The Human Consciousness Now...Our World in the Midst of Becoming...to What? Observe, contemplate Now.
BULAWAYO, Sep 9 2026 (IPS) - A 12-year-old male lion slipped out of Zimbabwe’s Hwange National Park one winter morning and killed a 7-year-old boy in a village it wandered into.
The boy, Elton, should have been safe within his village outside Zimbabwe’s largest national park, but a winter morning ended that safety. The lion cut short his life, pushing a grieving community into the centre of a contested frontline: conflict for space between humans and wildlife. The lion was put down.
“That day forever remains etched in my mind, and it’s one of the reasons that led me to form the Wildlife Conservation Action,” says zoologist Moreangels Mbizah, recalling how the morning of April 2014 when she found the lion had killed Elton changed her perspective about wildlife coexisting with people.
“I realised that protecting lions inside the park meant very little if we were not also protecting people living alongside them,” Mbizah said.
Charity Patron, HRH Princess Anne, presented Dr Moreangels Mbizah with a 2026 Whitley Award in April 2026 to expand a coexistence model of conservation in northern Zimbabwe. Credit: Whitley Fund for Nature
Conservation From Tragedy
Wildlife and communities living near or within conservation areas across Zimbabwe fight over habitat and resources.
In 2024, 49 people were killed by wild animals across the country; this number increased to 53 in 2025, according to the Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Climate. Zimbabwe is currently developing a National Human-Wildlife Coexistence Strategy aimed at curbing human-wildlife conflict.
The country’s parks authority, ZimParks, recently released figures indicating that over the last decade over 12,000 incidents of human-wildlife conflict have been recorded. At that time 486 people were killed with 554 others injured, while more than 4,000 livestock were lost to wildlife attacks.
Human wildlife conflict hotspots in the country include Binga, Hwange, Chiredzi, Hurungwe, Mbire, Muzarabani, Nyaminyami, Chipinge, Gokwe North, Gokwe South, Tsholotsho, Bulilima and Kusile districts. Habitat encroachment, climate change, population growth and inadequate barriers between communities and wildlife have been blamed for the increase in human-wildlife conflict.
Wildlife Conservation Action works in the Nyaminyami and Binga districts, which are part of the Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA TFCA). They also work in Mbire district along the border with Mozambique and Mana Pools National Park, a UNESCO World Heritage site with the only floodplain ecosystem left in the Middle Zambezi. The area which also forms part of the Zimbabwe-Mozambique-Zambia (ZIMOZA) TFCA is a human-wildlife conflict hotspot, especially for elephants and lions.
Over the years, villagers in Mbire District who have lost livestock to lions have fought back. Lions have been killed as communities defended themselves and their livestock.
Securing livestock, saving lions
A lion and lioness in the wild. Credit: Moreangels Mbizah
Losing a single cow to a lion is a loss of family income of an average three months in Mbire District. In general people earn an average monthly wage of $108, and a cow sells for an average of $300, said Mbizah, who is among the few Black African women to have founded a conservation organisation.
Many families keep livestock for income and food. For a farmer with just five cows, protecting the animals is also protecting lions – a paradox that got Mbizah thinking.
Mbizah – who, as part of her PhD studies, famously tracked “Cecil the Lion” before it was killed in 2015, sparking global criticism – has used community leadership and low-tech innovation of solar-powered “lion lights” and mobile cattle kraals to protect $2.3 million worth of local livestock.
She said the interventions promoted in the community to reduce human-wildlife conflict are non-lethal and climate smart, such as holistic livestock management, use of mobile bomas, beekeeping and chilli farming, and sustainable agriculture.
“Our programme has been successful because of our relationship with the community and engaging them as guardians for the environment. We looked at the traditional way of kraaling that people have been using for generations and how they can strengthen that so the livestock is protected overnight from lion attacks,” Mbizah said.
Her organisation has helped farmers build lion-proof bomas for their cattle and raised kraals for their goats. These kraaling methods have reduced lion attacks on livestock.
In addition, Community Guardians, whom Mbizah calls the bedrock of her organisation, have been recruited and trained on detecting lions before they attack. Young women and men use specialised equipment which alerts them to lion movements near the community and are able to move the predators away safely.
Ruth Kamuchato, from Mapini Village in Mbire District, says growing up seeing lions attacking livestock motivated her to train as a community guardian. She wanted to understand how it was possible to protect lions and livestock at the same time.
“I feel good about working as a community guardian, but it was difficult in the beginning to appreciate people and wildlife thriving together because of the fear of lions, which are dangerous animals,” said Kamuchato. “When lions kill livestock or threaten people, the first feeling is that animals are our enemy, but after training and working in conservation, I started seeing the bigger picture that lions are not bad – they are just trying to survive too.”
A community guardian installing a lion light monitoring unit. Credit: Moreangels Mbizah
Another Community Guardian, Knowledge Chiriga (31) from Nebiri Village Ward 7, in Nyaminyami District, says protecting lions was a solution to the human-wildlife conflict experienced in his village.
