The Human Consciousness Now...Our World in the Midst of Becoming...to What? Observe, contemplate Now.
Nov 11 2026 (IPS) -
CIVICUS discusses France’s student protest movement with Aminata and Mariam Touré, two sisters involved in the protests. Aminata is a member of the Popular Youth Front (Front de la Jeunesse Populaire), a collective of young people from working-class neighbourhoods.
Aminata and Mariam Touré
Why did you decide to take action?
In our secondary schools, we have holes in the walls, missing chairs, toilets without doors, overcrowded classrooms and absent teachers. Students completing secondary education also face constant pressure from Parcoursup, the national higher education admissions platform.
During the last heatwave, in Saint-Denis, in the northern suburbs of Paris, pupils fainted during their exams because there was no air conditioning and it was too hot in the exam halls. Pupils who were ill were forced to attend lessons, as these were the only days when teachers were present. With no school nurses on hand, they were unaware they were contagious and passed viruses on to each other.
These catastrophic situations only affect poor regions, rural areas and France’s overseas territories, which are even poorer. You never hear about this in central Paris, where the government concentrates its budget. A parliamentary report has shown that the state spends less per pupil in Seine-Saint-Denis than elsewhere. The result is that every child there loses, on average, the equivalent of a whole year’s schooling over the course of their education. For the start of the 2024 school year, the Seine-Saint-Denis inter-union group estimated there was a shortfall of 5,000 teachers, 2,200 support staff for pupils with disabilities and 175 senior education advisers. This is effectively a two-tier education system.
We’ve been raising these issues with our head teachers, but the government is doing nothing, apart from passing pointless laws. Blocking access to our schools was the only way to make ourselves heard. Thanks to that, we’re now the focus of national and global attention.
How did the movement spread?
The blockades began as early as 31 August in overseas territories. It’s just that, due to media censorship, we always find out too late. The movement then spread to Créteil, in the Paris suburbs, and then to other working-class areas of the Île-de-France region, notably Essonne, Hauts-de-Seine, Seine-Saint-Denis and Val-de-Marne.
At first, everyone blockaded their own school. Then, solidarity among school pupils and support from trade unions brought us together on the streets for a common cause. School and student unions, and the General Confederation of Labour, one of France’s main trade union confederations, helped organise the protests and put forward our demands. Other movements joined us, including the gilets jaunes, the social protest movement that emerged in 2018. This solidarity proved decisive for each and every one of us.
Faced with the state’s contempt, the movement went national. Even privileged young people became aware of their educational privileges and the need to draw attention to this inhumane situation. The media have shown this. Attention paid to the blockades increased tenfold when students also blockaded elite institutions such as the University of Assas, the Catholic Institute of Paris and the Parisian secondary schools Louis-le-Grand and Montaigne.
What are your concerns about the national budget?
We are calling for more funding for education. The government is investing heavily in defence. The defence budget has risen from €32.2 billion (approx. US$34.8 billion) in 2017 to almost €54 billion (approx. US$58.3 billion) in 2026, and is set to reach €64 billion (approx. US$69.1 billion) in 2027. It will have almost doubled in a decade. But for education, the government is content with a mere increase of €200 million (approx. US$216 million) in 2026, while cutting thousands of jobs. This is not investment. It is a publicity stunt.
At the same time, the government is increasing pressure on people while easing the burden on big business. Life is becoming increasingly difficult. All the movements agree on one point: we must invest in education. However, the government continues to arm the police on a massive scale while depriving the education sector of the resources it needs to function.
How do you respond to the looting and violence of 17 October?
We are against all violence, whether it comes from the police or protesters. Looting is regrettable, but it is even more regrettable that greater importance is attached to insured shops than to people who lose a limb or the use of a sense. As a citizen, when I see a young person who has looted a shop receiving a harsher sentence than a man convicted of raping his daughter, my anger redoubles.
The state’s response is so violent that it unfortunately drives some people to loot even more, as this is the only time when anyone looks at you or listens to you. But these excesses backfire on us. The media use them to stifle our demands, which diverts attention from our struggles and weakens the movement.
The movement is torn between those who seem to want revolution and those who want peace, but one cannot exist without the other. Our history books teach us that all France’s great advances have stemmed from revolts, destruction and riots. We don’t find these tools in some shadowy online network or from belligerent leaders. We find them in our textbooks. Nevertheless, like the majority of protesters, we will continue to mobilise peacefully until the government listens to us.
How do you view the police response?
