The Human Consciousness Now...Our World in the Midst of Becoming...to What? Observe, contemplate Now.
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 28 2026 (IPS) - Following 42 consecutive days without a new confirmed case, The Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have announced the end of the Ebola outbreak in Uganda.
The outbreak began in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Uganda in May and was caused by a rare strain of the Ebola virus known as the Bundibugyo species. There are no approved vaccines or therapeutics against the Bundibugyo strain, though several are currently being trialed in the DRC, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The virus is highly contagious and can still be transmitted after an infected person has died.
Uganda’s last patient, whose infection was imported, was discharged from care on 16 July 2026, and no new cases have been reported since.
“Uganda has shown that Ebola can be stopped when leadership acts decisively, communities are trusted and public health systems reach people quickly,” said H.E. Dr Jean Kaseya, Director-General of Africa CDC.
“The outbreak is the fastest-growing Ebola epidemic on record. It is growing faster and wider than the response to contain it. But it can be stopped,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres during a press stakeout on August 27. Guterres referenced the recently-appointed UN Senior Ebola Coordinator, Julien Harneis, who is working with regional partners to strengthen community engagement, surveillance, treatment, safe burials and measures to contain the virus. The UN is also reinforcing preparedness and coordination with South Sudan and the Central African Republic to prevent further cross-border transmission.
Additionally, to address the challenge of limited health infrastructure and laboratory services, the WHO, with funding support from the African Development Bank (AfDB), has handed over a Truck-Mounted Mobile Biosafety Level 3 Laboratory to the Government of Uganda in efforts to strengthen Uganda’s public health response capacity and support post-outbreak preparedness.
The mobile laboratory will support rapid, field-based diagnostic testing during outbreaks, reducing the time required to transport samples to centralized testing facilities and accelerating public health decision-making. The laboratory is expected to improve access to testing in hard-to-reach areas and at outbreak epicenters, where timely diagnosis is critical to containing disease transmission.
Contrary to Uganda, in the DRC, the devastation of the Ebola outbreak continues to what has now become the country’s deadliest public health crisis. As of August 25th, 5,713 cases have been confirmed, claiming 2,744 lives. About 500 new cases are being reported every week, with women and children being severely affected.
Emmanuel Kalinde, Child Protection Manager in Ituri, said the crisis had upended children’s lives, leaving many to grieve loved ones while facing conflict and displacement. He stressed that sustained support was essential to help them heal and regain hope.
The WHO continues to advise against travel and trade restrictions related to Ebola outbreaks. However, despite potential risks, they do not recommend suspending flights, closing borders, or denying entry to travellers from affected countries.
IPS UN Bureau Report
Aug 28 2026 (IPS) -
CIVICUS discusses Sweden’s new migration laws with John Stauffer, legal director and deputy executive director of Civil Rights Defenders, a Swedish civil society organisation that acts as a civil rights watchdog at home and supports human rights defenders in repressive contexts worldwide.
John Stauffer
What are the main changes to Sweden’s immigration laws?
The biggest change is that permanent residence will no longer be available for people with asylum status. Under the new rules, they will only be granted temporary residence permits.
This is being paired with a new law on ‘good behaviour’ for some categories of migrants, which lets the authorities refuse or revoke a permit over conduct that is not necessarily criminal, such as unpaid debts or undeclared work. And it does not only apply to new applications. Permits already granted can be reviewed too.
Citizenship has been tightened along the same lines. Habitual residence requirements have risen from five to eight years and applicants now have to provide proof of income and pass a knowledge test, including a language test. In relation to citizenship, the requirements on ‘good behaviour’ have become stricter.
Then there is the law on information sharing between government authorities, known as the snitch law. It obliges officials who handle benefits, debt enforcement, pensions, prisons and probation, taxes and unemployment services to report undocumented migrants to the police.
All this arrives at the same time as the European Union (EU) Migration Pact, which Sweden has implemented through national legislation. It came into force on 12 June and has tightened the conditions further. It is a package of 10 laws that harmonises how asylum claims are handled across the EU, with faster procedures for people considered unlikely to qualify for protection. In implementing the pact, Sweden has gone further than necessary to limit the rights of asylum seekers, for example on access to legal representation in proceedings. An expressed goal of the government is to have the most restrictive asylum laws possible under EU law.