“I grew up in the Nebiri village, which is about 7 km from Matusadonha National Park, and have experienced a lot of human-wildlife conflict since my early childhood, and then I had no hope of finding a programme that would relieve the community from the challenge we had with lions,” Chiriga said, admitting he jumped at the opportunity to train as a community guardian under the Wildlife Conservation Action.
“Lions are part of our ecosystem and our heritage, so protecting them doesn’t mean ignoring danger, but finding ways to keep both people and lions safe,” Chiriga said. “Now I feel proud because I am helping my community to stay safe. With better safety measures we can live alongside lions.”
Lweetelelo Mugande (29) from Chitongo village, Ward 17 in Binga District, said it was difficult in the beginning for the community to accept her role in conserving lions, as some people asked why protect animals that hurt them.
“But over time, as we showed up during conflicts, we helped set up mobile bomas and explained how conservation can bring jobs and support; attitudes started to change,” she said.
“Now many community members call us when there’s a problem. They see that we are from the same village and that we have livestock and families here and that we are trying to find solutions together. Trust is growing, but we still have a lot of awareness work to do.”
Cattle inside a predator-proof mobile boma in Zimbabwe. Credit: Moreangels mbizah
Mbizah received the 2026 Whitley Award for her work in saving lions through a community-led model. The award, recognising conservation leaders across the world, will enable Mbizah to expand the coexistence model of conservation to other districts in the country.
“Local communities have a cultural connection to and respect for the wildlife, but that comes with risks, and this is where the challenge is,” Mbizah tells IPS. “If we can reduce these risks, people can tolerate the presence of wildlife in their communal land. Where there is conflict, people do not want lions because they impact their lives, livelihood and livestock.”
Lion populations in Africa are under threat. Over 90% of their historic range has been lost in recent years. The African lion (Panthera leo) is classified as a threatened species and listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
There has been a significant lion population decline of approximately 43% over the past 21 years with an estimated 25,000 individuals remaining in the wild in Africa. The loss of habitat, the decline of prey and human-wildlife conflict, where the lions have been killed in retaliation for livestock losses, are key drivers to the reduction in lion population.
Mbizah highlights the misconception that conservation is separate from development. Her work is at the intersection of conservation and community development.
“We help communities to protect wildlife by improving their livelihoods,” she explained. “If communities are doing well, they are more likely to be involved in conservation and to protect the wildlife around them. We cannot just protect the species without protecting the people that are also protecting these species.”
At a time when Africa’s lion population is threatened, Zimbabwe has maintained healthy populations thanks to its strong conservation programmes. Mbizah’s conservation approach is a model for protecting predators without impoverishing the people who live in its environment.
“Protecting lives and livelihoods ultimately protects lions too,” Mbizah said.
IPS UN Bureau Report
ROME, Sep 9 2026 (IPS) - Observing some of the changes over the last year and a half in the Government of the USA, one question that comes to mind is whether the greatest democracy in the world turning into a dictatorship? And, if so, how is this possible in a country with one of the most articulate and thoughtful constitutions ever written –a constitution which clearly sets out checks and balances precisely to avoid undue concentration of power.
Daud Khan
First an amusing anecdote from the past on the topic on the US Constitution.
Kurt Friedrich Gödel – mathematician, cosmologist, and philosopher – was one of the greatest minds of the last century. After the takeover of Austria by Hitler, Gödel, who was an Austrian national, was targeted by the Nazis. In 1939 he moved to the USA and ended up at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton where his good friend, Einstein, was based.
After the war, in 1947, Gödel decided to apply for US citizenship. This involved, inter alia, an examination on the Constitution of the USA. As could be expected of someone of his intellect, Gödel did not study the document as others would – trying to memorize the main points and maybe reading some commentaries. He made a careful and thorough review and found what he called an “inner contradiction”. He told Einstein and Oskar Morgenstern, another friend at the Institute, about this flaw. A flaw that would allow the U.S.A. to legally become a fascist state!
At the citizenship exam, presided over by a Federal judge, and with Morgenstern and Einstein as witnesses, everything went smoothly until Gödel was asked by the judge where he was from. Gödel explained that he was from Austria, a country that had been a republic, but had a constitution that allowed it to become a dictatorship.
The judge commented that thankfully this could not happen in the USA. due to its constitution. Gödel response was basically that it could happened that he could “prove it”. Luckily, the judge was perceptive enough to understand what was going on – that this clearly brilliant man was going to take him into a discussion that would prove complex and complicated. He did not pursue the matter of the Constitution any further, moved on to other routine questions, came up with positive response to the application for citizenship.
Gödel never wrote up his findings on the “inner contradiction”; neither did Morgenstern or Einstein. Most likely, the inner contradiction had to with Article V of the Constitution that sets out the procedures for changing the constitution – but without setting any substantive limits. So progressive change in Article V could change the constitution to make the USA a dictatorship.
But coming to the present.
I have just finished the book “Regime Change” by Haberman and Swan. According to the authors, President Trump has managed to bend the entire Government of the USA, and its institutions, to implementing his wishes. Congress and the Senate no longer act as a separate pillar of Government, providing checks and balances on the executive power of the President; likewise, the courts, which have progressively been filled with Trump nominees, may hem and haw, but have largely not provided a firm barrier to him. The top universities in the world, such as Colombia, have caved in to his demands. Law firms have forked out millions to stay onside and media companies have taken off the air the shows that criticized or made fun of President Trump. Even iconic cultural institutions such as the Smithsonian Institute and the Kennedy Center have had to make changes at his behest.