It’s a disgrace. We feel as though we’re at war. Police officers hit, shove, insult and threaten us. One slogan has appeared on several placards, referring to the police’s riot units: ‘We send out SOS signals, we get the CRS instead’. That’s where we’re at. Trust in the authorities was never as low as it has been since the protests began.
These aren’t isolated incidents. It’s a doctrine. Since the gilets jaunes protests, the French approach to policing has been documented as one of Europe’s most brutal. Activist groups have recorded around 20 protesters who have lost an eye and several who have lost a hand, and in Marseille, a local, Zineb Redouane, died after being hit by a teargas canister.
Violence isn’t limited to blows with batons. On 17 October, I was on my period, and I was doused with teargas for no reason, while my friends and I were helping unprotected people, many of them tourists, with saline solution and milk. The next day, I felt excruciating pain in my stomach. I then discovered that many women exposed to teargas report menstrual cycle disturbances.
We are living in an authoritarian state, where violence reigns and the social contract has been broken. The most severe violence is that perpetrated by the state, because it’s supposed to protect us and be legitimate. Yet it maims us without a shred of empathy.
How do you view the president’s reaction?
President Emmanuel Macron’s speech following the protests was shameful, despicable and deeply disrespectful. When he demands we choose sides, then singles out the left as responsible, he shows that he’s not listening to us. Asking us to choose sides ignores the fact that we don’t want to be on his side. Pointing the finger at so-called culprits shows that he fails to grasp the extent of the damage he has caused and continues to cause.
In 2017, Macron was elected by claiming to speak for the people. Two years later, he introduced a series of measures that harmed workers. We see this even in housing policy. Cuts are being made to housing for poor people while multinationals get richer. This is a political choice.
The government should learn to respect its people, listen to them and consult them. We expect it to take action to improve conditions in secondary schools and for our views to be taken into account, because it’s our future’ at stake.
What impact do you hope to have on the 2027 presidential election?
We hope the candidates will talk more about the problems facing young people and propose tangible solutions. We want to show that secondary school pupils, too, can make their voices heard and that they must not be ignored simply because they are young. I hope all French people will be taken into account in the debates, and that we will stop talking about Islam and migrants and focus more on precarious living conditions, dignity and security. I won’t be able to vote, as I’ll still be 17. It will also be a chance to see whether those who do vote realise that their voice matters, both for them and for us.
In 2024, Macron dissolved the National Assembly following the victory of the far-right National Rally in the European elections. Then, even though the left came out on top in the snap general election, he appointed a right-wing government.
In the wake of the dissolution, we formed the Popular Youth Front, a collective rooted in working-class neighbourhoods, to put voting back at the heart of people’s concerns, as abstention rates are extremely high in those neighbourhoods. Our open letter was signed by over 6,000 young people from working-class neighbourhoods and rural areas. But it’s clear we must fight both against the far right, which is not yet in power, and against the government.
What the world sees as a spontaneous revolt by Gen Z is anything but spontaneous. These are exactly the demands we were putting forward in working-class neighbourhoods two years ago. This uprising is the predictable result of a slow, bipartisan abandonment of working-class and racialised young people. This abandonment is not the work of the far right that everyone fears, but of the centre that claims to be blocking its advance. The proof lies in its response. A government that responds to children with teargas and calls this ‘urban violence’ has already adopted the authoritarian reflex it claims to be protecting our country against.
CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.
One of those featured and photographed in this article is a minor. She appears with her parents’ consent, which was obtained in writing prior to the interview. Her name and all details that could identify her are included with her permission, as reconfirmed at every stage of the publication process.
GET IN TOUCH
Instagram
Mariam Touré/Instagram
SEE ALSO
Gen Z protests: new resistance rises CIVICUS | State of Civil Society Report 2026
France’s student protests: a new generation demands respect CIVICUS Lens 23.Oct.2026
India’s young people find their voice CIVICUS Lens 07.Aug.2026
This is the second article in a four-part series. The remaining two will follow.
I wish to warn distinguished readers that a distorted and unauthorized version of my first article, 'I Accuse', has been posted on the [https://www.thenewyorkernews.com] site.The original version, published by IPS, is available at [https://www.ipsnews.net/2026/11/i-accuse/].
ASSISI, Italy, Nov 11 2026 (IPS) - Eight decades after atomic bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world is confronting a new and potentially dangerous question: What happens when decisions involving human life increasingly pass from people to machines?
Community of Sant’Edigio
The meeting, organized by the Community of Sant’Egidio from Oct. 25 to 27, marked 40 years since Pope John Paul II brought representatives of the world’s major religions to Assisi to pray for peace.
