiled by foreign-connected opponents.

While Trump critics are making much of his subsequent revisions, concessions, amendments and postponements, the greater significance of his announcement lies elsewhere.

Divided we fall
Trump 2.0 will dictate the terms of US engagement with the world. He has already reminded everyone he is The Great Disruptor. Dismissing cooperation as for losers, his team’s purpose is to put others down.

Trump has subverted the World Trade Organization and all US-negotiated trade agreements except when it best serves its interests. He has given notice of selectively invoking multilateralism and the rule of law to serve his preferred interests best.

Although all European countries will be affected by Trump’s tariffs, each will be hit differently. Hence, developing a strong, unified European position will be difficult. This will deter other regional and plurilateral groupings from collective action.

In one stroke, Trump reminded the world that America remains number one and that he means business. Critics overlook his purpose and strategy by dismissing his methods and tactics as transactional, stupid or irrational.

Method to the madness?
Trump’s Council of Economic Advisors chairman, Stephen Miran, has offered an economic rationale for Trumponomics 2.0. He argues the world must pay for the ‘global public goods’ the US ostensibly provides, especially US military spending.

He also insists the US is doing the world a favour by allowing the US dollar to serve as the world’s reserve currency. He ignores how it earns seigniorage and the ‘exorbitant privilege’ of being able to issue debt to the rest of the world without having to repay.

His so-called Mar-a-Lago Accord purports to offer more financial stability through US dollar currency pegs and related digital currency arrangements, requiring payment flows to the US Treasury and Federal Reserve.

Trump has promised even more regressive tax reforms for the super-rich who generously funded his re-election campaign. As before, this will be obscured by some tax relief for the ‘middle class’.

The shift from potentially progressive direct taxation to more indirect taxation has already begun, with the proposed tariffs impacting purchases of merchandise imports.

Industrial policy redux?
Tariffs cannot simply restart long-abandoned production overnight. Earlier manufacturing jobs were lost to imports and the automation of production processes.

Reviving abandoned productive capacities and capabilities will mainly create poor jobs. ‘Fortress USA will attract some investments, mainly for the limited US market, but it cannot transform itself into the world’s manufacturing powerhouse it once was.

Recent reshoring efforts have proved embarrassingly unsuccessful. This has been evident with the difficulties of the forced relocation of the world’s leading (Taiwanese) semiconductor manufacturer to the US.

Trump’s turn to industrial policy is more backward-looking than progressive. It seeks to save uncompetitive old capacities rather than advance potentially competitive new investments, technology, productive capacities, and capabilities.

Also, investment and technology promotion need supportive policies, especially in human resources, research, and development, which are increasingly undermined by Musk-led government spending cuts.

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 Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
SAN FRANCICO, California / APEX, North Carolina , Apr 15 2025 – Is it only a decade since the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement on climate change were agreed? The two deals were inked to a groundswell of hope.

The world had come together and reached consensus on how to tackle some of the world’s biggest challenges. A collaborative spirit was in the air.

Fast forward ten years and it feels like a century has passed and we’ve fallen over the abyss into
an alternate reality.

When he was elected for a second term, President Donald Trump promised extraordinary, history-making change. Whether you support his world view or not, no one can deny he has been true to his word. The previous multilateral consensus is shattered.

With tit-for-tat tariff escalation, cuts in overseas aid, a rise in regionalism and the return of transactional, ‘might makes right’ geopolitics, everything has changed. The old, postwar international order is fading.

Even before the dramatic changes of the past few months, the SDGs were on life support. A UN report issued in June 2024—five months before President Trump’s decisive election victory—found only 17% of the SDGs were on track.

About half showed minimal or modest progress, while one-third were actually going backwards. As we enter a new era set to be dominated by a handful of major powers and zero-sum game competition, is it time to declare the SDGs dead?

Is there a doctor in the building?

The SDGs may be ailing—their pulse faint and erratic—but in our opinion it’s not too late to save them. The goals still enjoy almost universal support among UN members. What’s more, most governments still believe in multilateralism.

They recognize that humanity’s progress throughout history has happened when people work together to create mutually beneficial win-win scenarios, not when a ‘winner-takes-all’ mentality prevails. And institutions like the United Nations haven’t gone away; their capacities and convening power remain.