Needless to say, there has been pushback. The Supreme Court struck down several initiatives, such as those on tariffs. However, the administration has been creative to work around these, using laws and regulations designed for other times and other situations. Others have also resisted. Harvard University lead a spirited fight against the bullying by the President’s henchmen; several famous artists refused to perform at the Kennedy Center after it was renamed the Trump and Kennedy Center; and many journalists, despite repeated insults and demeaning comments from President at press conferences, continue to write articles and OpEds that criticize the President’s actions and decisions
But despite the opposition, it is difficult to ignore how easily authoritarianism has taken root in such an open and liberal society as the USA. And, it has been done not by changing the constitutions, not by overthrowing institutions, and not by a coup d’état. Rather it has been done by browbeating, insulting and bullying people who run the very institution that should set limits on Presidential action.
And this leads to the next question: How was it possible that people who are among richest, the most powerful, the best informed, and the most qualified, not only allowed themselves to be subject to such harassment but actually went on to do what was asked of them? Was it that they wanted to accumulate more wealth and power? Was it the fear of being excluded from the “power circles” that matter?
Whatever, the reason, surely they are aware of what they are doing? Surely they understand that their actions ware undermining democracy, liberalism and the rule of law – values that underpinned the domestic and international order that led to an unprecedented period of growth and peace. Surely they know that silence and not speaking is tantamount to complicity?
Daud Khan is a retired UN staff based in Rome. He has degrees in economics from LSE and Oxford, where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from Imperial College London.
IPS UN Bureau
LONDON, Sep 8 2026 (IPS) - My name is Paul Divakar Namala. I am the Executive Director of The Inclusivity Project and Convenor of the Global Forum of Communities Discriminated on Work and Descent. My work focuses on communities whose social status, occupations and exclusion are inherited across generations through caste, analogous hierarchies and systems rooted in traditional slavery.
Durban also taught us that affected communities must speak for themselves. They must not be treated merely as victims or sources of testimony, but as human rights defenders and leaders who define the problem and shape the solution
I am a Dalit. Dalits were historically treated as “untouchable” and placed at the bottom of, or outside, the caste hierarchy. This can shape every part of life: access to a common water source, where a child sits at school, where a family may live, what work a person is expected to perform and whether others will eat with or even be seen with them.
Poverty is widespread in South Asia, but its burden falls disproportionately on Dalits because caste restricts access to land, education, dignified employment, public services and political power.
Inherited hierarchies remain deeply entrenchedAcross South Asia, constitutional guarantees and democratic institutions coexist with caste discrimination and practices of untouchability.
These persist in villages and cities, and in public institutions, private workplaces and corporations. Dalits may face threats or violence for asserting land rights, entering places of worship, marrying across caste, accessing common resources, seeking education or standing for elected office.
Dalits in South Asia are not alone. Roma communities in Europe and beyond, Burakumin in Japan, Haratine and other communities affected by traditional slavery in the Sahel, Osu communities in Nigeria, Quilombola communities in Brazil and other communities in Latin America experience distinct histories and realities.
They should not be collapsed into a single category. Yet many face structurally connected patterns: inherited stigma and social status, endogamy, segregation in housing and education, exclusion from land and decent work, confinement to dangerous or degrading occupations, trafficking and forced labour, and backlash violence when they resist. We describe these peoples, in all their diversity, as Communities Discriminated on Work and Descent, or CDWD.
Reconnecting with my identityWhere I grew up in India, my family faced repeated attacks as we asserted our rights, including rights over public land. When I was 21, a petrol-bomb attack took the life of my mother.
Only as I grew older did I understand how much of what happened to my family was connected to caste. My father taught me that our purpose should not be limited to seeking justice for ourselves; we had to dismantle the structures that allow such abuses to continue. That teaching guided me away from vengeance and towards challenging the social norms and caste structures that treat some human beings as inferior, exploit their vulnerability and assign them a life of servitude.
Together with my spouse, who came from a different caste, I helped build a community of human rights defenders. For too long, Dalits were portrayed only as victims or survivors. We are also organisers, advocates and defenders of human rights. This work began more than four decades ago, when I was in my twenties.
In 1998, together with leaders from across India, we formed the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights. We wanted caste-based discrimination and violence to be documented and discussed nationally and internationally. Looking back, I realise how groundbreaking that effort was, especially with so few resources.
Bringing caste to DurbanWhen we learned that the United Nations was organising a World Conference Against Racism, our immediate response was: “We have to be there.” We were new to these international processes. We contacted people working on caste discrimination and were invited to a preparatory meeting in Bellagio that helped shape the agenda for Durban.
At Bellagio, many participants supported putting caste on the agenda, including Pierre Sané, then Secretary General of Amnesty International. Civil society succeeded in making caste a major issue in the Durban process, but several Asian governments resisted its explicit inclusion in the final Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, arguing that it would target their countries or interfere in internal matters.
