The Human Consciousness Now...Our World in the Midst of Becoming...to What? Observe, contemplate Now.
BANGKOK, Nov 5 2025 (IPS) - The message is clear: today’s youth are not “wishy-washy.” They are not just the future—they are the present, full partners in shaping it, and “power-sharing” is the new mantra. The veterans of activism are being reminded not merely to listen but to hear and to leave their egos at the door.
These were among the many resonant takeaways from the five-day International Civil Society Week, held at Bangkok’s Thammasat University.
Yet beneath the optimistic rhetoric, a different mood lingered. Many young participants seemed despondent, feeling short-changed by their elders—empowered in words, but excluded in practice.
At a session titled “Youth Movements and Democratic Futures in South Asia,” young voices from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, and Nepal shared their frustrations and fears for the future.
Student activist Ammad Talpur at the Youth Movements and Democratic Futures in South Asia session at International Civil Society Week, held at Bangkok’s Thammasat University. Credit: Zofeen Ebrahim/IPS
In Pakistan, said student activist Ammad Talpur, nepotism runs deep, inequality is horrific and brutal, and the powerful break laws with impunity. “We long for change, but fear silences us, as those in power will not brook dissent.”
A similar sense of frustration echoes beyond Pakistan.
“Though sometimes its exercise may come at a cost, youth in India are free to say anything and freedom of speech does exist,” Adrian D’ruz, another panelist, told IPS after the session. And journalists, academics, students, and comedians who questioned those in power, he said, reportedly faced legal action, online harassment, or institutional pressure.
To curb dissent, legal provisions are misapplied, resulting in people “leaning towards self-censorship rather than risking consequences,” said D’Cruz, a member of a network of NGOs in India called Wada Na Todo Abhiyan, which promotes governance accountability and inclusion of marginalized communities.
While Pakistan and India illustrate the pressures youth face under entrenched power, in Nepal the response has taken a more visible, street-level form, riding a wave of unrest that began in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
In Kathmandu, “rising unemployment, corruption, nepotism, and broken promises” fueled the unrest, said Tikashwari Rai, a young Nepali mother of two daughters, worried for their future.
Tikashwari Rai, a Nepali mother of two daughters, at the Youth Movements and Democratic Futures in South Asia session at International Civil Society Week, held at Bangkok’s Thammasat University. Credit: Zofeen Ebrahim/IPS
“We don’t want to work as domestic help in the Middle East; we want opportunities here, in our own country. But because there are none, many young people are forced to leave,” she explained.
Yet, she admitted, the protests came at a heavy cost—lives lost and infrastructure destroyed. “Our youth need guidance and stronger organization to lead social movements effectively,” she added.
Beyond the immediate triggers of street protests, some activists argue that deeper systemic issues fuel youth disenchantment.
Melani Gunathilaka, a climate and political activist from Sri Lanka, at the Youth Movements and Democratic Futures in South Asia session at International Civil Society Week, held at Bangkok’s Thammasat University. Credit: Zofeen Ebrahim/IPS
Melani Gunathilaka, a young climate and political activist from Sri Lanka, who was also on the panel, believed the roots of disenchantment ran deeper. “While these protests are often labeled as anti-government, at their core, they demand systemic change and true accountability from those in power.”
The immediate triggers seem to spread across corruption, authoritarian governments, repression, lack of access to basic needs and more,” she said.
A closer look at the situation in countries like Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Kenya, however, exposed economic hardship, debt burdens, and deepening inequalities. And this trend is also observed globally, she pointed out.
Despite these frustrations, the conference also explored how young and older activists can work together, not just to protest, but to reshape movements constructively.
“Across civil society, there is growing recognition that youth must be meaningfully included in development and nation-building. While progress varies from group to group, the direction of change is unmistakably forward,” said D’cruz.
Talpur further fine-tuned D’Cruz’s sentiment. “It’s not about taking over; it’s about working together through collaboration.” He also found it “unfair for the boomers to create a mess and leave it to the millennials and Gen Z to fix it.”
Interestingly, the sentiment found an echo among the older generation itself. Founder of the Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma, Debbie Stothard, said it was unfair to leave the mess her generation had created to the young and then expect them to “fix it.”
Speaking at the closing plenary titled “Futures We’re Building: Youth, Climate and Intergenerational Justice, she noted that she had been talking about “intergenerational equity” for 40 years, yet many in her generation of activists still fail to “walk the talk” in how they live and lead. Still, she added, it is not too late: “We can still make space.”
That space, she explained, begins with a change in mindset. “It’s not our job to empower the youth; it’s recognizing that they have power,” she said—a reminder that true equity lies not in giving power away, but in acknowledging it already exists.
This shift in perspective is already reshaping how movements operate. Youth no longer need to “look up to” traditional authority figures for inspiration, said D’cruz. Many within their generation are already leading change.
