The Human Consciousness Now...Our World in the Midst of Becoming...to What? Observe, contemplate Now.
KATHMANDU, Aug 27 2026 (IPS) - A massive geophysical disaster along the mountainous Nepal-Tibet border has left at least 160 people dead and hundreds more missing after a glacial collapse triggered devastating flash floods and mudslides on Wednesday.
According to data compiled by regional disaster management authorities, the catastrophe began high in the Himalayas. An enormous avalanche of ice and rock tore into the Lhende River, unleashing a wall of mud and water that surged downstream into the Bhote Koshi and Trishuli rivers.
The impact on the ground has been devastating. Officials in Nepal have confirmed 157 fatalities, while authorities in Tibet (China) have reported three deaths, with warnings that the toll is expected to rise. Hardest hit are Nepal’s Rasuwa and Nuwakot districts, alongside Tibet’s Gyirong County. Local police reports indicate that more than 400 people remain unaccounted for, including dozens of Nepalese emergency responders and over 340 foreign tourists, as reported extensively by international news agencies.
In response to the tragedy, UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed deep sadness and solidarity with the affected communities, confirming that UN teams are actively mobilising aid on the ground. Simultaneously, UNICEF has highlighted the severe impact of the disaster on children and families, warning of severe long-term trauma, displacement, and immediate risks to youth in the devastated regions.
UNICEF is leveraging its local presence and its global supply hub in Copenhagen to deliver safe drinking water, medical care, and nutrition kits to the disaster zone within 72 hours.
With road access completely severed by the destruction of 19 vehicle bridges and 40 kilometres of highways, search and rescue teams are relying on helicopters to winch survivors to safety. The US, China, India, and the European Union have pledged international relief operations.
IPS UN Bureau Report
VICTORIA, Seychelles, Aug 26 2026 (IPS) - Across this vast ocean, the latest monitoring by Mercator Ocean International shows marine heatwave conditions ranging from moderate to severe. At the same time, the World Meteorological Organization expects a strong El Niño to intensify through August to October, with a positive Indian Ocean Dipole also likely to develop. These are not distant scientific signals. They are an urgent warning that the ocean system on which millions depend is under mounting stress.
The Indian Ocean in particular has sustained communities for generations. It provides food and livelihoods, carries trade and travel, shapes our cultures and moderates our climate. It is also one connected living system – its currents carry heat, nutrients, fish (as well as pollution, unfortunately) across borders drawn on maps. Its coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass meadows and open waters support people from the eastern coast of Africa to South Asia, and from the islands of the western Indian Ocean to the Maldives and beyond. When ocean temperatures rise abnormally, the consequences are not confined to a scientific bulletin. They are seen in the health of coral reefs, in the movement and abundance of fish, in the safety of coastal communities, and in the future of tourism and fisheries. They are felt in the weakening of the natural protection that reefs, mangroves and coastal habitats provide against erosion, flooding and storms.
Coral reefs are especially vulnerable. They can sometimes recover from an isolated bleaching event if temperatures fall quickly enough. But repeated bleaching and prolonged heat stress allow too little time for recovery. When reefs deteriorate, the consequences extend beyond biodiversity: fish habitats are lost, shorelines become more exposed, tourism suffers and communities lose part of their natural and cultural inheritance. This is why ocean warming is not simply an environmental issue. It is an issue of food security, jobs, development, economic stability and justice.
For decades, humanity has relied on the ocean’s exceptional capacity to cushion the climate crisis. The ocean absorbs more than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions. By doing so, it has moderated atmospheric warming and spared humanity even more severe disruption. But there is a limit to what we can ask of the sea. Small island developing states have contributed little to the cumulative emissions destabilising the global climate. Yet we are among the first to face the consequences. We cannot move our reefs. We cannot relocate our coastlines without immense social and economic cost. We cannot separate the wellbeing of our people and economies from the health of the ocean. For island people, climate vulnerability is not an abstract concept. It is a daily reality.
Still, island states must not be viewed only as victims. We are custodians of extensive ocean spaces, centres of practical innovation and partners in the search for sustainable solutions. Seychelles has tried to demonstrate that economic development and marine conservation need not be enemies. Through marine spatial planning, Seychelles has committed 30 percent of its waters to protection, while advancing a blue economy vision based on stewardship rather than depletion. This is not charity towards nature. It is a recognition that there can be no enduring prosperity if fish stocks decline, reefs deteriorate and coastal ecosystems are damaged beyond recovery.