Who is most affected by these laws?
Asylum seekers, people without citizenship and undocumented migrants are those most hit by these laws, but their reach is wider than it looks.
Under the snitch law, healthcare staff and teachers are not obliged to report undocumented migrants, but they may end up doing so indirectly. If you give birth in a hospital, the hospital must notify the tax authority that a child has been born, and the tax authority is then obliged to pass that on to the police. We already see that undocumented migrants avoid contact with healthcare providers, which severely impacts their right to health.
Then there are young people who have lived in Sweden their whole lives, with parents who came, for example, as asylum seekers. They will be assessed under the new regime once they turn 18 and, if they are seen not to have grounds for a residence permit of their own, they may be sent to a country where they have never lived.
Ultimately, the broader effect of these laws is to erode trust. Asylum seekers and, more broadly, people with a migrant background lose confidence in government authorities. That confidence has always been a cornerstone of our democracy, and one we have been proud of. Once that trust goes, it is not just the government that loses out. It is Swedish society as a whole.
What does this mean for freedoms of assembly and expression?
The good behaviour law means we are no longer all equal before the law. Something a Swedish citizen can say or do without any legal consequence can cost a residence permit holder their right to stay.
What makes this worse is that nobody knows exactly where the line falls. Legal scholars have described these laws as very broad, vague and difficult to apply in practice, so people have no way of telling in advance what might be used against them.
That uncertainty produces a chilling effect on people’s willingness to use their rights. Permit holders who are not citizens are withdrawing from public debate. They stop voicing their views and stay away from protests, because they fear that joining a pro-Palestine march or a climate protest, for example, might cost them their permit. We are, in fact, creating a two-tier system where the lives of non-citizens will be characterised by uncertainty and limited access to rights, while citizens enjoy full rights.
What’s driving these changes?
Sweden used to have comparatively liberal migration laws, but since large numbers of asylum seekers arrived in Europe in 2015, immigration laws have become more and more restrictive. This has intensified particularly since the current centre-right government came to power four years ago with the support of a far-right party, and with the stated goal of reducing the number of asylum seekers and making more migrants leave Sweden, voluntarily or by force. Agreements with repressive regimes to receive their citizens, repatriation grants and measures that will make the lives of migrants in Sweden more uncertain are means to achieve these goals.
The government has been building a narrative that connects migration to rising rates of violent crime. Using that as a justification, it has tried to build strong support for stricter migration policies and at the same time has pushed more repressive policies to combat crime, including greater possibilities to revoke residence permits for migrants who have committed crimes, including less serious crimes.
As we approach the September election, it remains to be seen whether people truly support this model. The largest opposition party, the Social Democrats, have, however, supported many of the new immigration policies. What a left-wing government would mean for asylum seekers is still to be seen. Other countries, particularly France and Germany, are also watching to see how it plays out, and some may adopt similar measures if they see results they regard as positive.
What can civil society do?
Civil Rights Defenders works to influence national legislation and the public debate, to shift how migration is understood and give a more nuanced picture of it. We currently do not have the capacity to generally support asylum seekers and migrants through legal advice, but other organisations do. However, we engage in strategic litigation, taking cases to oversight bodies, courts and the European Court of Human Rights to shape how these laws are implemented.
But our resources are limited, and they are about to be stretched much further. One consequence of the way Sweden is implementing the EU Migration Pact is that the legal support asylum seekers are entitled to through the public scheme has been cut back drastically. The people who lose that support will turn to us and other organisations for support, and Swedish civil society doesn’t currently have the capacity to meet their needs.
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.
GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
SEE ALSO
Europe: a race to the bottom on migrants’ rights CIVICUS Lens 21.Aug.2026
Migration: Cruelty as policy CIVICUS | 2026 State of Civil Society Report
Italy: ‘White supremacist concepts are entering mainstream political discourse on migration’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Eleonora Celoria 22.Mar.2026
OTTAWA, Canada, Aug 28 2026 (IPS) - This week is World Water Week, the annual conference of governments, business, and civil society on building a water-secure future as global population, climate disruptions, and water demand increase. In Washington, it’s also Water Resources Development Act season, when every two years the US Congress reauthorizes the legilslation that funds US drinking water, wastewater systems, and flood risk management projects.