Although the final Declaration did not contain the explicit recognition we sought, what the movement achieved was extraordinary. Durban gave unprecedented international visibility to caste discrimination and helped move Dalit rights from the margins towards the centre of international human rights debate.
Dalit activists were present in large numbers, carrying documentation, testimonies, drums and protest across the conference grounds. People approached us and said, sometimes awkwardly but with genuine solidarity, “You are untouchable? Let me hug you.” Those encounters showed both how unfamiliar the issue was internationally and how quickly human connection could challenge the stigma imposed upon us.
Activists protest caste and descent-based discrimination during the World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa, held from 31 August to 7 September 2001. Placards call attention to caste, racism and the struggle for Dalit rights. Credit: NCDHR
Over the years, we have connected with communities and advocates in Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Niger, Mauritania and Nigeria, with Roma movements across Europe and beyond, and with Quilombola and other communities in Latin America.
Their histories are different, but their struggles reveal how inherited status, stigmatised work and exclusion can reinforce one another across generations. Working together makes these structures visible and prevents governments and institutions from excusing them in the name of culture or tradition.
Durban also taught us that affected communities must speak for themselves. They must not be treated merely as victims or sources of testimony, but as human rights defenders and leaders who define the problem and shape the solution. Solidarity does not require us to claim that every oppression is identical. It requires us to respect distinct histories while recognising common structures of dehumanisation and standing together against them.
The fight is far from over. We are working for stronger international recognition, including comprehensive CERD guidance and, ultimately, a Declaration on the Rights of Communities Discriminated on Work and Descent.
Yet the real test is always on the ground. International declarations have meaning only when they change the life of a woman confronting untouchability, a sanitation worker demanding safe and dignified work, a Roma child resisting school segregation, or a Haratine family seeking freedom, land and equality.
Learn more about racial justice with Amnesty International’s online course.
Excerpt:
The third UN Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in 2001 was a watershed moment for millions across the world. Seven thousand people representing governments and civil society from 170 countries gathered in Durban, South Africa. Led by countries in the Global South, the Durban Conference challenged the idea that human rights is a Western concept, recognized the historical roots of contemporary forms of racism and called on States to repair the lasting consequences of colonialism and slavery. While the US and Israel withdrew from the Conference, the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action were adopted, both of which became foundational documents for the global fight against racism. But with racism still very much alive, we spoke with activists about their struggles and hopes.
ROME, Sep 8 2026 (IPS) - The world’s agrifood systems are under mounting pressure from economic uncertainty, climate change and persistent inequalities. Farmers, rural communities and the most vulnerable are bearing the heaviest burden. We must act faster and scale practical, proven solutions.
The United Nations Day for South-South Cooperation celebrates more than solidarity. It recognizes the ideas, innovation and shared commitment emerging from the Global South. It also reminds us that cooperation among developing countries and with their partners is essential to achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Countries of the Global South are not merely recipients of development support; they are contributors of knowledge, innovation and investment.
Knowledge from the Global South is rooted in practical experience and tested under real-world conditions. Triangular cooperation can amplify its impact by bringing in financing or technical expertise from developed countries, multilateral organizations and other partners - while keeping cooperation led and owned by countries of the South
For more than 40 years, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has helped countries share expertise and technologies through South-South and Triangular Cooperation (SSTC). This cooperation has strengthened food security and improved livelihoods across the Global South.
SSTC works because countries that have faced similar development challenges can share relevant and adaptable solutions.
Knowledge from the Global South is rooted in practical experience and tested under real-world conditions. Triangular cooperation can amplify its impact by bringing in financing or technical expertise from developed countries, multilateral organizations and other partners – while keeping cooperation led and owned by countries of the South.
Above all, SSTC is built on partnership, not dependency. Every country has knowledge to offer, and FAO has seen that knowledge translated into practical results.
The long-standing partnership between FAO and China is one example. Since the 1990s, more than 1,200 Chinese experts have supported agricultural development in developing countries, sharing field-tested expertise in crop production, aquaculture, livestock and irrigation.
Through the FAO–China South-South Cooperation Programme and related initiatives, countries have strengthened technical capacity, increased agricultural productivity and improved livelihoods. The results show how targeted technical cooperation can deliver benefits far beyond national borders.
Other partnerships are producing results. For 18 years, the Brazil–FAO South-South Cooperation Programme has enabled countries across Latin America and the Caribbean to exchange knowledge. Since 2021, the FAO–Türkiye Partnership Programmes have supported countries in Central Asia.
In Central Asia’s Fergana Valley, FAO has also joined forces with the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation, with support from the Russian Federation, to help Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan advance climate-smart agriculture. Farmer Field Schools, improved soil and water management, appropriate technologies and value-chain diversification show how SSTC can strengthen farmers’ livelihoods.
These examples reflect a wider transformation. Across the Global South, countries are not only receiving development support; they are contributing knowledge, innovation and investment.
FAO’s role as a trusted convener and technical facilitator is to connect these experiences with countries seeking solutions. That is why we upgraded the SSTC Gateway: to broaden dialogue, gather feedback and share Global South’s innovations, knowledge and experience.