Mihajlo Matkovic, a member of the Youth Action Team at CIVICUS, from Serbia, also at the closing, demonstrated how real change required innovation and persistence. “Because our generation did not have any great example of what a direct democracy looks like,” he said, adding, “We had to basically reinvent it.”
But success depends on civil society letting go of their ego and letting the youth enter the arena, he pointed out.
Matkovic’s example showed the potential of youth-led innovation—but for such change to succeed, civil society must genuinely make space and resist old hierarchies it claims to challenge, because these patterns have also fueled a climate of mistrust. “It’s hard to trust civil society,” said Rai. “They’re not sincere to the causes of ordinary people.”
Gunathilaka echoed this sentiment, noting that civil society has often been co-opted by the very systems the youth seek to change. “Ignoring the influence of private capital and international financial structures that prioritize the needs of global trade while sidelining the needs of communities has only deepened the mistrust among youth,” she added.
This climate of mistrust, while not explicitly mentioned in the final declaration of the ICSW—which urged governments to protect democracy, human rights, the rights of minorities and excluded groups, and to ensure environmental protection and climate justice—nonetheless underscored a broader challenge: civil society itself must look inward, confront its shortcomings, and reimagine how it engages meaningfully with the next generation.
IPS UN Bureau Report
Just like every financial advisor teaches the same lesson: diversify to manage risk and improve returns. Climate strategy is no different. No single approach—technological or nature-based—can deliver the speed, scale, and durability we need, argues Gabriel Labbate, head of the Climate Mitigation Unit at the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
Research shows that lands managed by Indigenous Peoples have lower deforestation rates and store significantly more carbon than other areas.
SRINAGAR, India, Nov 5 2025 (IPS) - The world is falling dangerously short of meeting the Paris Agreement goals, with global greenhouse gas emissions rising to record levels and current national pledges still far off the mark, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) said in its Emissions Gap Report 2025: Off Target.
The report, marking ten years since the Paris Agreement’s adoption, concludes that even with full implementation of all existing pledges, global temperatures are projected to rise between 2.3°C and 2.5°C this century. Should current policies persist, global warming could potentially reach 2.8°C.
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, in his video message posted after the report launch on November 4, said that the new Emissions Gap Report, issued by the United Nations Environment Programme, is clear and uncompromising. If nationally determined contributions, the national action plans on climate, are fully implemented by 2035, global warming would reach 2.3 degrees Celsius, down from 2.6 degrees in last year’s projections. That is progress, but nowhere near enough.
He said that the current commitments still point to climate breakdown. Scientists tell us that a temporary overshoot above 1.5 degrees is now inevitable, starting at the latest in the early 2030s. And the path to a livable future gets steeper by the day. “But this is no reason to surrender. It is a reason to step up and speed up. 1.5 degrees by the end of the century remains our North Star. And the science is clear: the goal is still within reach. But only if we meaningfully increase our ambition. Our mission is simple, but not easy,” he said.
Only about one-third of countries have submitted new or updated climate pledges (NDCs) by the September 2025 deadline. The report warns that despite some progress in renewable energy deployment, overall global emissions reached 57.7 gigatons of CO₂ equivalent (GtCO₂e) in 2024—a 2.3 percent increase from 2023, the steepest annual rise in over a decade.
According to UNEP, deforestation and land-use change accounted for more than half of the increase in 2024’s emissions, with fossil fuels contributing 36 percent. The G20 nations remain responsible for 77 percent of total global emissions, and only the European Union recorded a decline last year. India and China saw the largest absolute increases, while Indonesia registered the fastest relative growth.
Despite the Paris Agreement’s requirement that all parties submit new or revised NDCs by early 2025, only 60 parties, covering 63 percent of global emissions, have done so. Of these, just 13 updated their 2030 targets. Most new NDCs offer little improvement in ambition, with many missing commitments to double energy efficiency or triple renewable energy capacity by 2030. “Costs are falling, investments are rising, innovation is surging, and clean power is now the cheapest source of electricity in most markets and the fastest to deploy. It strengthens energy security, cuts pollution, and creates millions of decent jobs. Leaders must seize this moment and waste no time,” Guterres said.
He added that tripling renewables and doubling energy efficiency by 2030, building modern grids and large-scale storage, and ending all new coal, oil and gas expansion in a just and equitable manner. “The clean energy revolution must reach everyone, everywhere. But developing countries face crippling capital costs and a fraction of global investment,” he added.
UNEP’s analysis indicates that the new NDCs narrow the emissions gap for 2035 only marginally. The world would still emit 12 GtCO2e more than what is consistent with a 2°C pathway and 23 GtCO2e above the level required for 1.5°C. The gap widens further by 2050 unless countries drastically change course.