Water security ought to be something everyone can agree on, and there are long traditions of bipartisanship in past WRDA reauthorizations, and of diversity and inclusiveness in World Water Week conferences. But these days, water is increasingly a trigger for division, from the public outcry over data center water usage to anti-abortion activists introducing legislation to designate the abortion medication mifepristone as a water pollutant and get the US Environmental Protection Agency to regulate it, which is another way to restrict access to it.
For the record, mifepristone is no threat to waterways. Research overwhelmingly confirms its safety and efficacy, and a Food and Drug Administration assessment found its environmental accumulation in water was less than one part per billion. The lone study alleging mifepristone is a water pollutant is junk science. It used a debunked testing method and was published in a journal run by anti-abortion activists, and then cited by other anti-abortion activists.
While the mifepristone water scare is clearly disinformation, it’s so pointedly backwards that it points up an important truth: it isn’t abortion medication that threatens water security; on the contrary, it’s attacks on it and on family planning in general that pose a real threat.
There are several reasons for this. If family planning access is curtailed or cut off and birthrates rise, so will water demand and water stress. It will be worse in places with faster population growth, and worse globally for women and girls, who are the ones who have to collect the water in 80% of households experiencing shortages. Over 2 billion people lack safely managed drinking water. Women and girls suffer disproportionately from water shortages, yet they are generally excluded from decision making bodies or leadership positions that would give them a say in managing water.
In general, research shows that where gender disparities are high, women have more babies, population grows faster, and water scarcity gets worse. But the reverse is also true: where there is investment in and access to comprehensive family planning, and where women and girls are more empowered and included in decision making about managing water resources, over time birth rates decline, water stress eases, and water resiliency grows.
It ought to be obvious that population trends, changing demographics, and urbanization influence demand for water, food, energy, and land. Yet they are strangely absent from discourse on managing environment resources, including water governance. Ditto for gender inequality, which has a strong bearing on population growth.
The UN warns of “living beyond our hydrological means” amid water crisis and reaching “global water bankruptcy,” where water degradation has largely become irreversible. Population and gender issues are not controlling factors in this per se, as their impacts depend on patterns of production and consumption, technology, inequality and governanceThe same number of people can have radically different environmental footprints depending on where and how they live.
But population trends and gender equity are still important variables in how we use water and other resources that planners should not ignore. As human numbers and consumption levels rise, our ecological footprint, including water consumption, has become overwhelming and unsustainable.
This year, the Earth as a whole reached “overshoot day” – the day past which we’re consuming more in a given year than the Earth’s resources can regenerate — on July 30. The U.S. reached it March 14.
Climate change is intensifying drought, altering precipitation and snowpack, putting pressure on groundwater and surface water. For xample, fast regional population growth and development have stressed the Colorado River, which supplies roughly 40 million people and now faces severe and persistent shortages. In other water-stressed regions of the US, agriculture is the biggest consumer of shrinking water resources. The Ogallala Aquifer, for example, is getting depleted faster than it can naturally recharge.
Population dynamics are part of this complex picture. Water resources are embedded in an intricate web of human and ecological interaction. Water governance needs to take a broad, holistic view to understand the nexus of biodiversity, food production, and human needs and health as part of the same interconnected system of planetary health. Within that, managing water requires considering how population trends, human behavior, gender equity, technology, and human-caused climate change influence water systems.
The last thing policymakers should be doing is demonizing family planning as some kind of threat to the water supply. Reproductive health services are an intrinsic matter of human right, but they have critical environmental co-benefits, too, including easing population pressures on overtaxed water resources.
Managing water is not just about pipes and pumps; it’s about complex interactions between humans and ecosystems, managing them so they respect ecological limits as well as human rights and equity, which ultimately are all part of the same complex web. Water connects everything. Policymaking should too.
Céline Delacroix is adjunct professor at the University of Ottawa’s School of Health Sciences, a Senior Fellow with the Population Institute, and Director of the FP/Earth Project.