This year’s theme, “Unarmed and Disarming Peace,” carried particular urgency. Nuclear arms control has weakened, military spending has reached record levels, and artificial intelligence is rapidly entering defense systems whose consequences remain difficult to predict.
The question was no longer simply whether humanity possessed the means to destroy itself. It was whether governments and societies retained the judgment to prevent those means from being used.
Katsuko Tanaka, Hibakusha from Hiroshima (Left). Credit: Beppe Raso/ Soka Gakkai
The human consequences of nuclear warfare formed the moral foundation of a forum devoted to disarmament and proliferation.
Katsuko Tanaka, also known as Toshiko Tanaka, a Hiroshima atomic bomb survivor, recalled the bombing of Aug. 6, 1945, when she was six years old.
Her account recalled a catastrophe that killed indiscriminately and left survivors carrying physical and psychological wounds for decades.
Archbishop Peter Michiaki Nakamura of Nagasaki, in his published remarks, drew on the legacy of Takashi Nagai, the physician and atomic bomb survivor who devoted his later life to peace.
Together, their perspectives challenged the language of nuclear deterrence, which measures security in terms of military capabilities rather than the lives potentially lost.
Susi Snyder, the Director of Programmes at ICAN. Credit: Community of Sant’Egidio / Assisi 2026
The expiration of the New START treaty between the United States and Russia in February, followed by the failure of the 2026 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference to reach consensus, has reinforced concerns about the future of nuclear restraint.
Attention is now turning to the first Review Conference of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, scheduled to begin in late November.
But disarmament advocates face a persistent obstacle: The governments possessing nuclear weapons largely remain outside the treaty.
Teaching a Generation Without Memories of War
Credit: Simone Giara per Senzatomica
Alessja Trama, representing the Be The Hope Foundation, an organization affiliated with the Italian Soka Gakkai, described in her prepared remarks the work of Senzatomica, an initiative that has organized exhibitions and educational activities on nuclear weapons in communities across Italy.
The campaign traces its inspiration to a 1957 declaration by Josei Toda, the second president of the Soka Gakkai, calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Its premise is that remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki must lead to public responsibility, particularly among younger generations who have no personal connection to the war.
Yet even as campaigners seek to reduce the threat from existing weapons, advances in artificial intelligence are transforming the nature of military power.
When Human Judgment Becomes Optional
At a separate forum titled “Humanity in the Age of Technology,” Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia warned that technological capabilities were advancing faster than the institutions meant to govern them.
Tiziana Catarci, an Italian artificial intelligence researcher, raised a critical distinction: placing a human in a decision-making process does not necessarily mean that person exercises meaningful control.
An operator may formally approve a machine-generated recommendation without fully understanding how it was produced or being able to challenge it.
Embedded gallery image from the Soka Gakkai Italy article ‘Ad Assisi la speranza come scelta di pace: la Soka Gakkai ai forum sul nucleare e sulla tecnologia’. Credit: Beppe Raso
In military operations, that gap could become deadly.
Catarci called for stronger oversight of AI systems and the prohibition of autonomous weapons capable of making lethal decisions without meaningful human control.
Embedded gallery image from the Soka Gakkai Italy article ‘Ad Assisi la speranza come scelta di pace: la Soka Gakkai ai forum sul nucleare e sulla tecnologia’. Credit: Beppe Raso
Nagaoka noted that AI is increasingly being embraced as a source of advice in everyday life in Japan, with some people turning to it for guidance when making deeply personal decisions about their lives.
One example he cited was the case of an elderly woman who turned to generative AI for advice about the medical treatment of her terminally ill husband.
For Nagaoka, the issue was not whether AI could provide useful information. It was whether reliance on such systems might gradually weaken the human willingness to make difficult moral judgments.
He warned particularly against delegating decisions about killing to autonomous weapons, advocating international rules to prohibit systems that independently select and attack human targets.
His argument extended beyond warfare to healthcare, where statistical predictions cannot replace compassion, personal choice and professional responsibility.
A Technology That Can Also Help
Other participants cautioned against viewing artificial intelligence solely as a threat.
Matt Vasey of the Gates Foundation argued that AI could improve access to healthcare, education and agricultural knowledge, especially in communities historically neglected by technological development.
But he also warned that people could voluntarily surrender moral responsibility to systems designed to make decisions easier.
Cisco executive Gianpaolo Barozzi emphasized the need to redesign work around human capabilities, while Rabbi Noam Marans of the American Jewish Committee distinguished the accumulation of information from the exercise of wisdom.
The speakers offered no single regulatory blueprint. They nevertheless returned repeatedly to the need for accountability, transparency and human judgment.