Overshoot of 1.5°C Now Inevitable
The report warns that global temperatures are set to exceed the 1.5°C limit within the next decade, with 2024 already marking the hottest year on record at 1.55°C above pre-industrial levels. The remaining carbon budget for a 1.5°C future without overshoot is just 130 GtCO₂, which is enough for barely three more years of current emissions.
Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UNEP, said the findings show governments have “missed the target for a third time.” She called the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement a major setback that would add roughly 0.1°C to projected warming.
“The task now is to make this overshoot as brief and shallow as possible,” Andersen said. “Every fraction of a degree matters. Each 0.1°C increase brings more droughts, floods, and losses, especially for the poorest.”
What Needs to Happen
To have a 66 percent chance of returning global warming to 1.5°C by 2100, the world must cut 2030 emissions by 26 percent and 2035 emissions by 46 percent compared with 2019 levels. This would require reducing global greenhouse gas output to about 32 GtCO₂e by 2035.
The “rapid mitigation from 2025” scenario explored in the report shows that immediate and deep reductions starting next year could still limit peak warming to around 1.7–1.9°C before gradually returning to 1.5°C by the end of the century. But UNEP warns that each year of delay makes the path “steeper, costlier, and more disruptive.”
The report emphasizes two imperatives: implementing aggressive near-term mitigation to minimize temperature overshoot and scaling up carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies to reach net-zero and eventually net-negative emissions.
Unequal Progress and Missed Opportunities
Seven G20 members are on track to meet their current NDC targets, but most are far from achieving their net-zero pledges. Many developing countries still lack financing and technical support to implement their climate commitments. The report urges developed nations to provide “unparalleled increases in climate finance” and to reform international financial systems to make green investments accessible.
Despite setbacks, UNEP highlights that 70 percent of global emissions are now covered by net-zero pledges, a sharp increase from zero in 2015. Falling costs of wind and solar energy, along with advancements in battery storage, have made clean energy transition more viable than ever.
“Climate action is not charity,” Andersen said. “It is self-interest. It delivers jobs, energy security, and economic resilience.”
Science and Legal Mandates
The report also references the July 2025 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, which ruled that states have legal obligations to protect the climate system under human rights law. It reaffirmed that limiting warming to 1.5°C remains the primary goal of the Paris Agreement, despite temporary exceedance.
UNEP scientists caution that even brief overshoots of 1.5°C could trigger irreversible tipping points, including the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet and thawing of permafrost releasing methane. Each 0.1°C rise beyond current levels increases risks of extreme weather, biodiversity loss, and health impacts, particularly in vulnerable regions.
Path Ahead to COP30
The findings come ahead of COP30 in Belém, Brazil, where nations are expected to present enhanced NDCs. UNEP urges governments to treat the conference as a turning point.
“The Paris Agreement has driven progress, but ambition and delivery have lagged,” the report states. “Each missed opportunity now adds to future costs, instability, and suffering.”
Guterres said that COP30 in Belém must be the turning point, where the world delivers a bold and credible response plan to close the ambition and implementation gaps, to mobilize USD 1.3 trillion a year by 2035 in climate finance for developing countries, and to advance climate justice for all. “The path to 1.5 degrees is narrow but open. Let us accelerate to keep that path alive for people, for the planet, and for our common future,” he said.
The 2025 report was prepared by 39 scientists from 21 institutions in 16 countries, coordinated by UNEP’s Copenhagen Climate Centre. It states that while 1.5°C is still technically achievable, the window is “narrow and closing fast.”
“Global warming will exceed 1.5°C, very likely within the next decade,” it says. “The challenge now is to ensure that this overshoot is brief and reversible. Every year, every policy, every ton of CO2 counts.”
IPS UN Bureau Report
Excerpt:
United Nations Environment Programme’s Emissions Gap Report 2025: Off Target concludes that even with full implementation of all existing pledges, global temperatures are projected to rise between 2.3°C and 2.5°C this century. Should current policies persist, global warming could potentially reach 2.8°C.
DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania, Nov 5 2025 (IPS) - At dawn in Manzese, a dusty township on the outskirts of Dar es Salaam, silence hangs where the sounds of commerce once roared. The township, usually crowded with street cooks, vegetable vendors, mechanics, and motorcycle taxis snaking through the morning rush, stood eerily empty. Shutters are pulled down, wooden stalls abandoned, and the air is heavy with the smell of burnt rubber. For five days, the township’s bustling economic life has been paralyzed—leaving residents unable to buy food or access basic services.
“I still can’t believe what I saw,” says Abel Nteena, a 36-year-old tricycle rider, his voice trembling as he recalls the horror that unfolded on October 31. “Masked men in black with red armbands came out of nowhere. They started shooting at us as we queued for fuel. They spoke Swahili, but their accent was strange—and their skin was unusually dark. They shouted at everyone to run and opened fire.”