IPS UN Bureau
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 28 2026 (IPS) - Across the board, UN officials and humanitarian organizations urged the Security Council to act before the consequences of food insecurity and famines hit, during a high-level open debate on Tuesday, August 25. More than 80 representatives took part in Tuesday’s conversation on conflict-related food insecurity under the theme “Food under fire: the Security Council’s role in mitigating global and local food crises”.
In 2018, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2417, which strongly condemned the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, as well as the unlawful denial of humanitarian access. Resolution 2417 solidified the link between armed conflict and food insecurity. Most importantly, the resolution stated the Security Council’s willingness to consider adopting sanctions against individuals or entities deliberately obstructing the delivery and distribution of humanitarian assistance. The resolution was a landmark achievement that, for the first time, treated hunger not as a result of war but as a humanitarian security threat that the Security Council is obligated to protect.
Eight years after resolution 2417 was passed, 2025 marked the highest year on record of global acute hunger, with more than 266 million people facing acute food insecurity and, for the first time this century, two famines simultaneously confirmed in Sudan and Gaza. On Tuesday, August 25, representative after representative discussed how resolution 2417 has gone largely unused.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres opened Tuesday’s session reminding the members of the sanction provisions in the resolution, stating: “This council expressed its willingness to consider information on the unlawful denial of humanitarian access and take appropriate steps, including sanction measures.” Guterres explicitly called on the Security Council “to make every effort to ensure accountability”.
Denmark’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, presided over the session and candidly stated how “resolution 2417 [is] a powerful tool, but its potential remains untapped, particularly when it comes to early warning.” Testament to that fact is how the resolution’s original text cited 74 million people worldwide facing conflict-induced hunger, a figure that has now doubled to 147 million people.
During Tuesday’s session, the representatives present, notably the elected members of the Security Council, narrowed in on the same point, that being that the famines occurring worldwide are completely preventable.
While discussing the famines in Sudan and Gaza, Dace Melbārde, Latvia’s Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, called the dual crises proof that “these famines are not natural disasters. They are man-made, and they are entirely preventable”. Ms. Melbārde urged the Security Council to “consider targeted sanctions and other appropriate measures against those who deliberately weaponize food and obstruct humanitarian access,” warning that “impunity cannot become another driver of hunger.”
“This is not fate. It is a choice. And when there is a choice, there is culpability,” said Lewis Garsheedah Brown, II, Liberia’s Permanent Representative to the UN. Brown also focused on how the dual famines devastating Sudan and Gaza are not fate or acts of nature, but instead predictable results of the Security Council’s inaction.
Carl Skau, the Acting Executive Director of the World Food Programme (WFP), admitted institutional failure when it came to acting on the warning signs of Sudan’s famine. Examining Sudan’s Darfur region, Mr. Skau said: “We all saw the atrocities in al-Fashir coming, but the international community, including this Council, failed to act on those warnings.” Mr. Skau went on to say that “waiting for famine to be declared is a total failure of duty”. The famine in Sudan was compared to the crisis in 2017 and 2022 in Somalia, where early implemented Security Council-backed action helped to avert catastrophic famine.
Perrine Benoist, Co-CEO, Action Against Hunger and Member of the Global Coalition Against Conflict and Hunger (Rule 39), addresses the Security Council meeting. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe
Also during Tuesday’s session, Dr. Perrine Benoist, Co-CEO of Action Against Hunger, presented figures that highlighted the level of inaction the Security Council has taken despite the universal adoption of resolution 2417. Dr. Benoist detailed how there have been more than 9,300 incidents where conflict-related violence impacted food systems in over 45 countries. These incidents include more than 3,200 bombings of markets, agricultural land and water systems.
“Time and again, its provisions have been violated by parties to conflict, while implementation by the members of this Council has fallen far short of what the resolution demands,” Dr. Benoist said of resolution 2417.
However, despite the emphasis placed on strengthening and acting on resolution 2417, not every representative agreed to the scale of the action on Tuesday. Ambassador Vassily A. Nebenzia of the Russian Federation rejected the calls from other representatives to broaden the resolution’s application. Mr. Nebenzia argued that “resolution 2417 does not need an expanded interpretation or new mechanisms. It requires country-interest application where conflict does indeed create hunger.”