This role has never been more important. FAO’s expanding SSTC portfolio reflects growing demand for this approach.
From rice value chains and digital agriculture to sustainable apiculture and support for Small Island Developing States, SSTC is mobilizing knowledge, resources and partnerships to deliver measurable impact.
Looking ahead, we must ensure that SSTC delivers stronger, measurable results for farmers, rural communities, women, youth and future generations. Women farmers, in particular, have a critical role in transforming agrifood systems.
FAO’s South-South and Triangular Cooperation Division will continue working with Members and partners to bring these solutions forward, adapt them to local contexts and help build agrifood systems that are more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable. As demand for SSTC grows, FAO will expand partnerships, mobilize investment and make proven solutions easier to adapt and scale.
When the Global South leads, the world benefits. When countries learn from one another, invest in one another and shape solutions together, we move closer to better production, better nutrition, a better environment and a better life for all, leaving no one behind.
Excerpt:
Hua Yang is Director, South-South and Triangular Cooperation Division, FAO
CASTRIES, Saint Lucia, Sep 8 2026 (IPS) - The world is now expected to breach the 1.5 degrees Celsius warming limit that small island states have spent years defending as a threshold for survival.
For people in the Caribbean, Pacific and Indian Ocean, the consequences will not begin only when islands disappear beneath the sea. They include saltwater intrusion into freshwater supplies and agricultural land, coral reef loss, more damaging coastal flooding and mounting pressure on already limited resources for recovery and adaptation.
That is the stark warning emerging from the United Nations Environment Programme’s Limiting Overshoot report, launched on September 2. The report examines a future in which average global temperatures rise beyond 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels before, potentially, being brought back down.
The report concludes that the world is now expected to cross the 1.5°C threshold. What is still uncertain is how far above it temperatures will rise, how long they will remain there and how quickly they can eventually be brought back down.
Dr Shobha Maharaj, a Caribbean scientist and one of the lead authors of the report’s Chapter Four, says the expected breach raises a new set of questions for small island states.
“For years, the goal was to avoid crossing 1.5°C. But this report now says very clearly that we are going to cross it,” she said. “The question now is how deep is this overshoot going to go? How long is it going to last? And how do we live through it while we work to bring temperatures back down to 1.5°C?”
No buffer
The Paris Agreement committed countries to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. Small island states were among the strongest advocates for the 1.5°C target, arguing that higher levels of warming would pose an existential threat.
“For small islands, it is because we live closest to the thresholds,” Maharaj said. “In a wealthy, temperate country, an additional half-degree of warming would still carry serious costs. But on a small island, it could determine whether a reef recovers or not, or whether an aquifer stays fresh or turns salty for good.”
“There is no higher ground to move to, no deep treasury to draw on and no second reef when one of them dies,” she added. There is no higher ground to move to, no deep treasury to draw on and no second reef when one of them dies.
The danger is not limited to dramatic disasters, she said. Habitability can erode quietly.
“Saltwater can contaminate groundwater and soil. A kitchen garden that has fed a family for generations may stop producing. High tides can reach roads, homes and public infrastructure even on clear days. When reefs die, communities lose not only fish and tourism income but also natural barriers that weaken waves before they reach the shore.”
“None of this requires an island to vanish,” Maharaj said. “Habitability begins to collapse first, quietly, through water, food and the loss of the everyday things that make a place home. By the time submergence becomes the headline, people have often already been forced to leave.”
The report warns that sea-level rise will continue for centuries and that falling global temperatures would not reverse all the damage accumulated during overshoot. Some ecosystem, biodiversity and glacier losses would persist, meaning a return to 1.5°C would not restore the world that existed before the threshold was crossed.
Small Islands, Different Realities
SIDS are often discussed as a single group, but Maharaj cautioned that their circumstances and options differ.
Pacific atoll states face acute threats because of their extremely low elevation and vulnerable freshwater lenses. Some Pacific islands are also experiencing land subsidence, compounding the effects of rising seas.
Several Caribbean states have higher terrain, but much of their population, infrastructure and economic activity is concentrated along narrow coastal areas. Indian Ocean states face their own combination of risks.
“What we share is a structural predicament, narrow room for retreat, limited finances and economies that are exposed to single shocks,” Maharaj said.
But she warned against transferring solutions indiscriminately between regions.
“The right response in Tuvalu, for example, is not automatically the right response in Barbados or the Maldives.”
Adaptation Buys Time, Not Immunity
For decades, adaptation has been presented as the principal defence for countries already living with climate impacts. But the UNEP report says many existing approaches were designed for gradual, one-directional warming, not temperatures that rise, plateau and may eventually decline.
Strategies fixed to one set of conditions could become ineffective or even increase vulnerability as conditions change. The report calls instead for adaptation that is flexible, forward-looking and capable of evolving throughout the different stages of overshoot.
“Adaptation buys time, not immunity,” Maharaj said.
She said the large gap between adaptation planning and implementation may provide a narrow opportunity to revise projects before they are built for conditions they can no longer withstand.
“We have a lot of plans, but many of them have not yet been implemented,” she said. “That gives us a window, although not a large one, to recalibrate those plans for a post-1.5°C world.”