Furthermore, the world is better placed today to take on many of the challenges targeted by the SDGs than it was ten years ago. For a start, new digital technologies and AI could improve access to real-time data and diagnostics, thus helping decision making. More broadly, breakthroughs in science and research—whether they relate to energy use or education, healthcare or agriculture—could prove transformative.

What’s more, the world is far wealthier than it was a decade ago. In spite of the COVID-19 pandemic, global GDP jumped from around US$85 trillion in 2015 to more than $115 trillion today; an incredible change in such a short space of time.

This means we have a greater financial capacity to fund change. In light of these transformations, international collaboration and innovation could undoubtedly help put more of the SDGs within reach.

For those who believe in collaboration over competition, the upcoming UN High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) offers an opportunity to demonstrate their mindset and commitment. The HLPF, which is taking place at UN Headquarters in New York from July 14-23, will assess progress across five of the seventeen SDGs.

This time around, it will look at health and wellbeing (SDG 3), gender equality and empowerment (SDG 5), sustainable economic growth and employment (8), oceans and marine resources (14), and the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development (17).

The theme in 2025 could not be more appropriate: advancing science and evidence-based solutions.

In recent years, there has been a backlash against experts and even a rejection of science in some quarters. The HLPF provides a timely opportunity for governments and other stakeholders to reaffirm their commitment to science and research-based decision making as the only logical, common-sense path to achieve the promise of the SDGs.

At the HLPF, 37 countries will be asked to present their national reports on the SDGs. From Bangladesh to Bulgaria, India to Indonesia, South Africa to Saint Lucia, more than three dozen countries, large and small, will have the chance to make their views clear to the world.

One of the countries that will be presenting is Germany, which will hold the Presidency of the General Assembly from September 2025 to September 2026. At such a critical time, it is reassuring that we will have leadership from a country that has been such a staunch supporter of multilateralism.

With five years to go to the SDGs’ 2030 deadline, we believe it’s time to double down on the promise of the SDGs and commit to a pathway focused on science, technology, innovation and collaboration.

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN environmental negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022). Their next book, Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet, is scheduled for release in June 2025.

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 Catherine Wilson
LONDON, Apr 15 2025 – It is now official that the European continent is experiencing the fastest rate of global warming, according to a new scientific report released by Europe’s Copernicus Climate Change Service and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Last year record temperatures, heatwaves, and floods unleashed a massive toll on infrastructure, cities, economies, and people’s lives and livelihoods in the region.

“Our findings tell us that Europe is the fastest-warming continent,” Florence Rabier, Director-General of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), which includes Copernicus, declared at the media briefing. “Heat stress continues to increase across Europe. The heat will have an impact on us, on our health… and it highlights the importance of increasing adaptation across the continent.”

The European State of the Climate Report for 2024 is the eighth report so far by WMO and Copernicus, the earth observation division of the European Union’s Space Programme. And it represents work by 100 scientists from Europe and around the world.

In Europe, “2024 was the warmest year on record, and the last decade has been the warmest decade on record,” Celeste Saulo, Secretary-General of the WMO, added. “Every additional fraction of a degree of temperature rise matters because it accentuates the risks to our lives, to economies, and to the planet… action is needed now, today, not tomorrow.”

In July last year, central, southern, and eastern Europe were scorched by protracted heatwaves with multiple days of 35-40 degrees Celsius in countries including Italy, Albania, Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania. The heatwave was the longest one on record, extending over 13 days and affecting 55 percent of the population. Temperatures peaked above 38 degrees Celsius on more than seven days and, overall, more than 60 percent of Europeans lived through more days than average of ‘strong heat stress,’ the new report claims.

“Last year 45 percent of days were warmer than average in Europe. The duration of heat has increased,” Dr. Samantha Burgess, Deputy Director of Copernicus, told media. And “it is the first year of the temperature increase reaching 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, although we have not yet breached the Paris Agreement,” she continued. Rising incidence of extreme heat will also threaten greater losses of crops, freshwater, and the deterioration of terrestrial and marine ecosystems in Europe, according to the IPCC.

