The Human Consciousness Now...Our World in the Midst of Becoming...to What? Observe, contemplate Now.
RUFIJI, Tanzania, Mar 24 2026 (IPS) - By the time the auction begins at Nangurukuru fish market in Tanzania’s southern Lindi region, the crisis is already visible. Wooden canoes that once returned from the Rufiji River with heavy catches now bring only a fraction of what they used to. Traders scan for the long-whiskered catfish that once defined the market but find none.
“The big Kambale are hard to find these days,” says 68-year-old fisherman Hamisi Juma.
For generations, seasonal floods brought migratory catfish and other freshwater species along the Rufiji River, allowing them to feed, breed, and replenish their numbers. That cycle sustained fish stocks and thousands of livelihoods.
What is happening on the Rufiji reflects a wider collapse in migratory freshwater fish that are vital to food security and incomes across Africa. For river communities in Tanzania, the disappearance of these species is not only an environmental crisis but also an economic and social one.
A UN assessment finds that many of the world’s great freshwater fish migrations are rapidly collapsing, threatening ecosystems, fisheries, and the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people. Conserving migratory fish in the Mekong (above), La Plata-Paraná, Danube, Nile, and Ganges-Brahmaputra is crucial. Credit: Zeb Hogan
Migratory freshwater fish, which travel long distances within rivers or between them and the sea to spawn and feed, are rapidly disappearing. Scientists say they are among the world’s most threatened vertebrates, driven into decline by river fragmentation, pollution, overfishing, and climate change. Their survival depends on rivers flowing freely, yet across Africa and elsewhere those rivers are increasingly being dammed, diverted and degraded.
“Fish is our main source of protein,” says Asha Mrope, a trader at Nangurukuru market. “When they disappear, everybody at home is affected.”
Dr Zeb Hogan, lead author of a new global assessment on migratory freshwater fishes, says the decline poses a direct threat to food security.
“Freshwater fisheries provide food and livelihoods for hundreds of millions of people around the world, especially in rural and low-income countries,” he tells Inter Press Service (IPS). “These fisheries are worth billions of dollars and provide the majority of protein to people living along rivers with major fisheries.”
In Tanzania, that dependence is visible from the Rufiji to Lake Victoria.
“Fish from Lake Victoria, which contains for example, stocks of Nile perch and other species that are shared between Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya, are a staple food and provide food for millions of people living in northern Tanzania,” Hogan says.
The report’s warning that migratory freshwater fish are among the most endangered vertebrates is therefore more than a biological alarm. In practical terms, it points to a growing food security threat for communities with few affordable alternatives.
The Shortened Migratory Route
To understand the scale of the problem, it helps to follow the fish themselves.
Many species in the Rufiji depend on seasonal floods to move through rivers, wetlands and floodplains where they feed and reproduce. When that rhythm is broken, the damage spreads quickly through the ecosystem.
“When you block a river, you technically destroy biological signals that fish have followed for thousands of years,” says Hilda Mpangala, a scientist at the University of Dar es Salaam.
Hogan says dams disrupt that cycle in several ways.
“Dams disrupt fish migrations – by blocking upstream spawning migrations, by slowing downstream dispersal of young fish, and by modifying river flows that are needed to trigger migrations or distribute young fish to flood plains,” he says.
When fish cannot reach spawning and nursery grounds, populations fall and catches shrink.
The Julius Nyerere Hydropower Dam, one of Africa’s biggest infrastructure projects, captures the dilemma. For Tanzania, it promises more electricity and economic growth. But it also sits on one of the country’s most ecologically important rivers.
For Hogan, the principle is simple: “Keeping rivers healthy and free-flowing keeps aquatic ecosystems full of fish for the benefit of people and the environment.”
Declining Kambale
Seasoned fishermen along the Rufiji remember a different river.
“We used to catch Kambale weighing 30kg. These days you can hardly get any,” says Juma.
Large freshwater fish, often the most valuable for food and income, are declining rapidly and are especially vulnerable to dams, habitat loss and overfishing.
“Big fish need space and time to multiply,” says Juma.
In many communities, the loss of fish means more than lost income. Fish are tied to memory, ceremony and identity. Their absence is felt not only in household meals but also in the stories people tell about the river and the life it once sustained.
Climate Change a Factor
Climate change is worsening the pressure. Across East Africa, shifting rainfall patterns are altering river flows and weakening the flood cycles many fish depend on to migrate and reproduce. Long droughts lower water levels, while sudden heavy rains can trigger destructive flooding.
At the same time, pollution from farming and industry, habitat degradation and overfishing is placing rivers under even greater strain. With fewer fish available, some fishers turn to smaller-mesh nets or illegal methods that trap juvenile fish before they have a chance to reproduce.
A Regional Problem
Across Africa, major river systems such as the Nile, the Congo and the Niger support millions of people and contain some of the world’s richest freshwater biodiversity. Yet many of these rivers are under growing pressure from dams, pollution, climate shocks and weak management.