For the millions living through the famines in Sudan and Gaza and the tens of millions the WFP warned could be pushed into food insecurity, the consequences of the Security Council’s inaction are not abstract.
“We cannot wait for famine or catastrophic conditions to be formally confirmed,” said Guterres. “I call on this Council to act when the warning lights are flashing.”
IPS UN Bureau Report
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 28 2026 (IPS) - As the UN commemorates its 81st anniversary, one lingering question remains: what is the future of the world body.?
Will a hostile US downsize its operations at the United Nations, cut down its funding, continue defaulting in its payments — and perhaps eventually, withdraw from the world body?
So far, the US has pulled out of three UN agencies and one UN-affiliated body — including the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)—and the Human Rights Council.
Is the UN far behind.?
Reports of a US visa denial to a Palestinian delegation to the General Assembly sessions next month, triggered several questions at a press briefing last week: “Don’t you think it’s a good idea to relocate the UN headquarters somewhere else in the world? Can the Secretary General initiate such a process? If there is such a process, how will it work? And will the United States take the United Nations hostage?”
In his response, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters: “This is an issue for Member States. If I’m not mistaken, the seat of the UN is listed in the charter. This city and the United Nations have had a joint history for the last 81 years, and I think all in all it’s been a good history.”
Question: “The U.S. is saying that they will deny the Palestinian delegation visas to come to the General Assembly. Are you aware of this? And is the UN doing anything about it?”
“Yes, we’ve seen those reports. It is very important for us that the United States honor its responsibilities under the host treaty agreement. We will continue to push for that. But at this point, we’ve only seen the press reports”.
According to one report, the US has withdrawn from 31 UN-related entities and bodies under a presidential memorandum signed on January 7, 2026, adding to prior departures from major agencies like the World Health Organization and UNESCO.
The January 2026 directive on withdrawals impacts largely targeting initiatives related to climate, development, and social policy. Key departures include the UNFCCC and IPCC (climate), UN Women and UNFPA (social/health), UNCTAD (trade), and various regional commissions and offices, including UN-Habitat
Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and Program Director for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco, who has written extensively on the politics of the United Nations, told Inter Press Service (IPS) the makeup of the Security Council, having the headquarters of the United Nations located in the United States, is an outdated relic of World War II.
For most of the UN’s history, he pointed out, the United States has vetoed far more otherwise-unanimous UNSC resolutions than any other country. And, Washington has repeatedly reneged on its financial obligations.
Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, said Dr Zunes, the U.S. has repeatedly attacked UN institutions, including its judicial bodies, humanitarian organizations, and investigative commissions, particularly in regard to the enforcement of international humanitarian law.
“The U.S. wars on Iraq and Iran and the U.S. recognition of Israeli and Moroccan annexations of territories seized by military force have underscored a brazen disregard for the foundational principles of the UN Charter”.
“And the refusal to allow a delegation of a permanent observer member state (Palestine) is a direct violation of the U.S.-UN agreement making New York the world body’s headquarters”.
Despite this, there are certainly major logistical, financial, and institutional reasons why it would not make sense for the United Nations to remove its headquarters from New York.
“The very fact that it is even being discussed, however, is indicative that the United States is increasingly becoming an international pariah and an ironic choice as the host nation,” declared Dr Zunes.
Dr James E. Jennings, President, Conscience International, told IPS It is likely that the US will continue to withdraw funding from the UN, a process that has already begun by defunding certain agencies with the aim of bringing it further under the control of Washington.
Failing that, he said, Trump may attempt to establish an alternative body dominated by the US, forcing nations to choose allies and sidelining the UN. “Under today’s conditions, any breakdown of the UN’s rules-based order would be a sure trigger for global conflict”.
Q: Can the US restructure the UN to do its bidding?
A: Continued efforts by the US government to restructure the UN and its programs are more likely than an attempt to move the UN HQ from New York. The Security Council is useful to Washington because it can serve as a whipping post for global grievances, as notably during the Cold War in opposing the long series of “nyet” from the East Bloc, but also more recently by taking its hands off when Washington wanted to go to war in the Middle East.