The gathering’s closing Peace Appeal connected these concerns to a broader agenda, urging that resources devoted to weapons be redirected toward food, water, education, healthcare and decent work.
It also identified nuclear threats, rearmament and artificial intelligence as challenges requiring international cooperation.
Closing ceremony. Credit: Community of Sant’Egidio / Assisi 2026
The message underscored a growing dilemma.
Humanity has developed technologies of extraordinary power. Yet the institutions and moral commitments needed to restrain their destructive uses have not necessarily kept pace.
From Hiroshima’s surviving witnesses to researchers confronting autonomous weapons, the warning emerging from Assisi was that security cannot be measured simply by what humanity is capable of building.
It must also be measured by what humanity is prepared to refuse.
This article is brought to you by INPS Japan in collaboration with Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with UN ECOSOC.
IPS UN Bureau
Excerpt:
At an interfaith gathering in Assisi, nuclear survivors, scientists and religious leaders confronted a troubling question: Can humanity control the destructive powers it continues to create?
NEW YORK, Nov 11 2026 (IPS) - The United Nations knows how to announce a milestone. What interests me, after a career that has included working inside UNICEF and UNDP and evaluating institutions from outside them, is what happens between the announcement and the working day.
Thalif Deen’s IPS article of 3 November 2026 asks whether gender bias at the UN is approaching an “inglorious end.” It is a question, not a declaration, and the reporting gives considerable space to continuing inequalities. Alongside achievements in representation, staff representatives describe barriers to advancement, weaknesses in accountability and fears about reporting discrimination. The article itself supplies reasons to resist a premature obituary for institutional bias.[1]
I bring a perspective to this question, certainly. But the discipline of evaluation requires me to challenge my own expectations as carefully as an institution’s claims. If the evidence demonstrates progress, acknowledge it. If it supports a narrower conclusion than the public celebration, say so.
The UN’s published figures demonstrate substantial progress towards numerical gender parity. They do not, on their own, establish whether discrimination in recruitment, advancement, treatment or access to authority has diminished.
UN Women reports that women’s share of Professional and higher categories across the UN system rose from 47 per cent in 2021 to 48.8 per cent in 2023, reaching 50.4 per cent in 2025. It also reports that parity among the Senior Management Group and resident coordinators has been maintained since 2018. These are meaningful achievements, and dismissing them would weaken any serious critique.[2]
The dates matter. The Secretary-General’s 2025 report principally covers January 2022 to December 2023, with developments through mid-2025. Its figures should not be presented as a fresh assessment of the workforce in November 2026.[2]
But an institutional average is an exceptionally comfortable place to hide an uncomfortable distribution.
UN Women’s accompanying infographic presents the following figures for 2025, citing the system-wide dashboard in June of that year:[3]
These figures appear in the same published presentation. They show how an overall majority can coexist with women’s underrepresentation at director levels. Under the UN’s operational definition, parity falls within a range of 47 to 53 per cent; the D-1 and D-2 figures above remain below that range.[3] [5]
That distribution does not, by itself, prove discrimination in individual appointments. Nor does a snapshot establish that women progress more slowly than men. It establishes why an aggregate percentage cannot answer the question of equal advancement. For that, we need to follow careers: who applies, who is shortlisted, who is selected, who progresses, how long progression takes, and who leaves.
There is another question beneath the celebration: which UN are we measuring?
The Secretariat dashboard cited in the article explicitly covers a defined population of international staff. Its explanatory notes say General Service and national staff are not shown and are intended for a subsequent phase. It also specifies appointment types and excludes entities with ten or fewer people. These are legitimate statistical boundaries, but they are boundaries all the same.[4]
This does not mean the UN collects no information about those groups elsewhere. It means this particular dashboard cannot establish what is happening across the whole workforce.
The Secretariat and the wider UN system are not interchangeable reporting populations. Neither are international professionals, national personnel and consultants. Every claim should tell the reader whose working lives it describes.
The Secretariat’s own human resources strategy also identifies a measure that reaches beyond headcounts. In A/80/550, the gap between women and men in the employee-empowerment dimension of the staff engagement survey is recorded as eight percentage points in 2021 and nine in 2024. Closing that gap is an explicit objective.[5]
The table does not explain the causes, establish whether the change is statistically significant, or identify which group scored higher. It should not be used as proof that discrimination worsened. It does, however, identify a workplace-experience gap that representation figures alone cannot resolve.