Nteena says three of his colleagues were hit by bullets and are now fighting for their lives in a local hospital. “One was shot in the chest, another in the leg. I don’t even know if they will make it,” he says.
A City Under Siege
The attack was one of several that rocked Dar es Salaam following the disputed presidential elections, which many observers described as deeply flawed. The unrest has claimed hundreds of lives nationwide, with the government imposing a 12-hour curfew to quell the violence. But in doing so, it has paralyzed the country’s economic heart.
For the millions who rely on informal trade to survive, the curfew has been a nightmare. Shops and markets close by mid-afternoon, public transport halts, and banks and mobile money agents are often shuttered long before sunset.
“I was just buying milk when I heard gunshots,” recalls Neema Nkulu, a 31-year-old mother of three from the Bunju neighborhood. “People screamed and fell to the ground. I saw a man bleeding near the shop. I dropped everything and ran.” She says. “A sniper’s bullet hit the shop’s glass right where I had been standing. I thank God I’m alive.”
With financial services disrupted, Neema and many others cannot access money stored in mobile wallets. “I have cash in my phone, but the agents are closed, and I can’t withdraw it,” she says. “My children have gone without proper food for two days.”
Daily Struggles Amid Curfew
In Dar es Salaam, where nearly six million people depend on daily earnings, the curfew has created cascading hardships. Food prices have soared as trucks bringing supplies from upcountry regions remain stranded due to insecurity and fuel shortages. The cost of maize flour, a staple food, has doubled in a week. Fuel scarcity has sent public transport fares skyrocketing—with commuters paying twice the normal price to reach work.
“I used to sell fried fish every evening,” says Rashid Pilo, 39, who runs a roadside stall in Bunju. “My customers are mostly office workers who buy food on their way home. But now, because of the curfew, everyone rushes home early. I have lost almost everything. One night’s curfew means no income and no food for my family.”
At Mwananyamala and Mabwepande hospitals, morgues are reportedly overwhelmed by bodies of those killed in the violence. Health workers, speaking anonymously for fear of reprisals, say they have run out of space and body bags. The government has released no official casualty figures, but human rights groups estimate that hundreds have died since election day.
“The bodies keep coming,” says one morgue attendant, visibly shaken. “Some have bullet wounds; others were beaten. Families are scared to claim them.”
Fear and Silence
Across the city, the presence of heavily armed soldiers on the streets has instilled deep fear among residents. Armored vehicles patrol major intersections, and random house searches have become routine. Most city dwellers have chosen to remain indoors, venturing out only when necessary.
“I went to three ATMs, but none were working,” says Richard Masawe, a 46-year-old computer specialist at InfoTech company. “The internet was down, and even mobile banking was offline. I couldn’t buy anything or send money to my family. It felt like we were cut off from the world.”
The government says the internet shutdown was a “temporary security measure,” but rights groups argue it was an attempt to silence dissent and block the flow of information about the violence.
Transport in Dar es Salaam has also been crippled. Long queues of vehicles snake around petrol stations, while most buses remain grounded.
“We have fuel for only half a day,” says Walid Masato a Yas station manager. “Deliveries have stopped coming. The roads are unsafe.”
An Economy on the Brink
According to economist Jerome Mchau, the post-election crisis has exposed Tanzania’s economic fragility. “The informal sector, which employs more than 80 percent of Tanzanians, is the hardest hit,” he explains. “When people can’t move, can’t trade, and can’t access cash, the entire economic system grinds to a halt.”
Mchau estimates that the economy could lose up to USD 150 million per week if the unrest continues. “Inflationary pressure is already visible,” he adds. “Food and fuel prices are climbing fast, and consumer confidence is collapsing.”
The curfew has also paralyzed logistics networks. Trucks carrying essential goods from the central regions of Dodoma, Morogoro, and Mbeya have been unable to reach the coast, creating artificial shortages in urban centers. “We are seeing panic buying,” Mchau notes. “People are stockpiling rice, pasta, and flour because they don’t know what tomorrow will bring.”
Shattered Trust, Deep Divisions
Beyond the economic toll, the violence has eroded trust between citizens and the government. Many Tanzanians feel betrayed by a system they once considered a model of stability.
“Tanzania was long regarded as a beacon of peace and democracy in Africa,” says Michael Bante, a political commentator based in Dar es Salaam. “But what we’re seeing now is unprecedented—people losing faith in state institutions, opposition voices being silenced, and communities turning against each other.”
Bante says the government faces a monumental challenge in restoring public confidence. “President Samia’s administration must act decisively to unite the nation,” he says. “This means not only investigating human rights abuses but also engaging in genuine dialogue with opposition leaders and civil society.”
The opposition has accused the ruling party of manipulating the vote and using excessive force to suppress protests. The government, in turn, blames “foreign-funded elements” for inciting violence. The truth, analysts say, likely lies somewhere in between—in the deep mistrust that has been festering for years.