Many observers believe President Trump is acting belligerently to merely exercise influence over the UN, but that would be a woeful misjudgment of the man and his methods. In fact, he seeks to completely dominate the world body, not simply make changes.
Anyone who has noticed his boast earlier this year that he should be recognized as the most powerful person who has ever lived, should take him at his word.
His ego, like the bottomless pit of Hell in the Biblical Book of Revelation, is a veritable Black Hole, knowing no limit to its depth.
How realistic his goal may be is another matter. But since money moves most things, and US largess has been one key to the UN’s successful operations over many decades, all bets are off until Congress gains the courage to undo his bidding.
Undoubtably, the UN’s key structures are being tested. The long-term consequences of great power manipulation of the UN are troubling, as evidenced by Exhibit One: the virtual erasure of Palestinian national rights over three quarters of a century.
The Truman Administration’s influence on weak countries to vote for the 29 November 1947 Partition of Palestine forced the creation of Israel against the wishes of the native Arab population and violated the spirit of the UN Charter.
Without fundamental changes in the Charter, the General Assembly’s influence cannot replace the Security Council’s dominance of global policy. A complete US withdrawal from the UN, or the creation of an alternative body dominated by Washington, would condemn the current organization to go the way of the late lamented League of Nations., declared Dr Jennings.
According to one report, the United Nations is decentralizing operations from New York under the UN@80 reform initiative, relocating several global offices and hundreds of positions to regional hubs.
Relocated Global Offices and Agencies
• UNICEF(United Nations Children’s Fund): Relocating global office functions from New York to Nairobi, Kenya.• UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund): Moving global office operations from New York to Nairobi, Kenya.
• UN Women: Shifting global office operations and headquarters-funded posts from New York to Nairobi, Kenya, and Bonn, Germany.
• UNDP (United Nations Development Programme): Relocating hundreds of posts from New York to Europe (primarily Bonn and Madrid) alongside additional regional shifts.
Meanwhile, when Yasser Arafat was denied a US visa to visit New York to address the United Nations back in 1988, the General Assembly defied the United States by temporarily moving the UN’s highest policy making body to Geneva– perhaps for the first time in UN history– providing a less-hostile political environment and a platform, for the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
Arafat, who first addressed the UN in 1974, took a swipe at Washington when he prefaced his statement in Geneva by remarking: “it never occurred to me that my second meeting with this honorable Assembly, since 1974, would take place in the hospitable city of Geneva”.
On his 1974 visit to address the General Assembly, he avoided the hundreds of pro and anti-Arafat demonstrators outside the UN building by arriving in a helicopter which landed on the North Lawn of the UN campus adjoining the East River.
Incidentally, when anti-Arafat New York protesters on First Avenue shouted: “Arafat Go Home”, his supporters responded that was precisely what he wanted—a home for the Palestinians to go to.
IPS UN Bureau Report
URBANA, Illinois, US, Aug 27 2026 (IPS) - Across the U.S. Midwest, from Illinois to Indiana to Ohio, severe storms and heavy rains caused devastating flooding, extensive damage to infrastructure, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. The historic scale and severity of flooding led to the issuance of disaster proclamations for the States of Illinois and Indiana.
Often underestimated and overlooked are the devastating and economically costly consequences of flooding for agriculture, crop production, agroecosystems, and, most importantly, America’s Midwest region’s critical infrastructure: its farmlands which lead the nation in the production of major crops, including corn and soybeans, collectively contributing to the United States agriculture sector that is valued at $1.5 trillion.
Policymakers must pay attention to flooding and recognize it as a serious threat to American agriculture, with devastating impacts on America’s food supply, farm incomes, and national food security
This needs to change. Policymakers must pay attention to flooding and recognize it as a serious threat to American agriculture, with devastating impacts on America’s food supply, farm incomes, and national food security. Furthermore, evidence shows that the impacts of flooding on agriculture are comparable to those of drought, making a focus on flooding even more urgent.
Five reasons stand out as to why policymakers must pay attention to intensifying flooding events in the Midwest and their consequences for Midwestern agriculture.