Nor should scepticism escape scrutiny. Shihana Mohamed, quoted in the IPS article, argues that reductions in male-dominated parts of the workforce helped produce the improved percentages. That is an explanation requiring examination, rather than a demonstrated finding we can simply adopt. The article does not provide the underlying analysis needed to establish how much of the change resulted from workforce reductions.[1]
An illustrative example shows why the question matters. An organisation employing 400 women and 600 men has 40 per cent female representation. Remove 200 men, recruit nobody, and it reaches 50 per cent. The calculation is correct; the explanation determines what achievement can reasonably be claimed. This is a hypothetical example, not a description of what happened at the UN.
Conversely, that possibility cannot justify assuming that the UN’s gains are merely arithmetic. We need comparable data on recruitment, promotion, retirement, separation and post abolition, using consistent dates and staff populations. Scrutiny must work in both directions.
What would persuade me that institutional bias was diminishing? Evidence of fairer career progression across grades, nationalities and contract types; greater confidence in raising concerns; credible protection against retaliation; and demonstrable consequences for discriminatory management. These are proposed tests of institutional change, not findings that the representation statistics have already established.
I would also ask whose experience disappears inside the category “women.” An international director, a national officer and a consultant awaiting renewal may share a gender while having profoundly different access to security and influence. An assessment of equality should examine those differences, rather than assume that one aggregate can represent them all.
The UN deserves credit for its documented gains in women’s representation. It should welcome equally rigorous examination of what those gains mean for working lives.
Count the women, certainly. Then examine who advances, who has authority, who can challenge a decision safely, and whose expertise changes the decision. Numerical parity is a meaningful achievement. Establishing that institutional bias is diminishing requires further evidence.
References
1. Deen, Thalif. “Is Gender Bias at the UN Coming to an Inglorious End?” Inter Press Service, 3 November 2026. Syndicated version.
2. UN Women. “Improvement in the status of women in the United Nations system: Report of the Secretary-General (2025).” Publication summary accompanying report A/80/260, 25 July 2025.
3. UN Women. “Representation of Women in the UN System.” Infographic accompanying the 2025 Secretary-General’s report, p. 1; 2025 figures attributed to the UN System-wide Dashboard on Gender Parity, June 2025.
4. United Nations. “UN Secretariat Gender Parity Dashboard.” Coverage and methodological notes. Accessed 3 November 2026.
5. United Nations, Secretary-General. “Implementation of human resources management reforms: outlook for 2026–2029.” A/80/550, 28 November 2025, p. 13: gender-parity definition, employee-empowerment indicators and targets.
Stephanie Hodge, MPA Harvard (2006), is an international evaluator and former UN advisor who has worked across 140 countries. She is a former staffer of UNDP (1994-1996 & 1999- 2004) and UNICEF (2008-2014). She writes on governance, multilateral reform, and climate equity.
IPS UN Bureau
ANTALYA, Türkiye , Nov 10 2026 (IPS) - More than one in three women and girls worldwide – at least 1.5 billion – live in climate hotspots, where high exposure to climate hazards, insecure jobs and deep gender inequality collide, according to a new UN Women fact sheet on “Gender Equality in the Age of Climate Crisis”. UN Women warns that while 73 per cent of countries recognize the climate risks facing women and girls, just over one in three address them comprehensively.
“Across the world, women are already leading the fight for a better future – in their communities, in laboratories, in parliaments and on the front lines of the climate crisis. We must give women and girls equal rights, resources and the power to lead, and they will help drive the change our world so urgently needs”, said Sima Bahous, Executive Director of UN Women.
On the current trajectory, the world is headed for a minimum of 1.8°C of heating, unleashing even more devastating droughts, floods, wildfires and cyclones, and creating irreversible loss and damage to communities and ecosystems. New data from UN Women shows that women and girls in the countries least responsible for climate crisis are hit hardest by it, from the food they go without to the violence they face, climate change is affecting every aspect of their lives.
• Under a worst-case scenario, up to 141 million additional women and girls could be living in extreme poverty.• Based on data from 24 countries, a 1°C increase in average temperatures is associated with women losing 34 per cent more of their total income than men likely reflecting their more limited ability to shift to non-farm work or migrate when harvests fail.
• Climate change is increasing unpaid care responsibilities, such as collection of water and fuel, and care for family members in the aftermath of disasters. Of the 1.8 billion people without water on their premises, women are primary water collectors in two-thirds of households. Under a high-emissions scenario, the time spent collecting water could increase by up to 30 per cent by 2050.
• Climate-related livelihood losses, displacement and resource scarcity can magnify existing drivers of gender-based violence. Across 14 countries, exposure to prolonged extreme drought was associated with 21 per cent higher odds of sexual violence against adolescent girls and young women.