The heat peaks were matched by the depth of the floods that saw the swelling of one-third of Europe’s rivers to the ‘high’ threshold mark and the most prevalent flooding since 2013. “The most recent three decades had the highest number of floods in the past 500 years,” Francesca Guglielmo, Senior Scientist at Copernicus, told IPS.

The annual average number of days with at least ‘strong’, ‘very strong’ and ‘extreme heat stress’ for Europe from 1950 to 2024. Photo credit: C3S/ECMWF

In September, Storm Boris released torrential rainfall and destructive flooding in countries, including Germany, Poland, Austria, Hungary, and Romania. In the counties of Galati and Vaslui in eastern Romania, adjacent to the border with Moldova, communities were hit by 150 millimeters of rainfall per square meter in less than 24 hours. Seven people died and 400 were left homeless, with more than 6,000 homes and 300 kilometers of roads swept away or damaged.

Two months later, a year’s worth of rain descended on the city of Valencia in eastern Spain in eight hours and led to catastrophic flash floods. The impact was that of a tsunami, as buildings and vehicles were mangled in the deluge and more than 200 people lost their lives. Economic losses were estimated at 18 billion euros.

Extreme flooding prevailed across Europe last year, with 30 percent of the river network exceeding the ‘high’ flood threshold. Photo credit: C3S/ECMWF

Guglielmo told IPS that the excessive floods were only partly related to an observed trend in rainfall in recent years. “In recent decades there has been an increase in average precipitation over northern, western, central, and eastern Europe. In northern and eastern Europe, precipitation extremes have also increased, but the observed trend varies across western and central Europe,” she said. Europe will face a major projected increase in flood risk this century, according to the IPCC.

Located south of the Arctic, Europe’s glaciers offer insight into the planet’s warming as well. Ice cover and glaciers account for about 70 percent of the world’s freshwater and their melting has serious consequences for rising sea levels and greater instability in the planet’s climate system.  The new report highlights that last year there was a major loss of ice in Scandinavia and Svalbard in Norway by 1.8 meters and 2.7 meters in ice thickness, respectively.

“Europe is one of the places where glaciers are melting the fastest,” Burgess said, and “Svalbard is one of the fastest warming places in the world.”

Alongside the human impact, Europe faces increasing climate-related economic losses. From 1980 to 2020, the European Economic Area (EEA) experienced climate and disaster losses ranging from 450 to 520 billion euros.

Celeste Saulo, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, 2024. Credit: World Meteorological Organization

And the WMO warns that there is no alternative but to accelerate adaptation. “Extreme weather events present increasing risks to Europe’s built environment and infrastructure, which could increase ten-fold by the end of the century,” Dr Andrew Ferrone of the WMO told media. “The risk and level of climate adaptation varies across Europe, but all countries are taking some form of action… 51 percent of countries have dedicated plans and this progress is significant.”

In 2021 the EU launched the European Green Deal, a strategy aimed at myriad goals, including improving the quality of air and water on the continent, reducing energy consumption, protecting public health, and achieving climate neutrality by 2050. One positive milestone is that the proportion of electricity generated by renewables in Europe recently reached a record 45 percent. But WMO and Copernicus emphasize that much more urgent action is needed to address flood risks, especially in towns and cities, and expand the development of Early Warning Systems.

Without a sense of urgency, the predictions are grim. ‘Hundreds of thousands of people would die from heatwaves and economic losses from coastal floods alone could exceed 1 trillion euros per year,’ the EEA reported last year. And in March this year, Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC), told the ‘Europe 2025’ conference in Berlin that ‘the climate crisis could carve up to 2.3 percent off Europe’s GDP by mid-century, a recipe for permanent recession, meaning continuously shrinking economies, failing businesses and significantly increased unemployment.’

One of the report’s key messages is that, while there will be challenges in Europe to generate the resources and financial investment needed and to motivate a whole-of-society response to climate change, it will, in the longer term, be a smaller price to pay than maintaining the status quo.

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’);  

With rain, hail, and frost coming at the wrong time and damaging crops, a group of Andean women farmers living 3,000 meters above sea level have turned to agroecological practices to secure their food production.