First, the U.S. Midwest region is central and backbone of the American Nation’s food and energy systems. In 2024, Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota alone produced more than half of the nation’s corn and soybeans. Furthermore, the importance of Midwest grown crops like corn extends beyond food and livestock feed. Data evidence shows that over 40% of U.S. grown corn has been used for ethanol production. When flooding disrupts Midwestern agriculture, the consequenses can reach beyond our food system and into America’s energy systems.
Second, flooding not only threatens crop production, but it also negatively impacts soil, soil functions, quality and countless number soil dwelling species including earthworms, and beneficial soil microbes, which are foundational ingredients to resilient agricultural production and functioning agroecosystems. These consequenses can persist long after flooding waters have receded, potentially affecting crop growth and productivity in subsequent seasons.
Third, flooding imposes costs on the insurance industry and other stakeholders supporting Midwest agriculture. From 1989 to 2020, excess moisture was the fastest-growing cause of loss reported to the USDA Risk Management Agency, increasing in 97 percent of the counties reporting, while total inflation-adjusted crop insurance indemnities rose 374 percent.
Of the $21.94 billion in crop and rangeland losses in 2023, nearly $10 billion was not covered by RMA programs, and excessive precipitation, flooding, and hurricanes accounted for $3.99 billion of the total. These costs also affect the businesses that transport crops: when flooding disrupts roads, rails, and rivers serving local grain elevators, those elevators pay farmers about 24 cents less per bushel for corn and 32 cents less per bushel for soybeans.
Fourth, our models are most confident that spring precipitation will increase by ~25-50% by the late century. However, single-day extreme precipitation events and excess summer precipitation are less predictable; one such event was the recent flash flooding across the Midwestern corridor this August.
This is especially concerning given that crops are in the reproductive stage and close to harvest, when farmers have already incurred the costs of this season’s crops and crops may have been affected by wet soil earlier in the season.
Waterlogging at reproductive stages has been estimated globally to reduce yields by 41.9 percent, compared with 34.8 percent at vegetative stages. Fields already stressed by wet soils earlier in the season may be damaged by both events. The loss in crop yields could be catastrophic for an already vulnerable sector.
Fifth, current policies are not keeping pace with the changing timing of flooding events. Although the United States Department of Agriculture has put in place several Federal programs to assist farmers, including prevented planting coverage, disaster and conservation assistance, and crop insurance, and continues to update these programs, many of these work best for flooding that happens early in the growing season rather than for flooding that devastates established crops later in the growing season.
The recent flooding events occurred in August, when crops including corn and soybeans are well established, and there is an urgent need for policymakers to reassess existing policies to ensure that farmers are shielded from production losses, income disruptions, and other economic costs that arise when flooding occurs late in the season.
American policymakers cannot afford to overlook or underestimate the extensive, devastating impacts of flooding on agriculture and the stakeholders who support the agricultural sector.
The consequences of flooding extend far beyond damaged roads and infrastructure. They reach America’s farmlands, the soul of America’s food supply, a sector already affected by rising fuel costs and fertilizer shortages, and may be compounded by supply-chain disruptions caused by flooding, as in 2019.
Policymakers must seize the opportunity to re-examine whether existing policies and recent investments, including the $700 million pilot program to support regenerative agriculture practices, can help the Midwest region and its farmlands meet the challenges brought about by increasing flooding and other severe weather events. Where policies fall short, policy makers must create new ones. Time is of essence.
Esther Ngumbi, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Entomology at the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign.
Christy Gibson, PhD, is an Illinois Distinguished Postdoctoral Scholar in the Department of Crop Sciences at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, where she studies how floods and droughts reshape farming systems and the ecosystems that sustain them
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, India,, Aug 27 2026 (IPS) - India is ranked the second-largest fish-producing nation globally, accounting for around 8 percent of global output. The fisheries sector in India accounts for nearly 7.43 percent of Agricultural Gross Value Added (GVA), the highest (independent) share among the agriculture and allied sectors.
According to government statistics, India’s fish output doubled from 95.79 lakh tonnes in FY 2013–14 to 197.75 lakh tonnes in FY 2024–25, a 106 per cent increase. The Union Budget of 2026–27 proposed ₹2,761.80 crore for the fisheries sector, marking the highest-ever annual budgetary allocation for this sector.