A Nation in Mourning
In many parts of Dar es Salaam, grief and uncertainty define daily life. At the Manzese Market, women gather quietly in small groups, whispering about missing relatives. The charred remains of kiosks and motorcycles litter the streets. A faint smell of smoke still hangs in the air.
“Life will never be the same,” says Nkulu, the young mother who narrowly escaped sniper fire. “We used to feel safe here. Now, every sound of a motorbike makes me jump. I can’t even send my children to school.”
Schools across the city remain closed indefinitely. Hospitals report rising cases of trauma and anxiety. Religious leaders have called for calm and reconciliation.
Searching for Stability
President Samia Suluhu Hassan, who has publicly condemned the violence, faces her toughest political test yet. In a televised address, she called for unity and promised to investigate the attacks. Yet, critics argue that the government’s heavy-handed security response risks inflaming tensions further.
“Tanzania is at a crossroads,” says Bante. “The leadership must choose between repression and reform. The world is watching.”
International partners, including the African Union and the United Nations, have called for restraint and dialogue. However, diplomatic sources say mediation efforts have stalled as both sides harden their positions.
For ordinary Tanzanians like Rashid, the fish vendor, politics has become a matter of survival. “I don’t care who wins or loses,” he says, frying a handful of tilapia over a small charcoal stove. “I just want peace so that I can work and feed my family.”
A Fragile Hope
As dusk settles over Dar es Salaam, the city remains cloaked in tension. The once-bustling bus stands and food stalls are deserted, the only movement coming from military patrols sweeping through dimly lit streets.
Yet, amid the fear and uncertainty, some still cling to hope. “We’ve seen hard times before,” says Masawe, the computer specialist. “If we can rebuild trust, maybe we can rebuild our country too.”
For now, that hope feels distant. Tanzania’s post-election crisis has left deep scars in a nation once hailed for its calm. Whether President Samia’s government can heal those wounds remains to be seen.
IPS UN Bureau Report
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia / ABUJA, Nigeria , Nov 5 2025 (IPS) - Three decades after the first Climate COP, the multilateral climate process – which was intended to serve as an instrument of justice and a guardian of the planet’s atmosphere – has fallen far short of its goals.
Over the past 30 years, climate change has arrived and intensified, while the COP process has become a tiresome bureaucratic exercise that continually fails to hold the most responsible to account. It has also become an industry unto itself – and an exclusive one at that.
Without urgent and radical reform to its structure, financial architecture, and participatory mechanisms, the COP will continue to perpetuate the very injustices it was created to address. For the poorer and more vulnerable countries of the world – those that are least responsible for the climate crisis, yet most acutely affected – this situation is untenable.
The next 30 years will not be any different from the first 30, because the climate crisis will continue to worsen. In order to survive, we need a fundamental shift on three fronts: the financial architecture, knowledge sovereignty and accountability. And the changes need to start now.
First, we need a new structure for climate finance
Time and again, we have argued that the climate financial injustice epitomizes the need for a reformed approach to climate finance across the board. There is need for a new system that reduces the cost of capital, provides direct access to climate finance, minimizes transaction costs and bureaucratic barriers, and increases the share of grant-based support.
We must also operationalize the Loss and Damage Fund with equitable governance and resource allocation and to ensure the climate financing plans include clear sub-targets for adaptation, loss and damage, and finance for energy transition – all aligned with energy sovereignty and green industrialization. Climate finance must be seen not merely as a quantum to be delivered, but as a means of achieving justice.
Related to finance, and what is not much talked about, is the exorbitant cost attached to attending the COP itself. Everything related to this process comes at a price. For example, many negotiators, especially from Africa’s least developed nations, rely on external funding just to attend COP.
Civil-society actors are expected to pay exorbitant costs to observe a process and protest injustice. In Belém, hotel rates are reportedly touching $900 per night, the cost of a modest climate-adaptation project in a rural community. An African Participation Fund, supporting both negotiators and non-state actors, could ensure that representation and resistance are not privileges of means.
Second, we need knowledge sovereignty
The data and science shaping global climate targets are still largely produced in the North, leaving Africa to depend almost entirely on foreign research institutions for its climate models and risk assessments. Without their own data repositories and regional research capacity, African delegates are forced to negotiate with borrowed evidence. This cannot stand.
We must build Africa’s knowledge sovereignty by investing in Indigenous knowledge systems, local research institutions and South-South cooperation to generate solutions that are adapted to local needs. It is essential to build African climate-data infrastructure and regional research capacity, enabling negotiators to advocate with their own evidence.
Challenging the dominance of external technical assistance by fostering homegrown expertise and enhancing climate diplomacy capacity is vital. Capacity building for African research institutions and integrating local expertise into COP processes are necessary steps toward equitable participation.