That shift will require money before disasters strike.
Many developing countries are already trying to adapt, recover from extreme events, transform their economies and reduce emissions while servicing heavy debt. Climate finance, Maharaj said, arrives too slowly and is often supplied through loans that add to that burden.
“A disaster drains public funds into emergency response and reconstruction. That leaves less money to reduce the risks posed by the next event, which then hits a weakened country even harder. Each turn of that wheel reduces the very capacity we need to climb out of it.”
Breaking the cycle will require grants, upfront financing and investment in prevention, rather than repeatedly paying to rebuild after losses.
A Deeper Injustice
Overshoot also raises questions of climate justice, particularly for countries with little historical responsibility for the emissions driving warming.
“The harms concentrated during this period, especially those that turn out to be irreversible, fall hardest on the countries least responsible for the emissions that caused them,” Maharaj said.
Maharaj said contributing to the report carried a particular weight for her as a Caribbean scientist.
“For those of us from these islands, 1.5°C was never simply a number on a chart. It was the line we were told represented survival. It was the line at which we were told survival was still possible,” she said. “Now, helping to write the science of what lies beyond that line is a heavy thing, both personally and professionally.”
Crossing 1.5°C, she said, represents “a profound failure of collective will” but not permission to give up.
“How high the peak rises, how long we remain there and how quickly temperatures are brought back down are all still ours to decide,” Maharaj said. “Every one of those choices will be measured in lives and livelihoods here in our region and across small islands.”
For small islands, limiting the overshoot could mean the difference between mounting losses and holding on to the places people call home.
IPS UN Bureau Report
Excerpt:
The world is expected to breach a temperature threshold long regarded by small island states as a line of survival. A new UNEP report examines what comes next and why every fraction of a degree still matters.
TOKYO, Japan, Sep 8 2026 (IPS) - A symposium examining Japan’s death penalty through the lens of human dignity was held on September 5 at Joseph Hall of St. Ignatius Church in Yotsuya, Tokyo.
Brochure of the Symposium titled, “Rethinking the Death Penalty: With Human Dignity in View.” Credit: The Association of Religious Leaders and Scholars Considering the Death Penalty
It was supported by eight organizations: the Jesuit Social Center, the Conference on Religion in the Modern World (CORMOS), the Japan Buddhist Federation, the International Institute for the Study of Religions, the Sophia University Institute of Grief Care, the Japanese Committee of the World Conference of Religions for Peace (WCRP), the Soka Gakkai Peace Committee, and the Institute of Engaged Buddhism.
The gathering brought together legal scholars, journalists, a bereaved family member, a former prison officer, younger participants and religious figures, each approaching Japan’s death penalty from a different experience and perspective.
Religious studies scholar Susumu Shimazono stressed that the purpose was not to decide whether capital punishment should be abolished, but to listen and learn.
The questions extended beyond punishment: how to support victims, prevent wrongful convictions and violence, and hold institutions accountable for decisions over life and death.
The international picture is mixed. Amnesty International reported that 145 countries had abolished capital punishment in law or practice by the end of 2025. Yet recorded executions rose to at least 2,707 that year, excluding unverified totals from China, North Korea and Vietnam.
Japan’s Justice Ministry has defended retention by citing public opinion and serious crime. But public support and justification under human rights principles are different questions.
Safeguards Before Irreversible Punishment
Prof. Makoto Ida. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri / INPS Japan
He also distinguished wrongful convictions from sentencing errors: even where guilt is established, overlooked mitigating circumstances may lead to death rather than life imprisonment.
He also expressed his view that hanging constitutes cruel punishment under Japan’s Constitution.
“Immediate abolition of the death penalty is not the only option,” he said.
Stronger safeguards, reviewing execution methods and temporarily suspending executions were possible steps. Ida argued that victims’ demands for punishment could not themselves justify capital punishment, while acknowledging their grief and anger.
Deterrence required equal caution. A 2012 U.S. National Research Council review found that the studies it examined could not establish whether capital punishment increased, reduced or had no effect on homicide rates. That was not proof of no effect.
Ida nevertheless urged that public fears be taken seriously. Reform must address organized crime and reoffending, rather than simply replace one punishment with another.
The Human Cost of Execution
Keiko Horikawa. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri / INPS Japan
She also recalled interviewing a former judicial research official involved in preparing the Supreme Court ruling underlying the Nagayama standard, the factors courts consider when choosing between death and life imprisonment. He disputed treating those factors as a formula for execution.
Horikawa’s book Kyokaishi (The Prison Chaplain) follows a Buddhist priest who accompanied condemned prisoners. She recalled his words:
“No one has ever been made happy by an execution.”
This was his observation, not a verdict on every bereaved family’s experience. It nevertheless raised a crucial distinction: completing a sentence does not necessarily end the suffering surrounding a crime.
Horikawa called for suspending executions and openly examining victims’ support, prison officers’ psychological burdens, costs and hanging itself.
A Bereaved Sister’s Unanswered Question
Nobuko. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri / INPS Japan
“I want to prevent reoffending and stop more people from experiencing this grief,” she said.