Across the Indian Ocean, other island and coastal states are also restoring habitats, improving fisheries management, investing in renewable energy, strengthening marine conservation and building more resilient communities. Their efforts deserve recognition and support. They show that those most exposed to climate risk are not waiting passively for rescue. They are protecting a shared ocean heritage, often with scarce resources. But local and regional action cannot substitute for the choices that must be made globally.
First, the world must reduce greenhouse gas emissions much more rapidly. Adaptation is indispensable, particularly for small island developing states. We need stronger early-warning systems, more ocean observation, investment in reef and coastal restoration, secure water supplies and infrastructure designed for a changing climate. But adaptation cannot indefinitely protect an ocean that continues to accumulate heat. No sea wall, restoration programme or emergency plan can replace decisive action to reduce emissions.
Second, climate finance must become fairer, faster and easier to access. Island states should not have to devote years of limited institutional capacity to complex procedures simply to secure support for renewable energy, water security, coastal protection, marine research and ecosystem restoration. Those facing the greatest climate risks require genuine partnership – not delayed promises, burdensome processes and inadequate resources.
Third, the countries of the Indian Ocean must deepen regional cooperation. Marine heatwaves, coral bleaching, illegal fishing, biodiversity loss and coastal erosion do not stop at national boundaries. We need better ocean observation, data-sharing and regional early-warning systems. We need stronger scientific cooperation, responsible fisheries management and coordinated protection of the ecosystems connecting our islands and coasts.
The Indian Ocean should not be seen merely as a corridor for trade or a theatre for geopolitical competition. It is a shared living system, whose health is fundamental to the security and prosperity of everyone who depends on it. The current warming should also remind us that the ocean is not an inexhaustible resource. It has regulated our climate, sustained our communities, supported our economies and linked our peoples for generations. Yet we still behave as though its capacity to absorb our impacts has no limits. It does.
The islands of the Indian Ocean are not asking for sympathy. We are calling for shared responsibility. We know that ocean health is inseparable from the security of our people. We know that protecting nature and pursuing development must go hand in hand. And we know that every year of delay makes adaptation more costly, the damage more severe and the choices before us more difficult. As a result, the Indian Ocean is sounding the alarm. Its islands are among the first to hear it. But the warning is not ours alone. It is for every country whose climate, food security, economy and future depend on a living ocean.
James Michel, is Former President of the Republic of Seychelles
IPS UN Bureau
SUVA, Fiji, Aug 26 2026 (IPS) - For generations, Pacific children have grown up with the ocean as part of everyday life. It is where families fish, where stories are passed down, where livelihoods begin and where cultures are rooted. Yet many young people are inheriting an ocean facing pressures unlike anything their ancestors experienced, from warming seas and coral bleaching to plastic pollution and declining marine ecosystems.
Across Fiji, a quiet movement is helping change how the next generation sees the ocean.
Children who once viewed the sea simply as a place to swim, fish or spend time with friends are beginning to understand something much deeper: that the future of the Blue Pacific depends on the choices they make today.
For Hannah Nanovu, Whole School Ocean Coordinator at the International School Suva, watching that transformation unfold is one of the most rewarding parts of her work.
“Every year, the students surprise and inspire me through their passion, creativity, and commitment to learning more about the ocean and taking action,” Nanovu says.
Students at the Veivueti Kids Ocean Conference taking part in an interactive activity at the SPC booth, identifying marine organisms commonly found in tidal zone ecosystems. Credit: SPC
“This year, having students travel from Beqa to participate was particularly inspiring, and seeing the conference grow each year, with more schools joining and schools travelling further to be part of it, reminds me that we are building a community of young ocean advocates across Fiji.”
That growing community came together once again at the Veivueti Kids Ocean Conference, where students explored the ocean not just through science but through culture, storytelling, traditional knowledge and hands-on learning.
Since developing its Whole School Ocean Programme in 2018, the International School Suva has used the conference to create a space where students can present research, exchange ideas and discover that every child — regardless of where they come from – has a role in protecting the ocean.
Behind that movement is a broader regional effort led by the Pacific Community (SPC).
Summit participants take part in a hands-on field activity, identifying marine organisms collected for study. Credit: SPC
Science That Begins With Home
For many students, science can feel distant.
Concepts such as biodiversity, ocean circulation, marine ecosystems and climate change often exist only in textbooks—complex words to memorise rather than realities connected to everyday life.
SPC believes science becomes far more powerful when students discover it in places they already know.
“Pacific communities have a deep cultural and traditional connection to the ocean, but more can be done to increase knowledge about ocean ecosystems, the challenges they face, and how we can protect them,” says Doreen Tuala, team leader for Curriculum and Assessment at SPC.
“The best place to start addressing this need is through education, especially by engaging young people.”