By Anwarul Chowdhury
NEW YORK, Apr 14 2025 – On 21 March 2025, the 69th session of the Commission for the Status of Women, popularly referred to as the CSW69, concluded its two-week-long annual meet which commenced on 10 March.

It is considered to be the largest annual gathering under the United Nations umbrella of women activists from various parts of the world representing mainly their civil society organizations. This year an astounding number of over 11,000 participants registered on the NGO CSW69 Forum platform.

This year’s session, publicized as Beijing+30, focused on the status of the implementation of the Declaration and Platform for Action adopted at the Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995. Some of the civil society activists reminded that 2025 was also the 25th anniversary of the pioneering UN Security Council resolution 1325 adopted in 2000 highlighting the need for recognizing the women’s positive contributions in the area of peace and security.

This year for the first time the civil society events organized parallel to the CSW69 included the issue of electing a woman Secretary-General of the United Nations (UNSG) in its 80-year-old existence. Two such events focused solely on the dire urgency of electing the next and first woman UNSG.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury

The first deliberation on this subject was held on 5 March as a pre-event for the CSW69 and was titled “A Historic First? Tracking State Responses to Having a Feminist Woman UN Secretary-General” and sponsored by the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders (GNWP), NYU School of International Studies and 1 For 8 Billion.

The second event was held on the last day the CSW69 titled “Gender Equality at the Highest Level: Electing a Woman Secretary-General” sponsored by WomanSG campaign and the Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS). I was invited to speak at both of these events.

The incumbent Antonio Guterres, a former Prime Minister of Portugal, is scheduled to end his 10-year-old two-term tenure on 31 December 2026. The decision to elect the new UNSG is expected not earlier than October of that year. Article 97 of the UN Charter mentions that “… The Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. He shall be the chief administrative officer of the Organization.”

The UN Member States may have taken the last sentence of this article too literally and elected only men as UNSG. As we all know, the Charter of the United Nations, when signed in 1945, was the first international agreement to affirm the principle of equality between women and men.

I recall Eleanor Roosevelt’s words asserting that “Too often the great decisions are originated and given shape in bodies made up wholly of men, or so completely dominated by them that whatever of special value women have to offer is shunted aside without expression.”

It is a reality that politics, more so security, is a man’s world.

Talking of political participation of women, sadly the United Nations, being the greatest champion of women’s equality and rights, sadly its own record is not something which we can be proud of.

To assist the UN move in the right direction and assert its credibility, in September 2012, a “Call to Action” was issued to world leaders gathering at the UN by IMPACT Leadership 21 and co-signed by me as the Founder of the Global Movement for The Culture of Peace (GMCoP) – and reiterated in 2016 – asking for urgent action, particularly for the appointment of a Woman as the next Secretary-General of the United Nations.

In its eight decades of existence, the world body has elected ONLY MEN to that post, as if only men are destined to lead the United Nations.

In an opinion piece titled “The Elusive Woman Secretary-General” published in the IPS Journal on 14 October 2016, the day after election of the current Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, I expressed my frustration saying that “The Security Council members were totally insensitive to a groundswell of support worldwide for a woman as the next Secretary-General.

They advanced the legacy of ignoring the 50 per cent of humanity in their action. This is an absolute aberration of the system whereby the 15 members of the Council impose their choice prompted by P-5 pressure and manipulation upon the total membership of 193, not to speak of the wide swath of civil society opinion and activism for a woman Secretary-General.”

I went on to ring the alarm bell by cautioning that “It is so very unfortunate that in the selection process politics has trumped women’s equality, violating UN Charter’s Article 8 which underscores the eligibility and equality of men and women to participate in any capacity in all its organs – principal or subsidiary.”

In another opinion piece published on 20 June 2011, a little more than five years before the earlier one, titled “Ban’s Second Term: The Case for a Woman Secretary-General”, I wrote that “And the most important “reform” that is needed for the choice of the U.N. leader is in the mindset of the Member States.

At this point of time in human progress, it is a shame that in the 65 years (that was in 2011) of its existence, the U.N. was not able to elect a woman to lead. Not only that, but there has been no candidate even nominated to be considered for election.”