Third, we need accountability
We must develop robust monitoring and reporting frameworks, such as the African Climate Finance Taxonomy and the Africa Climate Finance Strategy, to safeguard against greenwashing and ensure transparency. These tools should provide clear definitions of climate-aligned investments, ensuring that financial flows are directed toward projects meeting both climate and local development priorities.
The taxonomy serves as a countermeasure to the ambiguity of the multilateral process – verifying that mobilized funds are high quality, non-debt-creating, and genuinely transformative. Enforceable commitments, with clear timelines and consequences for non-compliance, are essential for restoring trust and ensuring accountability from developed countries.
As the world looks to COP30 and beyond, the call for urgent, empathetic and authoritative action must be answered with tangible change on these three fronts – climate finance, knowledge sovereignty and accountability. Incremental change will no longer suffice. We need transformation and accountability – and justice for Africa.
Martha Bekele is the co-founder and Director at DevTransform; Dr. Nkiruka Chidia Maduekwe is an Associate Professor of Law at the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and a former lead climate negotiator for Nigeria.
IPS UN Bureau
VICTORIA, British Columbia, Canada, Nov 5 2025 (IPS) - At COP15, the developing countries were calling for the temperature to not rise above 1.5 degrees and they ignored the Copenhagen Accord which agreed to 2.0 degrees
Then at COP21, while the developing countries were still calling for the temperature to not arise above 1.5, they were ignored again. And then, the developing countries praised for their resilience for adapting to the climate change, which has been caused by developed states. In 2024, the United Nation General Assembly sought a legal opinion from the International Court of Justice on Climate change
The response was the following:
“Not only what states are required to do under international law to avert further climate change through both now and in the future, but they also have to assess the legal consequences under these obligations both through what they do and fail to do have caused significant harm to climate systems in other parts of the environment and harm to future generations as well as for those countries by virtue of geographical circumstances are vulnerable to adverse effects of climate change.”
However, a legal opinion from the court is not binding. The court can, however, provide interpretations of international law via customs or treaties such as the UN Framework on Climate Change UNFCCC.
All states are parties to UNFCCC. The objective of the Convention in Article 2 is: “stabilization of greenhouse gases at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
‘Such a level should be achieved within a time frame to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to ensure food production is not threatened and to enable economic development is done in sustainable way.’“
Under Article 4, the principles include the following:
“The parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent, and minimize any adverse effects on developing countries. Lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures.”
Given that the developing countries are the most affected, but least responsible for climate change, perhaps developing countries could launch a case to seek an interpretation by the ICJ of both the article 2 and the precautionary principle
Dr Joan Russow is founder of the Global Compliance Research Project, formed in 1995 to document state non-compliance with international law.
IPS UN Bureau
ROME / TOKYO, Nov 4 2025 (IPS) - In the shadow of Rome’s Colosseum — once a monument to imperial violence — religious leaders from across the world gathered this week to deliver a message that felt both ancient and urgent: peace must once again become humanity’s sacred duty.
Colosseo Credit: Kevin Lin, INPS Japan
The meeting concluded Tuesday evening with Pope Leo XIV presiding over a ceremony that was equal parts prayer service and political statement.
A Call for Moral Courage
Speaking beneath the Arch of Constantine, Pope Leo urged governments and believers alike to resist what he called “the arrogance of power.”
“The world thirsts for peace,” he said. “We cannot allow people to grow accustomed to war as a normal part of human history. Enough — this is the cry of the poor and the cry of the earth.”
Hirotsugu Terasaki, vice president of Soka Gakkai with Pope Leo XIV. Credit: Vatican News
They stood together in silence as candles were lit around the ancient amphitheater — small lights flickering against the stone, symbolic of a shared prayer for reconciliation.
Faith and Accountability
The pope’s speech drew a clear line between faith and political responsibility.
“Peace must be the priority of every policy,” he said. “God will hold accountable those who failed to seek peace — for every day, month and year of war.”Those words, delivered as fighting continues in Ukraine and Gaza, carried a deliberate edge. The Vatican under Leo XIV has increasingly positioned itself as a moral counterweight to political paralysis on global crises — speaking of peace not as abstraction but as obligation.
Pope John Paul II Credit: Gregorini Demetrio, CC BY-SA 3.0
Lessons From Assisi
This year’s meeting marked nearly four decades since John Paul II convened the first interreligious gathering for peace in Assisi in 1986. Since then, the Sant’Egidio Community has maintained that dialogue among faiths can temper political divides.
“We have dared to speak of peace in a world that speaks the language of war,” said Marco Impagliazzo, the group’s president. “To close the paths of dialogue is madness. As Pope Francis said, the world suffocates without dialogue.”Session on the Dignity of Life
Earlier Tuesday, Soka Gakkai delegation took part in Session 22 titled “Justice Does Not Kill: Abolishing the Death Penalty,” held at the Austrian Cultural Forum.