Rather than separating modern science from Pacific knowledge, SPC’s approach brings them together.
Students investigate coral reefs they swim on, mangroves that protect their villages, fisheries that feed their families and coastlines increasingly affected by climate change. They learn through fieldwork, conversations with elders and practical investigations that reveal how traditional ecological knowledge and scientific research complement one another.
Tuala explains, “By connecting learning to students’ everyday lives, local environments and cultural knowledge, students can investigate issues that directly affect their communities, such as coral reef health, sustainable fisheries, coastal erosion, marine pollution and the impacts of climate change.”
Leotasi Kautu, School Principal from Tuvalu, presents the 3D inundation model of Funafuti, developed by SPC and the Government of Tuvalu, to map flood risk and guide climate adaptation. Credit: SPC
Building a Generation of Ocean Guardians
Recognising that ocean stewardship begins long before adulthood, SPC is making one of its strongest regional commitments yet – to ocean literacy.
Its work is built around three complementary initiatives:
strengthening science education through a partnership with National Geographic Pristine Seas; expanding locally relevant teaching materials through the EQAP Ocean Literacy Resources Repository; and supporting practical learning experiences like Fiji’s Veivueti Kids Ocean Conference.Together, these initiatives aim to embed ocean literacy in Pacific education systems, giving young people the knowledge, skills and confidence to understand the ocean that sustains them.
“Through this partnership, we are bringing together scientific expertise, educational resources and regional networks to support countries in integrating ocean literacy into education systems,” says Tuala.
The partnership combines SPC’s curriculum expertise with National Geographic Pristine Seas’ experience in marine science, exploration and conservation. But its purpose extends well beyond developing lesson plans.
It seeks to address a long-standing gap in structured ocean education designed specifically for Pacific realities, ensuring students learn about the ocean through examples, cultures and ecosystems they recognise as their own.
Learning Beyond the Classroom
That philosophy comes alive at the Veivueti Kids Ocean Conference.
This year, SPC delivered one of the conference’s most popular activities, an interactive ocean scavenger hunt where students learned directly from marine scientists and ocean experts.
“The students were engaged, curious and loved the opportunity to learn directly from ocean experts,” Nanovu says.
For her, the impact extends well beyond the children.
Teachers leave with fresh ideas, practical resources and renewed confidence to bring ocean learning back into their classrooms.
“Through these projects, students are developing a deeper understanding of the ocean.”
“My hope is that through this connection they grow to love the ocean a little more. They are the future guardians of our ocean, and it is now their turn to carry the torch of protection and stewardship.”
Nanovu credits SPC as one of the key partners helping the conference continue to grow.
“I am incredibly grateful to SPC for supporting the Veivueti Kids Ocean Conference since it began three years ago,” she says.
“Their support has helped make the conference possible through providing engaging workshops and contributing towards important costs such as food and resources.”
Empowering the Teachers
Strong ocean education depends on confident teachers.
That is why SPC’s regional Science Teaching and Learning Workshop focuses not only on students but also on empowering educators with practical teaching strategies, classroom resources and regional networks they can take back to their schools.
“Ultimately, we want teachers to feel empowered to inspire their students to become informed and responsible ocean stewards who understand the importance of protecting and sustainably managing our ocean resources for future generations,” Tuala says.
To support that work long after the workshops end, SPC has established the EQAP Ocean Literacy Resources Repository, a growing online collection of lesson plans, classroom activities, multimedia resources and teaching tools that educators across the Pacific can freely access and adapt to their own languages, cultures and environments.
SPC’s commitment extends well beyond Fiji.
In New Caledonia, SPC is partnering with Comité Égalité pour tous à l’école (Comité 3E) to strengthen environmental education through schools and communities while ensuring learning reflects local cultures, languages and experiences.
Together with regional teacher training, practical classroom resources and youth initiatives, these partnerships are steadily building something much larger than individual projects.
They are nurturing a generation that sees the ocean not simply as a resource to use but as a living system to understand, respect and protect.
The Pacific Ocean covers nearly one-third of the Earth’s surface. Its future will not be determined by governments or scientists alone.
It will also be shaped by the children sitting in classrooms today—children who understand why coral reefs matter, who recognise the value of mangroves, who embrace both ancestral knowledge and modern science, and who believe their actions can make a difference.
That is the future SPC hopes to help create.
“Through this initiative, we aim to encourage students to see themselves not only as beneficiaries of the ocean’s resources but also as guardians of a shared Blue Pacific heritage,” says Tuala.
Looking ahead, the vision is simple but ambitious.
“Our vision is for young Pacific people to have the knowledge and confidence to help keep our ocean healthy and sustainable.”