• Over the past decade, progress in reducing child marriage has nearly doubled in pace. Climate change threatens to undo that progress. In 24 of 46 countries where data on child marriage can be disaggregated by exposure to slow-onset events, rates of child marriage were higher in more arid environments than in more humid ones.
• AI technology drives up energy demand, while 326 million women and girls still lack access to electricity.
• Women remain largely excluded from climate decision-making, holding just 12 per cent of energy portfolios globally, and women environmental defenders face harassment and even death for protecting their communities and the planet.
• Developing countries receive less than a third of the climate finance they need, while just 4 per cent of climate-focused Official Development Assistance prioritises gender equality.
The fact sheet also shows that progress is possible. With the right investments, women could secure up to 66 per cent of net new green jobs, gaining 68 million additional jobs by 2035.
Governments are stepping up; 73 per cent of nationally determined contributions – governments’ self-defined climate action plans – now acknowledge gender-specific climate risks. However, just over one in three addresses them comprehensively.
At COP31, UN Women calls on world leaders to put gender equality and women’s rights at the heart of climate action, to move towards economies that put people and the planet before profits, build resilience for all and advance gender equality. That means guaranteeing the right of all women and girls to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, protecting the women environmental human rights defenders who risk their lives for their communities and the planet, and giving women and girls real power at the decision-making table.
It means delivering gender-responsive climate finance that reaches women and their organizations, advancing a just transition that redistributes care, and tackling the heightened risks of violence against women and girls as the climate crisis deepens. The new Belém Gender Action Plan must be fully implemented and fully financed, so that political commitments become real change for women and girls on the front line of climate crises.
IPS UN Bureau
Excerpt:
As world leaders gather in Antalya for the 31st UN Climate Conference, new UN Women data warns that 1.5 billion women and girls already live in climate hotspots, while climate change could push 141 million more into extreme poverty by 2050.
ANTALYA, Türkiye, , Nov 10 2026 (IPS) - Africa’s transition to clean energy received a potential boost at COP31 with the announcement of a new international financing coalition, co-chaired by the African Development Bank (AfDB) and World Bank from 2027.
The Electrify Now Finance Coalition will bring together governments, development banks and private investors to mobilise funding for electrification in emerging and developing economies.
The initiative forms part of COP31’s ambitious 35-by-35 Global Electrification Pledge, which aims to increase electricity’s share of global final energy consumption from approximately 23% to 35% by 2035.
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) will also support developing countries in strengthening electricity grids, preparing investment projects and accessing finance.
At the COP31 venue, members of civil society demonstrate. Credit: UN Climate Change/Kubilay Ciftci
Highlighting the economic opportunities for Africa and other developing regions, Sustainable Energy for All CEO Damilola Ogunbiyi said, “Electrification presents an opportunity to industrialise, create jobs, improve livelihoods and strengthen energy independence.”
The announcements come as COP31 President Murat Kurum calls for an “Implementation COP”, where climate commitments translate into tangible results.
“Now our promises must be backed by capital. That capital must fund investment. And that investment must deliver results,” Kurum said.
For Africa, the challenge will be ensuring that these initiatives translate into accessible financing, expanded electricity infrastructure and affordable clean energy.
IPS UN Bureau Report
BULAWAYO, Zimbabwe &, Nov 10 2026 (IPS) - Fetching water was once a back-breaking daily reality – one that Nomuhle SibandaMpofu will never forget.
Mpofu, from Inyathi village in Bubi District in Matabeleland North Province, is a horticulture farmer and livestock farmer. Water is everything to her livelihood. She has had to overcome the challenge of travelling many kilometres to fetch water for her family and for irrigating her crop and livestock farming enterprise.
For millions of women in the rural areas, increasing droughts, worsened by climate change, are not just an environmental crisis but mean a labourious and time-consuming daily water collection marathon.
Water scarcity could increase women’s water-collection time by 30%, while the shift of rural women into off-farm jobs could either create more resilient livelihoods or entrench inequality, finds a CGIAR GENDER Accelerator report, Advancing equality, transforming futures.
The CGIAR gender report warns that without deliberate policy action, climate change and economic disruption could leave women further behind in food, land and water systems by 2050. The report was released ahead of the 31st Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP31) underway in Antalya, Türkiye, until 20 November 2026.
Farmers like Mpofu have insulated themselves against the risks of water insecurity by drilling boreholes and adopting water-saving methods.