A new United Nations-backed Global Assessment of Migratory Freshwater Fishes, released today under the Convention on Migratory Species, estimates that migratory freshwater fish populations have declined by 81 percent since 1970, one of the sharpest falls recorded for any group of vertebrates. The report identifies 325 species in urgent need of international conservation action, including 42 in Africa.
“These are some of the world’s great wildlife migrations,” Hogan says. “But they are happening out of sight – and they are collapsing.”
The challenge is especially acute in Africa, where many rivers and lakes cross national borders. The report identifies the Nile, Congo and Niger-Lake Chad systems among priority basins for cooperation.
“Freshwater fish, while extremely important to people and ecosystems, are often overlooked,” he says. “Their migrations, which in terms of sheer biomass can rival the great migrations of zebras and wildebeests across the Serengeti, happen unseen, underwater, and so it’s hard to appreciate their significance and their scale.”
The political challenge is just as daunting.
“The benefits of healthy stocks of migratory fish are often diffused. Millions of people living in rural areas benefit, and those people may not be the decision-makers when it comes to making policy about river development,” Hogan says. “So there is a disconnect between the importance of migratory fish to people and ecosystems and the value assigned to migratory fish by policymakers and developers.”
That matters deeply in Africa, where rivers and lakes routinely cross national borders.
“This is why it’s so important for countries to work together to improve management and protection of migratory fish and fish stocks that straddle international borders,” Hogan says. “Over 49 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by transboundary rivers – so this is not a local or national issue; it’s a global issue that requires international cooperation.”
“Fish do not recognise borders,” Mpangala says. “But too often our policies do.”
Food security at risk
For policymakers, the decline of migratory fish exposes a difficult tension between development and ecological survival. Hydropower can help expand electricity access and fuel economic growth. But when river systems are altered without fully accounting for ecological costs, the consequences can be severe, especially for poor communities that depend directly on fisheries.
Hogan frames the balance in pragmatic terms.
“Yes, hydropower is critical for development,” he says, “so the key is to maximise the benefits from hydropower while at the same time minimising environmental costs.”
That, he argues, requires far better choices than are often made.
“This can be done by siting dams in appropriate locations and designing and operating them well. A good dam is one where the economic benefits far outweigh the environmental costs. Unfortunately there are many ‘bad’ dams being built where the economic benefits are far less than the environmental costs.”
He says some old structures should simply go.
“Old and outdated dams that no longer serve a purpose can also be removed, enabling migratory fish to access historic habitats. This approach has been very successful at restoring stocks of migratory fish.”
At the same time, “we can also set aside some rivers, in protected areas for example, as free-flowing rivers.” And as countries pursue energy security, “another solution which is increasingly being considered is other sources of renewable energy, such as solar and wind.”
In Tanzania, where population growth and urbanisation are increasing demand for both food and energy, that balancing act is becoming more urgent.
“If we lose our fisheries, we are also losing our food, jobs and our way of life,” says Mrope.
Searching for solutions
Experts say the decline can still be slowed – and in some cases reversed – if governments act quickly. Among the most urgent steps are protecting migration corridors, restoring environmental flows, improving fish passage around dams, tightening regulation of fishing practices and investing in better research and monitoring. Many migratory species remain poorly studied, especially in Africa, making effective policy harder.
For Hogan, the most realistic solutions start with the people who know the rivers best.
“Work with local communities to empower them to improve management of fisheries, and connect communities with each other and government to work together to improve management,” he says.
He also argues that countries sharing rivers must cooperate more closely, while fishers’ knowledge should be treated as part of the solution, not pushed to the margins.
“Countries need to work together to manage migratory fish: share data, set common guidelines and regulations, and agree to appropriately value migratory fish and fisheries when making development decisions,” Hogan says.
And he insists that local knowledge must move closer to the centre of policymaking.
“Fishers in local communities are among the most knowledgeable people about migratory fish and ways to protect them; local people should be empowered to share their knowledge.”
He adds that “key fish migration corridors and spawning and rearing habitats should be identified and protected.”
Some of that work, he says, has already begun.
“There are global efforts, working with local communities, to collect knowledge about migratory fish, key migration corridors, and critical habitats that need to be protected.”
A Quiet Warning
Back in Nangurukuru, the market begins to thin as the sun rises higher. The little fish that has arrived is quickly sold. Traders gather their baskets. Fishermen sit in the shade mending nets, preparing for another uncertain day on the river.
“The river is still there,” Juma says. “But it is not the same river we knew.”
IPS UN Bureau Report
GENEVA, Mar 24 2026 (IPS) - As trade ministers gather in Yaoundé, Cameroon, for the WTO’s 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) on 26–29 March 2026, the preparatory process has produced a dense fog of competing reform proposals, draft ministerial statements, and work plans.
The facilitator-led consultations at the WTO headquarters in Geneva focused for the past few weeks on decision-making, development and Special and Differential Treatment (S&DT), as well as level-playing-field issues, while the United States, European Union and others tabled their own reform submissions.
The sheer volume and scope of this activity have muddied the picture of what exactly requires ministerial attention and decision.