“If more students see themselves as ocean stewards and take action to protect the marine environment in their communities, this partnership will have made a real difference.”
IPS UN Bureau Report
Excerpt:
There is a saying that people protect what they love, and to love something, you first need to understand it. — Hannah Nanovu, Whole School Ocean Coordinator, International School Suva
NAIROBI, Kenya, Aug 26 2026 (IPS) - Several coalitions exist today to defend the territories in which people live and work. Global leaders have long understood the importance of shared responsibility for collective security and have invested significant time in establishing networks, partnerships and alliances. In 2025, global spending on defense reached a record $2.9 trillion.
But the global community is increasingly recognizing that today’s gravest existential risks arise from a war being waged against nature itself – and our defenses are woefully fragmented and underfunded. The world is investing only about $220 billion a year for nature-based solutions, compared to $7.3 trillion for nature-negative activities.
This is not just a discrete, isolated environmental concern. The triple planetary crises of land degradation, biodiversity loss and climate change are worsening food insecurity, water scarcity and ecosystem collapse, threatening millions of lives.
Collectively, the impact of the ongoing assault on nature is amplifying conflict, worsening migration, driving inflation higher, and fomenting geopolitical instability. Unless restoration and sustainable management of resources is in place, the world is expected to lose more than US$23 trillion by 2050, while halting this trend would cost around $4.6 trillion.
Many solutions to these interconnected crises exist but have been ineffective to date. Limited coordination and collaboration between countries, sectors and disciplines, as well as insufficient resources and short-term approaches to long-term challenges, mean we are far behind the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Despite compelling evidence of the costs of degradation, investment remains far below what is needed because opportunities are rarely presented as credible, investable propositions.
To change this, two things must happen. First, governments, international agencies, academia and civil society must unite through a grand coalition to bring together those currently working in isolation to achieve greater impact than the sum of their parts – a kind of mutual pact to protect nature.
Photo highlighting the activities and successes of the ‘Promoting Nature-based Solutions for Land Restoration while Strengthening National Monitoring Technical Working Group in Kenya: Phase 2’ project funded by UK PACT. Credit: Anthony Ochieng/CIFOR-ICRAF
And second, this grand coalition must also engineer a funding paradigm shift from focusing on environmental challenges to investing in the many opportunities of conservation and restoration.
The ongoing UN COP17 desertification talks in Mongolia, where the theme is “Restoring Land, Restoring Hope”, is the perfect opportunity to progress this.
Evidence shows that integrated approaches to address landscape degradation solve multiple interconnected challenges.
For example, investment in soil and water conservation in the Adarsha watershed in southern India has been found to improve water availability, agricultural productivity, and rural livelihoods. Analysis showed that yields of maize intercropped with pigeonpea increased by 148% while households in the watershed were less affected by droughts compared to those in the non-watershed area.
In Kenya and Tanzania, the adoption of Participatory Rangeland Management improved rangeland condition and resilience to climate shocks for more than 90% of participating communities.
Despite evidence from these successes, these interventions are not being invested in and applied at the scale needed to transform the world’s food, land and water systems in ways that can build long-term, far-reaching resilience.
Countries, donors, financing institutions and civil society must come together in a grand coalition to direct the coordination, governance and investment necessary to tackle these crises where they all interconnect: at the landscape level.
A grand coalition would offer a dedicated focal point to integrate and advance the UN’s goals for climate, biodiversity and land degradation, allowing for stronger coordination and shaping the global agenda for informed decision-making. Critically, the coalition would lead the redirection away from ineffective, siloed solutions and the self-defeating environmental trade-offs they create.
A grand coalition would also create a platform for establishing the rigorous systems of governance essential to achieving global goals for nature, including fair and inclusive land tenure and governance over water systems. Understanding the true cost of landscape governance and inaction is instrumental for adequate investments.
Lastly, a grand coalition would gather the evidence to help shift the emphasis of finance for nature towards investments that benefit everyone. By identifying a menu of options for turning grand challenges into grand opportunities, the coalition would unlock the financing from banks, donors, philanthropies and other development funders needed to scale interventions globally.
The UNCCD COP17 talks in Mongolia is not just an opportunity to address the challenges facing land. It’s a moment to foster unity around a shared threat to all of our territories. CGIAR and its partners will play its part by developing an investment plan to anchor greater coordination in collaboration with the grand coalition of action for shared human and planetary outcomes.
Landscapes are where our greatest environmental and human challenges today are playing out, from declining biodiversity to the deforestation driving climate change, to increasing levels of food insecurity.