She resisted being assigned to either camp. Some bereaved people want execution; others want offenders to live with their crimes; still others cannot bear to think about the case.
“I think each is an expression of the grief that person carries,” she said.
Nobuko acknowledged that offenders retain human rights. “Recognizing the human rights of offenders does not, in itself, deny the human rights of victims.”
But who addresses the rights taken from those killed, and the needs of families left behind? Support should not depend on whether a family favors capital punishment.
The United Nations’ 1985 declaration on justice for crime victims encompasses access to justice, fair treatment, restitution, compensation and assistance. Punishment alone is not the whole response.
Nobuko asked a further question: “What kind of society would prevent people from becoming offenders who face the death penalty?”
Her conversations with prisoners revealed experiences of abuse and isolation. Understanding those histories does not excuse crime. But punishment after violence cannot substitute for examining whether earlier support might have prevented it.
She has begun creating opportunities for parents to share experiences. That is her choice, not an obligation other bereaved families should be expected to shoulder. Prevention also requires institutions, not merely individual goodwill.
“I am neither for nor against the death penalty,” she said, describing her determination to keep thinking about life, guilt and suffering.
Toshio Sakamoto. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri / INPS Japan
Former prison officer Toshio Sakamoto argued that restrictions on outside contact make changes in condemned prisoners difficult for society to see.
He also recalled his long acquaintance with Iwao Hakamada, who spent decades under sentence of death before his acquittal at a retrial in 2024. The case raises questions about interrogation, evidence disclosure and timely remedies.
Trust in justice depends not only on the authority to decide, but on the ability to acknowledge and correct error before irreversible harm occurs.
He also questioned increasingly lengthy life imprisonment. Japan’s life sentences permit parole in law; the issue is how public safety, victims’ concerns and evidence of rehabilitation are assessed in practice.
For Sorane Sakihama, a graduate student from Okinawa, studying in France first challenged her assumption that capital punishment was justice for victims. International exchanges later brought her face to face with people affected by wrongful death sentences.
Invoking the Okinawan expression “Nuchi du takara” — life is the greatest treasure — she connected her opposition to execution with her opposition to war. She emphasized creating spaces where young people can discuss difficult issues without needing settled opinions.
Sorane Sakihama, a graduate student from Okinawa, speaks about how international dialogue and her encounters with people affected by wrongful death sentences shaped her views on capital punishment, during a symposium at St. Ignatius Church in Tokyo on September 5, 2026. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri / INPS Japan
From Dialogue to Accountability
SDGs Goal No 16.
Sustainable Development Goal 16 does not explicitly require abolition. It does call for reducing violence, protecting children, equal access to justice, accountable institutions and inclusive decision-making.
That provides a practical framework: Are victims receiving sustained support? Can doubtful convictions be effectively reviewed? Are prison staff’s burdens recognized? Is prevention reducing harm? Can citizens obtain the information needed to judge the system?
Disagreement over abolition need not prevent scrutiny of these questions.
Can people change? What does atonement mean? How should society support victims and prevent violence? How much power over life and death should the state possess?
A new dialogue on those questions began in a Tokyo church.
This article is brought to you by INPS Japan in collaboration with Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with UN ECOSOC.
IPS UN Bureau
SYDNEY, Sep 8 2026 (IPS) - It is nearly a year since the UN Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 2803 on 17 November, 2025, endorsing President Trump’s 20-point framework ostensibly designed to end the war in Gaza and create a roadmap for long-term stability. It is not clear what progress has been made. In August 2026 The Jerusalem Post reported “the IDF continues almost daily strikes in Gaza”, killing more than 1,200 Palestinians since the US-brokered ceasefire deal came into effect, seizing more territory, and continuing to restrict the movement of people and goods into and out of Gaza. Nickolay Mladenov, the UN High Representative on the Board of Peace, wrote in early August 2026 that “two days of strikes across Gaza have killed civilians and destroyed medical supplies that people depend on”. Ironically, this genocidal strike happened only a few days after a US-brokered Hamas disarmament deal, which Trump called, “a monumental step” towards peace and security.
Anis Chowdhury
In May 2026 the Board of Peace claimed in its report to the Security Council that the conditions for Palestinians in Gaza have improved. However, the claim contradicts the findings of the UN Commission of Inquiry, headed by Justice Muralidhar, that “Israeli authorities and security forces have deliberately targeted Palestinian children, resulting in genocide and atrocity crimes in the Gaza Strip and war crimes in the West Bank”.
Earlier in a Conference Room Paper published in September 2025, the Commission established that the Israeli authorities and security forces had committed and were continuing to commit genocidal acts with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinian group in Gaza. This is despite the International Court of Justice issuing three binding orders for provisional measures, detailing the catastrophic conditions in Gaza and risks of irreparable prejudice to the rights of the Palestinian group.
Echoing the Commission, speakers at the UNSC on 28 August 2026 warned that Gaza is at a total breaking point, under constant attack with 2 million people still trapped, despite the Trump-negotiated October 2025 ceasefire and the Board’s new peace plan. Athena Rayburn, Executive Director of the Association of International Development Agencies said, “success must be measured by whether the Board of Peace, international stabilization force and National Committee for the Administration of Gaza provide immediate protection for civilians; and in the long term, whether they move Gaza towards the required legal endpoint: The end of Israel’s unlawful presence and realization of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination”.