“Before I drilled a borehole I used to fetch water from a community borehole and from a seasonal dam nearby,” Mpofu tells IPS. “I used a wheelbarrow to collect water from the dam, which dried up mid-year, and the community borehole more than a kilometre away was the closest source of water.”
Mpofu grows spinach, tomatoes, kale, onions, and occasionally potatoes on her two-hectare fenced plot.
“I used to wheel three 20-litre containers of water from the borehole before I bought a scotchart and donkey and was able to carry 24 containers of water for my vegetable garden. I would skip two days before I made another water run because of the labour of the task,” Mpofu recalled.
Long Walk to Water Freedom
Then three years ago she saved enough money and drilled a borehole in her homestead and erected a 5000 litre water tank, enabling her to easily water her garden and her goats, sheep, pigs and cattle.
“Before I had a borehole it was difficult collecting water, a tough task which I had to balance with other chores in the homestead, but now that difficulty is past, I now turn on the tap, and water flows.”
Drilling a borehole within her homestead helped Mpofu end at least five hours a day she spent collecting water, a chore that challenges millions of women in rural areas in Africa.
In April this year, ICRISAT helped and installed the Chameleon water-saving tool in Mpofu’s field. The Chameleon Tool is an easy-to-use tool that helps farmers apply the right amount of water to their crops. It consists of three sensors permanently installed at different depths in the soil. A hand-held reader shows blue light for wet soil, green light for moist soil or red light for dry soil.
“Before I used to water my crops almost every two days, but now I water after four days when it is hot and after five days when it’s cloudy, saving a lot of water that way,” said Mpofu.
The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) has helped smallholder farmers in Southern Africa manage irrigation water more efficiently using the Chameleon soil moisture sensor.
With the El Niño phenomenon – a natural climate pattern characterised by the unusual warming of surface waters in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean – now underway, there are growing fears of widespread drought in Southern Africa. The 2026–2027 El Niño is projected to cause water shortages and severely disrupt agriculture production across Southern Africa.
The CGIAR GENDER Accelerator report notes that the global food crisis — fuel, fertiliser, climate extremes, trade disruptions — has disproportionately impacted women over the past year. At the same time, women are central to building resilient food systems needed to guard against emerging threats.
Els Lecoutere, senior officer at the CGIAR Gender Impact Platform and one of the report’s authors, highlights that the report was motivated by the need to predict and prepare for an uncertain future, as negative impacts of climate change are seen in increasing droughts and water scarcity, which affected women differently.
“We do know that climate change is widening gender gaps, so what should we do now so that we avoid a future that could be more unequal in food systems rather than more unequal if all these crises happen?” Lecoutere said. “We sought to look into the future and learn from what we know now, as we have a lot of evidence of what works to increase gender equality.”
Projections based on the current trends show that by 2050 in a business-as-usual scenario, the Middle East and North Africa region will still have a female unemployment gap and a female earnings gap, and in South Asia the female earnings gap will improve, but a big female earnings gap will remain. While in Sub-Saharan Africa employment will go up in the most optimistic scenario, the female earnings gap remain stagnant.
“Water will be scarcer in some regions, and we already know that the task of collecting water falls on the shoulders of women and girls, and they spend so much time on that task, meaning the education of girls is affected, and women, for instance, cannot open their shops or attend to other activities,” Lecoutere said.
“Given the norm that women and girls are in charge, given the lack of infrastructure, the implications for women and girls are clear: that without a change of customs, the choices and options they have are reduced.”
Closing the Gender Gap
Opportunities to reduce gender inequality include institutional, legal and social reform, inclusive infrastructure, social protection, improved data-gathering and the responsible use of emerging technology, the CGIAR GENDER Accelerator report recommends.
Ismahane Elouafi, Executive Managing Director of CGIAR, notes that we cannot feed our future without including women in our food systems.
“The choices we make over the coming years will determine whether food, land, and water systems become more equitable or more unequal, more resilient or more fragile,” said Elouafi.
The Rome Declaration on Water Scarcity in Agriculture, adopted during the High-level Rome Water Dialogue in Italy in 2024, acknowledged that drought responses are contributing to crop failures in parts of the world and an acute food insecurity crisis in vulnerable countries. The Declaration noted changing rainfall patterns are resulting in increased droughts.
“I am aware that with any drought women are in a difficult situation where they have to collect water over a long distance. I encourage women to invest in boreholes; they are one solution to surviving the drought by bringing water closer to home and relieving them from the task of collecting water from afar,” Mpofu says.