Professor Enza Pellecchia of the University of Pisa, representing Soka Gakkai, took the stage and spoke about the movement’s efforts to abolish the death penalty, referring to the words of its founder, President Daisaku Ikeda, from his dialogue with the British historian Dr. Arnold Toynbee.
“The sanctity of life cannot be judged by guilt or merit — all lives are equal. Therefore, no one has the right to take a life, even in the name of justice. Accepting the death penalty is a form of institutionalized violence that assigns different values to human life, and President Ikeda has described it as ‘a manifestation of the prevailing tendency in modern times to devalue life”.
Professor Enza Pellecchia of the University of Pisa, representing Soka Gakkai, delivering her speech during the Forum titled “Justice Does Not Kill: Abolishing the Death Penalty,” held at the Austrian Cultural Forum. Credit: Seikyo Shimbun
Professor Pellecchia said that President Ikeda’s humanistic philosophy deeply resonates with Pope Leo XIV’s recent statement that “one cannot claim to be pro-life while accepting the death penalty or any form of violence.” Both, she noted, confront the same moral error — the belief that some lives are expendable.
When Religion Refuses Silence
For decades, the Colosseum has hosted symbolic gatherings for peace. Yet this year’s ceremony, participants said, carried a sharper urgency. The wars in Europe and the Middle East, the displacement of millions, and rising authoritarianism have all given moral language new weight.
“Peace begins with the transformation of the human heart,” said Terasaki of SGI. “Interfaith cooperation is not symbolic — it’s a method for changing history.”A Plea That Still Echoes
As night fell, the trumpeter Paolo Fresu performed a mournful solo. Children stepped forward to deliver a Peace Appeal to diplomats and officials — a reminder that the next generation will inherit the choices made now.
The pope’s final words were brief, almost whispered:
“God wants a world without war. He will free us from this evil.”The candles continued to burn as the crowd dispersed — a fragile constellation of light against the ruins of Roman empire, and a quiet act of defiance in a world still learning to dare peace.
INPS Japan
IPS UN Bureau
BANGKOK, Nov 4 2025 (IPS) - “If nations can have defense ministries, why not peace ministries?” asks Rajagopal PV, the soft-spoken yet formidable founder of Ekta Parishad. “We are told to see issues through a gender lens—why not a peace lens? Why can’t we imagine a business model rooted in non-violence or an education system that teaches peace?”
Founded in 1989, Ekta Parishad—literally Forum for Unity—is a vast people’s movement of more than 250,000 landless poor, now recognized as one of India’s largest and most disciplined grassroots forces for justice.
To Rajagopal, these aren’t utopian dreams—they’re blueprints for a possible world.
Over the decades, Ekta Parishad has secured land rights for nearly half a million families, trained over 10,000 grassroots leaders, protected forests and water bodies, and helped shape key land reform laws and policies in India.
All this has been achieved not through anger, but through disciplined, nonviolent marches that stretch across hundreds of kilometers. Along the way, many leaders have walked beside him—among them, the current Prime Minister of Armenia.
In an age marked by deep disorder—where wealth concentrates in few hands, poverty spreads, and the planet itself trembles under human greed—the 77-year-old Gandhian remains unshaken in his belief that peace alone can redeem humanity.
“We must rescue peace from the clutches of poverty and all its evils,” he told IPS on the sidelines of the International Civil Society Week, standing on the football ground of Bangkok’s Thammasat University.
“And it can be done,” he insists—and his life is proof. In 1969, the centenary year of Mahatma Gandhi’s birth, the Government of India launched a unique exhibition on wheels, a ten-coach train carrying Gandhi’s life and message across the nation. Rajagopal was part of the team that curated and travelled with it.
“For an entire year, we journeyed from state to state. Thousands of schoolchildren would gather at railway platforms, their faces lit with curiosity, waiting to meet Gandhi through our displays,” he recalls.
Yet somewhere along those long railway tracks, Rajagopal began to feel that displaying Gandhi’s ideals wasn’t enough. “The exhibition was beautiful,” he says, “but what was the use of preaching non-violence if we couldn’t live it, breathe it, and bring it to life?”
That realization led him to one of the most daring experiments in peacebuilding India had ever seen—negotiating with the feared bandits of the Chambal valley. “It was 1970,” he recalls. “We moved cautiously, first meeting villagers on the periphery to build trust. Once we had their confidence, we sent word to the dacoits: we wanted to talk. With the government’s consent, we ventured into what we called a ‘peace zone’—often by night, walking for hours through deep ravines—to meet men the world only knew as outlaws.”