Investing in multifunctional landscapes through a unified global coalition, therefore, is not simply an environmental imperative for the world, but also a strategic one. Galvanizing support for landscape-centered solutions can simultaneously reduce future risks and strengthen economies and communities.
A global coalition for restoring and protecting landscapes would recognize a defining reality of the 21st century: protecting nature is fundamental for protecting us all.
Dr. Lulseged Tamene Desta, is Director of the CGIAR Multifunctional Landscapes Science Program
Cargele Masso, is Director of the CGIAR’s Environmental Health and Biodiversity Impact Area Platform
IPS UN Bureau
BRUSSELS, Belgium, Aug 26 2026 (IPS) - On 24 July, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly reappointed Volker Türk as High Commissioner for Human Rights for a further four years. Only 10 states – among them Israel, Russia and the USA – opposed the decision.
Türk is an Austrian lawyer who’s spent almost his entire career in the UN system, from field postings in Kosovo to the UN refugee agency to his present role in Geneva. Because of this, when he became High Commissioner in October 2022, there were concerns he might be more cautious than his predecessors, but he has spoken out about violations committed by the powerful. He criticised Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, demanded investigations into deaths in US immigration detention and condemned Israel’s atrocities in Gaza. He has, however, faced criticism for not calling out Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide and not speaking out enough on China, particularly concerning the situation of Uyghur people in Xinjiang.
The vote will make Türk the first person set to serve two full terms since the post was created in 1993. One early High Commissioner, Mary Robinson, wanted to stay on, but strong US resistance to her positions on its post-9/11 military interventionism and the 2001 Durban Conference — the UN’s World Conference against Racism, where Israel and the USA walked out due to its focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — left her with only a one-year extension.
As a funding crisis continues to engulf the UN human rights system, continuity matters. US withdrawal from funding UN agencies, part of its broader assault on the international system in general and human rights bodies in particular, has placed the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) under serious financial strain, forcing staff cuts and reducing capacity to work in countries where human rights violations are taking place. A vacancy or a contested process would have added further disruption at a difficult time.
A rushed and contested process
The vote came unexpectedly and moved fast. UN Secretary-General António Guterres informed states of his intention to reappoint Türk without a public process, open competition or much time for deliberation. With Guterres’ second term ending this year, the move was likely intended to keep the decision off his successor’s desk and prevent opposition from building.
Most states accepted this, but the USA didn’t. It immediately moved to delay the vote, citing insufficient consultation. Ireland, speaking for the European Union, opposed the US motion, which was defeated by 63 votes to 27. The USA’s representative called the process ‘classic UN cronyism’, accused Guterres of cutting a backroom deal and warned there would be ‘consequences’. Russia tried a different tactic, proposing to extend Türk’s mandate by just 81 days, to the end of 2026, leaving the decision to the next Secretary-General. That too was rejected, by 71 votes to 19.
Argentina, Burkina Faso, Israel, Mali, Nicaragua, Niger, North Korea, Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the USA voted against Türk’s reappointment. The list contains tight US allies, such as Argentina and Israel, and states that align with Russia, such as North Korea and the three military-run states of the Sahel, which are increasingly working as a bloc. Under the Trump administration, it’s no longer a surprise to see the USA voting the same way as Russia. Most of the states, including Nicaragua, systematically violate human rights. Russia and North Korea both resist any accountability for human rights violations, while the USA particularly objected to Türk’s criticism of its war on Iran and migration detention deaths. Israel accused the OHCHR of having ‘erased the atrocities of October 7 and betrayed UN neutrality’.
Some states that might have been expected to vote against Türk, however, supported him. Among the 144 who backed his reappointment were the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and Syria, all states subject to active UN scrutiny. This suggested that hostility to a specific human rights mandate doesn’t necessarily extend to the whole system, and even heavily scrutinised states may see value in a working relationship with the OHCHR.
A vulnerable human rights system
The 13 abstentions and 26 no-shows also deserve attention. Some were procedural, with Ecuador and Paraguay saying afterwards that they wanted more time. Peru cited concerns about limiting the incoming Secretary-General’s flexibility, though its abstention may also reflect Türk’s recent criticism of Peru’s human rights record, including laws granting amnesty to security forces accused of serious violations during armed conflict between 1980 and 2000.
Iraq, New Zealand, South Korea, Sri Lanka and Uganda all abstained. New Zealand described its position as ‘procedural rather than policy’, but the decision drew sharp domestic criticism, not least given its recent failure to recognise Palestinian statehood.