Continuing I wrote that “Notwithstanding all the U.N. resolutions, treaties, declarations and pronouncements asserting the equality of women, it is a pity that the U.N. has kept 50 percent of humanity out of consideration for its highest office. The organisation is undoubtedly poorer as it restricted its choice only to half of the potential candidates.”

I also added that “The suffering image and credibility of the U.N. in the eyes of the international community in recent years underscores the increasing need for effective and committed leadership that puts the organisation before self and is not solely triggered by ‘command-and-control’ mode.”

Coincidentally these words are increasingly valid at the present time. There are certain reality-checks which need to be kept in mind in connection with the election of a woman SG.

For example,

– In 2016, none of the P-5 has voted for a woman candidate when there were a number of accomplished ones to choose from.

– Geographic rotations among the five regions of the UN Member States for the SG’s nomination are NOT followed in the Security Council as it is done meticulously in the election of the President of the General Assembly. P-5 decides unilaterally.

– A Member State may publicly support a woman SG in principle but may decide to vote otherwise for political reasons. Secret ballot would not let us know how the country voted.

– Another accompanying reality is that a Member State may vote for a woman to begin with but changes the vote if its vote is needed for a decision in favour of a man. Again, secret ballots keep us in the dark.

– P-5 meets for coordination outside the UN premises more often than envisaged. SG’s election is a major issue needing such coordination.

Now the big question is how to ensure the election of a woman as the next UNSG considering all the known or hidden realities. Member States – and I mean all 193 of them, not just 15 belonging to the Security Council – need to fulfil their role and responsibility accorded to them by the UN Charter for the appointment of the UN SG.

I have three suggestions to offer:

First, easiest and most natural choice for getting a woman elected SG is for the Security Council to nominate the current Deputy Secretary-General, a woman, a staunch believer in the feminist principles, a competent, respected leader, acclaimed as the midwife of the SDGs and above all, knows well the workings of the Organization. In case you wonder about the name, she is Amina Mohammad hailing from Nigeria.

Second, In recent times, names of a number of women from the Latin America and the Caribbean regional Group (GRULAC) of the United Nations are being floated asserting that, according to rotational practice for the post of UNSG, it is the turn of that Group to provide the next UNSG.

That situation would facilitate election of a woman UNSG on two conditions, one, there has to be a unanimous agreement among the Security Council members that it is GRULAC’s turn; and two, the GRULAC members should decide to nominate ONLY women candidates to the SC. In that case, the choice for the SC is restricted to only women candidates from GRULAC.

And finally, probably an outrageous but, at the same time, still workable Third suggestion

If the none of the earlier suggestions work in getting a woman SG, the General Assembly, which decides upon recommendation of the Security Council, should, by a big majority, reject the “man” candidate nominated by the SC.

Thereafter, the SC is likely to deliberate and assess the situation and hopefully change its nomination to a woman. If the SC nominates another “man“ again, the GA should reject that nomination by vote again forcing the SC to change, at the end, its nomination to a woman.

To get a sizable majority from the General Assembly Member States, the civil society need to lobby and mobilize more and more countries to vote for the General Assembly’s action for a woman SG.

I have in mind the model of the civil society campaign that Jody Williams and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997, mobilized for the Landmines Ban Treaty* as the governments failed to agree.

This unconventional and untried last suggestion is a potential game-changer. A firm, united and determined assertion by the UN General Assembly of its Charter-mandated role to appoint the UN SG can bring back the lost credibility of the UN by electing a woman as its next leader after eight decades of aberration.

* The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction of 1997, known informally as the Ottawa Treaty or the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury was also the initiator of the Security Council resolution 1325 as the Council President in March 2000 underscoring women’s equality of participation; President/Chairman of the UNICEF Executive Board on two occasions; and a well-known analyst of the UN system’s work.

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’);  

Excerpt:

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury is former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the UN and Chairman of the UN’s Administrative and Budgetary Committee in 1997-1998 that approved Kofi Annan’s first reform budget.