Exclusionary Board of (un)Peace
Following the UNSC endorsement, Trump launched “Board of Peace” on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum on 22 January 2026. Trump, the self-assumed Chair of the Board, believed, “This Board has the chance to be one of the most consequential bodies ever created … to end decades of suffering, stop generations of hatred and bloodshed, and forge a beautiful, everlasting, and glorious peace for that region”.
However, many, including senior US lawmakers, view the Board as Trump’s attempt to undermine the United Nations, which he has repeatedly criticised. The Board’s charter makes no reference to either Gaza or the UN even though the original UN mandate for the Board called for it to focus on Gaza’s reconstruction and to aid the 2.2 million Palestinians forcibly displaced by Israeli forces. Instead, according to its charter, the Board would “secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict”. The Board’s charter also envisions that it will endure beyond the end of 2027 – the expiry date of the UNSC’s endorsement – as will Trump’s stewardship over it
While Trump could potentially chair the Board for life, its membership is solely by Trump’s invitation and requiring at least US$1bn contribution. Palestine is not a member, but Israel and its prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu – who faces an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant over alleged war crimes in Gaza – are part of the board. Furthermore, a member of the Trump-appointed Executive Board is also Israel’s appointed representative in the US-led Civil Military Coordination Center tasked with humanitarian relief in Gaza.
Palestinians have been assigned to its lower-tier technocratic committee, while former UK prime minister and “war-criminal”, Tony Blair, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Trump’s long-time friend and real estate investor, Steve Witkoff, sit on the executive board along with US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio.
How can a so-called Peace Board so intertwined with the genocidal entities be entrusted to alleviate Palestinian suffering? Is it a surprise that the air strikes and other attacks on civilian areas in Gaza have intensified even damaging UN facilities? On 25 August 2026 Israeli forces forcibly entered UNRWA’s Kalandia Training Centre in East Jerusalem and unlawfully seized it, ignoring the fact that it is an inviolable UN premise immune from any form of interference.
Unaccountable and whimsical
Meanwhile, Marco Rubio disclosed during his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently that the Trump administration had decided to transform the Board of Peace from a public international organization made up of member states (akin to the United Nations) into an international nongovernmental organization (INGO). He gave no indication as to how and when that decision was made, violating UNSC resolution 2803 which warranted that the Board would have international legal personality and be subject to international law as a multilateral organisation.
Transforming the Board into an INGO may better conform to the Board’s exclusionary structure, which gives Trump ultimate decision-making authority, including over financial matters. Rubio explicitly said during his testimony that the US Congress can have oversight only on the money that the US puts in while he was vague about the fiduciary arrangement of the Board’s finance. In the meantime, investigative journalism uncovered serious financial irregularities, opacity and conflict of interest involving Kushner, Witkoff and some prominent Israeli entities.
Alarmingly, making the Board an INGO removes member states’ power to steer the Board and to mitigate the Trump administration’s worst impulses. Trump’s inner circle will continue to call the shots, with Kushner saying the Board will be run “like we do [it] in the private sector”, while the Board is being directed by figures on the Israeli and US political right.
UNSC must disendorse (un)Peace Board
The members of the UNSC voted in favour of endorsing Trump’s Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict and the Board of Peace as a pragmatic step despite some trepidation due to the plan’s vague terms and lack of a timetable associated with its phases that would culminate in a political horizon for Palestinians. They hoped that Trump, given his relationship with Netanyahu – an alleged war-criminal – would be able to stop him from committing genocide of the Palestinians.
But Trump continues to condone Israel’s ceasefire violations as intensified Israeli attacks kill thousands of innocent Palestinians. Trump and his so-called Board of Peace failed to condemn Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir who openly called for killing “30 to 40” Palestinians in Gaza nightly. Nor have they condemned Chief Sephardic Rabbi David Yosef who asserted, “there is no such thing as a Palestinian people” and Palestinians have “no rights”, despite a global outcry.
Meanwhile Trump’s Board of Peace dismissed pragmatic approaches to Hamas’ disarmament. Instead, it has promoted ideas of a hyper-developed “new Gaza” paying little heed to Palestinians’ wishes or to their history. These neo-colonial plans undermine any real prospect of self-determination.
In light of the Trump plan’s manifest failures and the Peace Board’s violations of UNSC mandate, including its financial impropriety, UNSC members should urgently force a vote calling for the withdrawal of the Council’s endorsement. Failing to do so would allow Trump and Israel to use the alleged comprehensive peace plan to provide a cover for Israel’s genocide, while the self-styled Board of Peace undermines the United Nations.
Anis Chowdhury, Emeritus Professor, Western Sydney University (Australia). He held senior UN positions in Bangkok and New York and served as Special Assistant to the Chief Advisor for Finance (with the status and rank of State Minister) in the Professor Yunus-led Interim Government. E-mail: anis.z.chowdhury@gmail.com; a.chowdhury@westernsydney.edu.au
IPS UN Bureau