Among the smaller states that ducked a decision, some likely faced economic or political pressure from the most powerful states to stay quiet, while others may have judged themselves insufficiently protected from the consequences of taking a visible position. This means the vote may reflect vulnerability as much as it measures support for the High Commissioner. As the most powerful states increasingly throw their weight around in the international system, smaller states may have to make calculations about when they can afford to take a position and when they need to stay quiet.
Continuity as the outcome
Institutional continuity is the immediate outcome, and Türk has signalled what he intends to do with it. In a June speech, he described an ‘unprecedented, shameless onslaught against international law’ that’s causing appalling human suffering, insisted the international community must stay focused on fundamentals and declared the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the core treaties ‘ever more important’. His message to the G7, meeting nearby, was blunt: put human rights at the centre of discussions as a force for stability, not an afterthought.
Legitimacy and moral authority, however, won’t pay the OHCHR’s bills. Over the next four years, Türk must resist China, Russia and the USA as they work to undermine the UN bodies that protect human rights. The 144 states that backed Türk now carry the responsibility of turning their votes into action. They should ensure the OHCHR is adequately funded and work to bring on board states that abstained, particularly if they did so out of fear. They must show that collective commitment to human rights still counts for something.
Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation.
For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 25 2026 (IPS) - Over the past week, the humanitarian crisis in Colombia has deteriorated significantly following the Mw 7.4–7.5 earthquake that struck the Chocó department on August 10. With the Colombian government declaring a State of Emergency across 15 departments, the nation continues to struggle with massive civilian casualties, immense damage to critical infrastructure, and the disruption of basic services. The national government and the humanitarian community continue to coordinate lifesaving responses and monitor conditions as they evolve.
The latest figures from the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) show that the earthquake and the following aftershocks affected the majority of Colombia’s municipalities, including both densely populated urban environments and rural areas. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and El Equipo Humanitario País Colombia (EHP) estimate that roughly 282,700 people have been affected across 15 of the 32 departments, or roughly 153,300 households. As of August 24, there have been at least 329 fatalities.
Additionally, 4,548 people have been injured, 426 remain missing, and 356 have been rescued. IFRC has recorded over 134,342 damaged homes, while OCHA and EHP estimate that at least 31,400 homes have been completely destroyed. The earthquakes have decimated critical infrastructure in Colombia, with authorities reporting significant damage to educational facilities, health centers, water systems, and community spaces.
At least 3,443 educational facilities have been affected by the earthquake, with an additional 263 having partially or completely collapsed or projected to collapse imminently. Roughly 75,000 students have been stripped of access to safe education as a result. Furthermore, around 3,905 community centers have been impacted, significantly elevating the risks of psychosocial and developmental challenges for affected communities.
Local authorities have also underscored numerous disruptions to electricity, water supply, healthcare, and telecommunications over the several days, resulting in delays in comprehensive damage and needs assessments, while rendering numerous municipalities outside of humanitarian reach. According to IFRC, at least 413 roads have been damaged and five airports have been impacted.
“There’s communities that haven’t been accessed yet or have only been accessed once,” said Jean Philippe Antolin, the International Organization for Migration’s (IOM) Humanitarian Response and Recovery Specialist for Latin America and the Caribbean during a press briefing at the UN Headquarters on August 20.
“We must continue to provide blanket coverage of several items from shelter to food to health. Among those many most pressing urgent needs, I will say also the need for information. People need to know. People need to know whether the house is safe, structurally sound. From outside, some might not look affected, but if you go inside, you will see cracks everywhere. People are sleeping outside for fear of the roof collapsing over their heads.”
Entire communities are on the brink of collapse as delayed humanitarian responses continue to be exacerbated by pre-existing inequalities and vulnerabilities. Prior to the earthquake, roughly 7 million people in Colombia had been experiencing moderate to severe levels of food insecurity. The World Food Programme (WFP) notes that since the earthquake, approximately one-third of the population in Chocó and Valle del Cauca, two of the hardest-hit regions, are critically food insecure.
Additionally, widespread displacement and the disruption of community support networks have significantly amplified protection risks, with thousands of families across Colombia residing in overcrowded and unsanitary displacement shelters. The latest figures from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) show that women and girls residing in these shelters are at a heightened risk of gender-based violence, while pregnant women have limited access to lifesaving maternal healthcare including antenatal care, emergency obstetric services, and effective referral mechanisms.
Communities in overcrowded displacement shelters are especially vulnerable to vector-borne diseases as heavy rains across Pereira, Buenaventura and Quibdó worsen living conditions. Antolin warned that the rise of dengue is of particular concern, with water contamination further increasing the risk of diarrheal and respiratory illnesses.