The report also finds that digital technologies hold significant potential to bridge gender inequities across food systems, despite the current digital divide between men and women. It cites research showing that in Kenya, for example, women are up to 25% less likely than men to access digital climate advisory services due to structural gender barriers. The report calls on technology developers to involve women in the development of breakthrough technologies like AI before scaling their use.
“Investing in women, not as labourers, but as leaders, is the path towards unlocking the full potential of our food, land and water systems,” said Nicoline de Haan, Director of the CGIAR GENDER Accelerator.
IPS UN Bureau Report
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Nov 10 2026 (IPS) - Trump and Netanyahu went all out for regime change in Tehran. This month, their electorates gave them regime changes, albeit not quite what they wanted. The wars continue, but the politics have changed.
Trump’s military spending
In Trump’s second term, the US president and the outgoing Republican-controlled Congress have shown even less respect for the Constitution.
Jomo Kwame Sundaram
Trump wanted a $1.5 trillion military budget for fiscal 2027, starting in October, up from $860 billion in Biden’s last budget, an increase of over $600 billion, or nearly 2.0% of GDP!
Financing the massive increase in US military spending would require substantial tax increases. Without them, Trump would have to increase the budget deficit, risking even higher interest rates.
Greater military spending and higher interest rates have diverted economic and human resources from more socially useful purposes. Besides exhausting the economy, it is also economically and socially wasteful.
War raises interest rates
Before Trump and Netanyahu attacked Iran on 28 February, the interest rate on 10-year US Treasury bonds was around 4.0%. It subsequently rose to around 4.7% by late August.
Higher interest rates make borrowing more expensive for individuals and governments. Having to pay more, corporate borrowers will surely pass the costs on.
Higher expected inflation alone cannot explain the higher interest rates. Unexpectedly, after more than six months of war, expectations of future inflation were slightly lower than in February!
Higher interest rates probably reflect broader changes in expectations, as investors now expect much larger US budget deficits than early this year.
The US Federal Reserve now projects that the Fed funds rate, widely seen as reflecting investor attitudes, will be higher in 2027 and 2028 than before the war.
Likewise, long-term interest rates on other countries’ debt have risen, indicating Trump’s war has raised interest rates worldwide.
Raising interest rates ineffective
Raising interest rates does little to address inflation caused by deliberate supply-side disruptions. Trump appointed Kevin Warsh as Fed Chair to bring down interest rates, but the Chairman has not obliged so far.
Inflation has been above the Fed’s 2.0% target for over half a decade. With US unemployment rising in 2024, it lowered interest rates. After Trump’s re-election, inflation rose due to stockpiling in anticipation of his tariffs, and then the tariffs themselves.
Inflation would probably have declined again if not for the second attack on Iran, which pushed oil and other prices up. Relief from inflation now hinges on the very uncertain prospects of ending the war.
As higher inflation has been the pretext for the Fed to raise interest rates, it should lower rates if prices fell. Likewise, when the AI bubble bursts, interest rates would likely decline too.
Macroeconomist Dean Baker suggests that the Fed has kept interest rates up to appear to be doing something. With wage growth barely over 3.0% and falling, income has been shifting from wages to profits.
If wage-profit shares stabilise, even the usual productivity growth rate of 1.5% should keep inflation under 2.0%, as higher productivity more than offsets rising wage costs.
If the productivity boom that AI proponents are promising were to materialise, inflation would be well under target, even with wages rising at current rates. Clearly, wage inflation is not accelerating.
Meanwhile, Trump may raise tariffs again or start another war, raising prices further. But again, raising Fed interest rates cannot help.
Affordability
The popular consensus is that the Iran war was largely responsible for the Republican Party setback in last week’s US mid-term elections.
The war and its consequences are widely seen as primarily responsible for the current US affordability crisis. Trump has raised inflation, not only by waging war, but also by imposing tariffs on most trading partners and sanctions on some.
As higher inflation has been the pretext for the Fed to raise interest rates, it should lower rates if prices fall. And when the AI bubble bursts, interest rates should decline.
Fuel prices jumped by $1.50 per US gallon after the war started and remain over a dollar higher than before. Diesel prices rose by almost $3 per gallon at their peak and remain over $2.50 above their pre-war level.
Food prices are also expected to rise further in the new year due to fertiliser shortages, as much of the world’s supply has come from the Persian Gulf region.
Ironically, Trump’s war has accelerated the green energy transition worldwide, with electric vehicle and solar panel sales soaring, thereby reducing demand for oil and gas in the longer term.
Ending the April 2025 Liberation Day tariffs did not return prices to earlier levels. Similarly, ending the war will only partially reverse the economic disruption and damage caused.
IPS UN Bureau