By Naureen Hossain
NAIROBI, Apr 12 2025 – To advance the participation of women, the youth, and minority communities in the agricultural sector, measures must be taken to recognize and break down the barriers that hold them back. Experts in the agricultural sector agree that even as they constitute a significant percentage of the agricultural workforce, women face persistent challenges. The picture that emerges is a lack of due recognition of their presence and their challenges, such as limited access to resources and knowledge.

In a parallel session convened during CGIAR Science Week, ‘Enabling global gains towards gender equality, youth, and social inclusion in agri-food systems,’ speakers convened to discuss how to bridge the gaps in gender equality and the inequities in food systems. The CGIAR Gender Impact Platform prioritizes effective, strategic research efforts that will go toward enhancing gender equality, social inclusion, and opportunities for youth.

In accompanying the CGIAR Gender Impact Platform, the CGIAR Gender Equality and Inclusion Accelerator — or GENDER Accelerator for short — serves as a “center for excellence,” according to CGIAR Gender Director Nicoline de Haan. The Accelerator is a platform for researchers and experts to serve as think tanks or build capacity among its stakeholders. Analyzing social and gender norms that influence the environments in which women and youth are shaped can help CGIAR and its partners identify trends and seek missing data. These findings will be relevant in areas where data is limited, such as with youth in the agricultural sector. The accelerator also compiles existing research to address the unique conditions in the food, water, and land systems (FLWS) that make it difficult to implement solutions.

“This is not about fixing women farmers. It is about changing the system around them,” said CGIAR Executive Managing Director Ismahane Elouafi in her opening remarks. She added that CGIAR would ensure that the platform would work to ensure that “all farmers can access the system fairly.”

In her remarks, De Haan broke down the steps that decision-makers could take to support women-led innovation at the individual and systemic levels. Formal measures to build up women’s participation can be solidified through inclusive policies and laws and through providing them with information, technology, and education. Women in this field should feel empowered to make informed decisions, which can also be achieved by recognizing that societal norms do not need to limit their capabilities.

The event also discussed the need for more opportunities for youth in the sector. Like women, they are excluded from decision-making processes. At least 1.2 million youth live in low-to-middle-income countries with few opportunities for gainful employment in this sector. Nana Yaa Boakyewaa Amoah, Director of Gender, Youth, and Inclusiveness for AGRA, remarked that identifying how the current landscape can be shaped to allow the youth to thrive in this sector should be a priority.

“Who should feed the future? It’s the youth,” said de Haan. “Let’s set them up for success right now, because I think we’re setting them up for failure.”

Research findings and the solutions borne from them should be made easily accessible to agricultural workers, which seems to be more of an issue for women and youth. Alessandra Galiè, Gender team leader at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), provided the example of chickens raised as livestock that contract the virulent Newcastle disease, which would jeopardize the livelihood of any farmer who raises them. While vaccines are available, there is a low adoption rate among women and youths, which she observed was due to a lack of awareness of the vaccine’s existence. When farmers are disempowered, they are unable to adopt innovations, she said.

Simply equipping agricultural workers with new farming techniques should not be enough. The empowerment that CGIAR and its partners work towards should also come from including them in the decision-making processes. Jackline Makokha, Director, Gender, State Department for Gender and Affirmative Action, Kenya, remarked that inclusivity in decision-making looks like “vulnerable groups included in the table…[who] make decisions that speak to their lived reality.” The unique perspective of minority groups should also be encouraged within academic spaces, allowing for more women scientists with a background in agricultural employment to lead research.

Even though there are gaps in gender and social science research in the agricultural sector, the research that does exist must be brought together, which the CGIAR Gender Accelerator has the potential to do. It is also publicly accessible, which would allow stakeholders across agri-food systems to make use of it to facilitate research or to help design solutions.

Through the CGIAR platforms, the recognition they bring to women farmers and their work is a critical step toward gender equality and social inclusion. The international community and its leaders should follow suit. They will have that opportunity to demonstrate that recognition and make progress in 2026, which the United Nations declared as the International Year of the Woman Farmer.

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’);  

The world needs an urgent fix and humanity could just be it. As inequality and polycrises stalk the world, deep changes are needed in relationships with nature if the planet is to be livable and sustainable, warns a new United Nations report, calling for a bold change in mindsets and taking responsibility. The 2025 Interconnected […]