Furthermore, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) stresses that the full impact on rural communities remains unclear, noting a “critical information gap” regarding damage to crop harvests, livestock, irrigation systems, and artisanal fishing. Because the systems are lifelines for riverine, rural, and coastal communities, the disruption risks breaking production cycles and leaving families with far fewer resources for the next season.
“Humanitarian partners say more housing options, including community shelters, temporary hotel stays, host families and rent support are needed for families whose homes were destroyed, badly damaged or no longer safe,” said Antolin. “Repair kits and household basics such as sleeping mats, bedding, cooking supplies and items for privacy will be essential to help people live safely and with dignity. Getting these supplies to the hardest-to-reach areas remains a major challenge. and most partners are working together to overcome it. There is also an urgent need to strengthen roofing, drainage and waterproofing in existing locations while continuing to register affected populations, whether in collective sites with host families or rental housing.”
In the wake of the earthquake in Colombia, the United Nations and its partners have been on the frontlines providing direct support to affected communities, including healthcare, protection services, and food and cash assistance. IOM has launched a USD 30 million USD appeal focusing on providing shelter, water and sanitation (WASH) services, and protection services, alongside investments in community recovery and risk communication.
WFP is positioned to expand its current distribution of food assistance from Pereira and Quibdó to other critically vulnerable localities, aiming to reach approximately 100,000 civilians. Meanwhile, UNFPA has been deploying humanitarian personnel in Chocó to provide support for survivors of gender-based violence and pregnant women, while also providing hygiene and maternal supplies. Concurrently, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) is collaborating with national authorities to expand child protection systems.
IPS UN Bureau Report
GENEVA, Aug 24 2026 (IPS) - In 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly mandated an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to develop a global, legally binding instrument addressing the full life cycle of plastics, from production and product design to disposal. After the resumed fifth session adjourned without consensus in Geneva in August 2025, the divided process moved into informal consultations before INC-5.4 in March 2027.
The exclusion of observers from the June 2026 Heads of Delegation meeting in Nairobi and the next meeting in Bangkok points to a forced separation between governments and observers during these decisive months. At the moment the negotiations most need scientific knowledge, practical experience, public scrutiny and political confidence, they are becoming less inclusive.
Governments negotiate treaties and take decisions; observers do not claim either function. Meaningful observer participation is nevertheless a mainstream feature of United Nations environmental negotiations, not an optional courtesy or a privilege that must be earned by reorganizing civil society into a form administratively convenient to the Chair and Secretariat
There should be no misunderstanding about roles. Governments negotiate treaties and take decisions; observers do not claim either function.
Meaningful observer participation is nevertheless a mainstream feature of United Nations environmental negotiations, not an optional courtesy or a privilege that must be earned by reorganizing civil society into a form administratively convenient to the Chair and Secretariat.
At the online consultation with observers on 14 July 2026, I personally asked Chair Julio Cordano whether there would be any opportunity for observers to participate face-to-face with governments in the pre-negotiations before INC-5.4.
His answer, although somewhat circuitous, was clear: there would not. The official roadmap currently places governments in informal in-person meetings while observers are offered separate webinars in which they may share their views with the Chair.
The webinars may be useful, but they are not participation in the negotiations. Observers speaking to the Chair while governments negotiate separately is consultation at a distance. Direct observer engagement with governments may therefore be almost entirely prevented until INC-5.4, with no certainty about how meaningful participation will be even then.
Bangkok is important, but it is not the fundamental issue. The question is whether the remaining process will rebuild trust and establish genuine engagement rather than maintain parallel tracks.
The Chair’s statement that INC-5.4 will follow previously agreed participation arrangements, including observers, is cautiously positive, but it does not replace clear modalities or direct engagement while the political package is being shaped.
None of this is intended as disrespect toward Ambassador Cordano. He inherited an exceptionally difficult negotiation, with a fractured text and a political divide between the High Ambition Coalition and the Like-Minded countries.
The June Heads of Delegation meeting reportedly produced a more constructive atmosphere, and confidential spaces for governments to test compromises are sometimes essential. But confidentiality and meaningful observer engagement are not mutually exclusive.
The Stockholm Convention negotiations set an admittedly high bar. Civil-society networks organized themselves, developed technical and policy positions and built working relationships with governments throughout the process.
The International Pollutants (formerly “POPs”) Elimination Network – IPEN – itself emerged at the first Stockholm Convention INC in 1998 as a self-organised public interest entity for engagement in such negotiations.
The Rotterdam and Stockholm Convention secretariats continue to recognize NGOs as important stakeholders and provide for their representation as observers at meetings of Convention bodies. These negotiations did not succeed ‘despite’ observer involvement; they benefited from the expertise, organization, implementation knowledge and political attention observers brought.