India’s “Blue Revolution”, which commenced in 2015 and is backed by central schemes like the Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY), launched in 2020, aims to strengthen the fisheries sector through infrastructure expansion and modern practices.
Yet, in India, the fisheries department at the central level is a part of the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying. “This needs a revamp, with fisheries being declared an independent sector nationally and regionally,” says the Federation of Indian Fisher Organisations (FIFO).
FIFO, which registered as an official organisation in March 2025, currently has 37 member organisations in India and a presence in every coastal state and union territory. Headed by Vincent Jain, who has worked with unions like the South Indian Federation of Fishermen Societies (SIFFS) in the past, FIFO has approached several Members of Parliament from coastal states, the Fisheries Joint Secretary, the ICAR (Indian Council of Agricultural Research) Director, etc., in the last half-year or so, to present the case.
One of the key structural issues is, Jain says, that funds allotted by the central government get divided into three parts currently, with fisheries ending up with significantly less economic support than it actually needs. It also doesn’t help that many of the policy-makers at the union level don’t belong to coastal states, Jain notes. Yet, there’s an independent sector for agriculture, known as the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare.
Although the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) does have a separate “Fisheries & Aquaculture” department under it, in matters of governance, it’s still categorised under the broader “agri-food systems”. Unlike land-based sectors, where violations are often clearly distinguished from livelihood activities, fisheries operate in complex and fluid marine spaces where rules, boundaries, and enforcement mechanisms are not always effectively communicated or practically feasible.
Jain has also reached out to the FAO on behalf of the FIFO, highlighting 30 different aspects to be considered in declaring fisheries as an independent sector. His next step is to have different regional coastal organisations in India, both under FIFO and otherwise, make similar official requests.
Jain suggests that FAO can implement this need by initiating global and regional consultations, calling for expert opinions from fisheries professionals, marine scientists, fisher organisations, labour and safety experts, and policy practitioners with direct field experience. FAO can also develop revised advisory guidelines that are sensitive to country-specific contexts while promoting best practices in fisheries governance.
“You can look at this in two ways: if we get national recognition as an independent sector, other countries, especially in Asia, may be encouraged to follow suit. At the same time, if an organisation like the FAO acknowledges this need, then it can create a trickle-down effect globally as well,” Jain says.
In India, Jain notes, the government still officially categorises fishers as “farmers”, which is the biggest misrepresentation that FIFO aims to address. This is also influenced by aquaculture being promoted in this century. Even though advisory committees in India include experts with fisheries backgrounds, final decisions are often shaped by administrative perspectives that neglect the needs of fishers.
As a result, fisheries schemes have been poorly aligned, overlook safety and operational risks at sea, underestimate capital and infrastructure requirements, or fail to address post-harvest and market challenges unique to the sector.
Moreover, fishers don’t have a regulated system of provident fund or insurance schemes, which the government has mandated for daily wage workers across the country.
Sebastian Mathew, a fishery advisor who retired from the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF), has a slightly differing perspective on the issue, though. Unlike agriculture and farming, fishing is a declining “traditional” livelihood generally in India, he says. There are fewer people in this century who are carrying the trade forward from their previous generation and are seeking alternative occupations instead.
There’s also substantial loss of traditional knowledge as a result of this, Mathew reckons. While this phenomenon is applicable for agriculture as well, he feels it’s more pressing when it comes to fishing.
“Also, when we talk about better resource allocation for fisheries centrally, we need to reflect on how well the current funds are being utilised, especially by the state governments. Except for aquaculture, are we really promoting artisanal fishing practices and using our finances wisely for that?” he adds.
One of the fishers’ unions in Sri Lanka has expressed interest in joining FIFO in this movement, Jain says. He has also reached out to representatives of several Asian and European countries who rely on the fisheries sector to a large extent, just like India.
This movement is distinctive from other campaigns by the fishers’ unions and organisations in the past, Jain points out, because of the official route chosen to highlight the issue rather than demonstrative protests or agitations.
The organisation is also planning to conduct a national-level workshop where experts and representatives of coastal communities can present their ideas on this matter.
IPS UN Bureau Report