The dialogues continued for four years. Eventually, as many as 570 bandits laid down their arms before a photograph of Mahatma Gandhi—a sight India had never seen before. The government, in turn, promised they would not face the death penalty and would receive land and livestock to rebuild their lives. Rehabilitation took another four painstaking years, but it was a victory of conscience over fear.
“They didn’t just surrender their weapons—they surrendered their anger,” Rajagopal says quietly. “There was real repentance, and that takes time—but it lasts.” His commitment came at a cost. At his ashram—a spiritual retreat he had founded—he was threatened, beaten, and ordered to abandon his peace efforts. He talked them through to accepting his presence.
“Today that same region is heaven,” he smiles, his eyes crinkling with memory. “Fifty years ago, people trembled at sunset—terrified of the bandits. Today, you can travel at 2:00 pm in the night, where fear ruled once.”
The mass surrender may have looked like a triumph for the state, but Rajagopal urges people to look deeper. “It’s the invisible violence—poverty, injustice, and oppression—that breeds the visible one: dacoities, kidnappings, and killings,” he explains.
Though Rajagopal and his companions had ended one form of violence, the deeper, quieter kind—born of poverty and neglect—still festered. Until that was confronted, he knew, peace would remain incomplete.
Years of working alongside the poor had taught him one truth: non-violence needs structure. If India’s Indigenous and landless communities were to be heard, they had to be organized.
“We began training young people from dozens of villages,” he says. “They went door to door, teaching others not only about their rights—especially the right to land—but also how to claim them peacefully.”
With that foundation, a five-year plan took shape. Each village home chose one member to take part. Every day, the family set aside one rupee and a fistful of rice—a humble but powerful act of commitment.
They even created a “playbook” of possible scenarios—how to stay calm under provocation, how to respond to setbacks, and how to practice non-violence in thought and action. “In one of our marches, a truck ran over three of our people, killing them,” he recalls softly. “There was grief, but no retaliation. Instead, they sat in silence and meditated. That was our true test.”
In 2006, 500 marchers walked 350 kilometers from Gwalior to Delhi, demanding land rights. Nothing changed. But they didn’t stop.
A year later, in 2007, 25,000 people—many barefoot—set out again on the national highway. “Imagine that sight,” Rajagopal says, eyes gleaming. “Twenty-five thousand people walking for a month, powered only by hope.”
The march displayed not just India’s poverty but also its power—the quiet power of the poor united. It was among the most disciplined mobilizations the country had ever seen. “There was one leader for every hundred people,” Rajagopal explains. “We walked by day and slept on the highway by night. Those in charge of cooking went ahead each morning so that by sundown, a single meal was ready for all.”
In a later march, Rajagopal recalls, the government sent a large police force. “I was worried,” he admits. “I called the authorities to tell them this was a non-violent protest—we didn’t need protection. The officer replied, ‘They’re not there for you; they’re here to learn how disciplined movements should be.’”
Along the route, villages greeted them like family—offering bags of rice, water, and prayers. “There was never a shortage of food,” Rajagopal smiles. “When your cause is just, the world feeds you.”
By the time the march reached Delhi, the government announced a new land reform policy and housing rights and agreed to enact the Forest Rights Act.
The government dispersed the marchers with hollow promises and the reforms never happened.
So Ekta Parishad planned an even larger march—a Jan Satyagraha of 100,000 people in 2012.
“Halfway through, the government came running.”
Rajagopal’s face lights up as he recalls the event. “They agreed to our ten-point agenda and signed it in front of the people. That moment was historic—governments almost never do that; the Indian government certainly never does it!”
The agreement included land and housing rights, a national task force on land reform, the prime minister’s oversight of policy implementation, and fast-track courts to resolve land disputes.
Today, because of these long, barefoot marches, more than three million Indigenous people in India now have legal rights to land and housing. The struggle also gave birth to India’s Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act—a landmark in people’s movements.
“The Act also safeguards fertile land,” Rajagopal explains. “Before the government can acquire any area, a social impact study must be done. And if farmland is taken, the owners receive four times its value in compensation.”
“The purpose of our marches,” Rajagopal says, “is not to fight the government, but to win it over. The government is not the enemy; injustice is. We must stand on the same side of the problem.”
For Rajagopal, peace is not a sentiment but a system—something that must be built, brick by brick, through dialogue and respect. “Non-violence,” he says, “isn’t passive. It’s active patience—listening, accepting differences, never policing thought.” The same principle, he believes, can heal families, neighborhoods, nations—and the world itself.
His next mission is to create a Youth Peace Force, ready to enter conflict zones and resolve disputes through dialogue. He has also launched the Peace Builders Forum, or Peace7, uniting seven countries—South Africa, Japan, Costa Rica, Switzerland, Canada, India, and Armenia. His dream is to expand it to Peace20, where, as he smiles, “wealth will never be a criterion for membership.”
IPS UN Bureau Report