The plastics negotiations should aim to meet or exceed that standard, not retreat from it. Plastics are chemical products, made with chemical inputs, that generate enormous pollution and waste-management challenges. The negotiations belong within the chemicals and wastes tradition, where constructive observer participation has been part of both treaty development and implementation.
The UNEA mandate points in the same direction. Resolution 5/14 stressed the need for the widest and most effective participation possible, opened participation to relevant stakeholders consistent with applicable UN rules and requested UNEP to facilitate their participation and cooperation.
More generally, UNEP accreditation gives civil-society organizations observer status at UNEA and its subsidiary bodies, with opportunities for written and oral contributions. A process that progressively removes stakeholders from the settings in which substantive discussions occur diminishes the practical meaning of that mandate.
The Chair’s continuing emphasis on “organizing” and “rationalizing” observer participation is therefore understandable as an attempt to manage a large and diverse community at a particularly fraught point in the negotiations, but it becomes concerning when substantive proposals from major observer groups receive no meaningful response.
Better coordination may improve participation; it cannot be a prerequisite for access. Indigenous Peoples, scientists, waste pickers, workers, public-health organizations, environmental NGOs, consumer groups, local authorities and business coalitions have distinct mandates and cannot simply be compressed into a few convenient voices without losing the diversity that gives observer participation its value.
There is, however, a practical way forward. the process that the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control has made a distinction between observers with “vested interests” (i.e. the tobacco companies and their associated interests) and the “public interest.” This possible approach has also been suggested during the negotiations, with no substantive response received.
Alternatively, UNEP already has a recognized Major Groups Facilitating Committee, composed of elected representatives of the nine Major Groups and supported by the UNEP Civil Society Unit, whose responsibility includes facilitating accredited civil-society participation in UNEP’s intergovernmental processes.
The Chair could ask this existing mechanism to invite each Major Group to nominate one or two organizations, selected for relevant expertise and balanced representation, to attend informal governmental meetings as silent observers or, where appropriate, to contribute at designated sessions.
This would resemble the approach used under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, where the secretariat contacts constituency focal points to nominate a limited and balanced number of observer representatives for smaller workshops and meetings.
The model is imperfect: UNEP’s Major Groups do not neatly encompass every constituency engaged in the plastics negotiations, and limited representation at informal meetings must not replace broad access at formal INC sessions. It would nevertheless remove the claim that observers have failed to organize themselves, place responsibility within an existing and recognized UNEP process, and avoid the Chair or Secretariat choosing preferred interlocutors.
The choice is not between an unmanageably open meeting and a completely closed process. What matters is that observers have some direct line into the negotiations and can see that their expertise and proposals are genuinely considered.
The present separation also carries financial and political risks. The INC has depended heavily on voluntary donor support. As of 25 March 2026, UNEP reported more than USD 40 million in contributions, including more than USD 7.2 million from Norway and approximately USD 2.5 million from Switzerland. Norway’s subsequent review and reported hold on aspects of its wider UNEP funding was already a warning that financing cannot be treated as politically unconditional.
No donor has announced that restrictions on observers will cause it to withdraw support. Donor governments may nevertheless ask why they should continue financing a process that repeatedly postpones decisions, accommodates the least ambitious actors and limits access for many of the organizations supplying evidence, implementation experience and public accountability. A process that loses legitimacy also places its financing at risk.
INC-5.4 is the final credible test of whether the UNEP process can produce a treaty reflecting the mandate agreed in 2022. The session cannot arrive after months of closed governmental discussions with observers presented with a largely completed political package. The Chair and Secretariat should clarify participation modalities now and establish structured, direct engagement with observers before March, using UNEP’s existing civil-society architecture if necessary.
If INC-5.4 produces another continuation or a lowest-common-denominator text stripped of meaningful lifecycle measures and effective controls on products, production and chemicals, high-ambition governments should be prepared to pursue an Ottawa-style diplomatic process.
That is not the preferred outcome; a strong global treaty concluded through UNEP remains the better course. But the UN process cannot demand political loyalty, donor financing and stakeholder expertise while progressively closing the door on those stakeholders.
Rebuilding trust with observers will not solve every substantive division in the plastics negotiations. It is, however, a necessary test of whether the process still intends to be ambitious, legitimate and capable of delivering an effective treaty. If that test cannot be met, countries serious about ending plastic pollution may need to create a different pathway.
Craig Boljkovac is Executive Director of Green Cross International and has more than 35 years of experience in international environmental policy and sustainable development. He is a co-founder of IPEN. He has participated in several sessions and related meetings of the global plastics treaty negotiations. The opinions expressed are his own.