This confusion, however, serves a purpose. It obscures the fact that the U.S. — which has done more than any other member to destabilise the multilateral trading system through unilateral tariffs, bilateral Agreements on Reciprocal Trade (ARTs), and paralysing the WTO Appellate Body — is not primarily interested in the reform or continued relevance of the WTO.
Its 2026 Trade Policy Agenda, released earlier this month, makes this plain: the US will push to reorient the WTO’s negotiating function by “favouring meaningful plurilateral agreements” and “urging reassessment of the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) principle” so that trading nations can differentiate among partners in their liberalisation commitments.
The MFN rule is the foundational principle of the WTO that requires any trade advantage granted to one WTO member to be extended equally to all. The U.S. WTO reform paper submitted to the General Council in December 2025 (WT/GC/W/984) goes further, arguing that MFN “is not just unsuitable for this era” but actively prevents countries from optimising their trade relationships.
Outside the WTO, the U.S. is pursuing its trade interests through bilateral ARTs with Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia and others. Since its Supreme Court struck down the legal basis for these ARTs, section 301 of the U.S. 1974 Trade Act has been activated. But within the WTO, the U.S. priority at MC14 is more focused and consequential than the reform agenda suggests.
The immediate objective is to secure adoption of the plurilateral Investment Facilitation Agreement (IFA) into the WTO’s legal architecture under Annex 4 of the Marrakesh Agreement — despite the U.S. not having participated in the IFA negotiations and having no interest in being a party to it. U.S. Ambassador Joseph Barloon identified the IFA as one of a limited number of issues the U.S. wants decided at MC14.
Why would the US push through an agreement it will not sign? Because the IFA is not the end but the means. Its incorporation into the WTO — while its initiation, negotiation and addition have been formally contested — would establish that plurilateral agreements can be adopted and added to the WTO rulebook without the consent of all members. Once that door is opened, the principle of consensus in WTO agenda-setting and rule-making is effectively undermined.
This is precisely what the U.S. wants. Its December 2025 reform submission argues that plurilateral agreements should allow “likeminded trading partners committed to fair and reciprocal trade” to strengthen ties “within the architecture of the WTO agreements,” with benefits limited to consenting parties — that is, on a non-MFN basis.
The paper warns that without a path for plurilaterals, the WTO is “not a viable forum for negotiating.” Read together with the Trade Policy Agenda’s call to reassess MFN, the logic is clear: plurilaterals are the vehicle through which the U.S. intends to displace MFN as the organising principle of the multilateral trading system. Members that cannot or choose not to join will simply be left out.
The second U.S. priority reinforces this trajectory. Washington is pressing developing countries to make permanent the moratorium on customs duties on electronic commerce transmissions. First adopted as a temporary measure in 1998, the moratorium was last renewed at MC13 in Abu Dhabi, where members agreed it would expire at MC14 or 31 March 2026. The U.S. now wants to lock it in permanently and expand the scope of digital goods and services beyond customs authorities.
The stakes are high and direct. UNCTAD has estimated that the moratorium costs developing countries up to $10 billion annually in foregone tariff revenue, with 95 per cent of the losses borne by developing countries. For many, customs duties constitute 10–30 per cent of total tax revenue — for some, over 50 per cent.
The primary beneficiaries are the large technology firms in developed countries that dominate cross-border digital trade. Making the moratorium permanent would formalise this revenue transfer and strip developing countries of policy space to regulate digital imports as the digital economy grows.
Both these issues — the IFA and the e-commerce moratorium — involve developing countries giving up something concrete (MFN treatment, consensus-based decision-making, effective say over agenda setting, customs revenue and regulatory autonomy) in exchange for nothing.
The U.S. is not offering concessions on agriculture, S&DT, or the longstanding mandated issues that matter to developing country Members. It is not proposing to fix the dispute settlement system it broke. It is leveraging reform to extract structural concessions that tilt the WTO’s institutional machinery in its favour, while pursuing its trade interests bilaterally.
Once plurilaterals are entrenched and the moratorium made permanent, the U.S. will have a freer hand to set the WTO agenda without negotiating with developing country and Least Developed Country members. S&DT, already under pressure from demands to end self-designation and narrow its application, will recede further as a meaningful principle and integral part of the negotiations.
The reform agenda, for all its complexity, is secondary to the structural question: will the WTO remain a consensus-based institution where MFN and consensus decision-making ensure the smallest member has a say? Or will it be refashioned into a platform for variable-geometry agreements where the powerful set the terms and the rest face compliance or exclusion?
Developing countries have fought for decades to preserve a multilateral trading system in which trade could serve as a tool for their development. That system is now under direct threat — not from its irrelevance, but from a deliberate strategy to hollow it out from within.
Chien Yen Goh and Kinda Mohamadieh are trade and investment lawyers at Third World Network (TWN) based in Geneva.
IPS UN Bureau
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Mar 24 2026 (IPS) - In mid-1971, US President Nixon ended the dollar’s gold peg at $35 per ounce, triggering de-dollarisation. The 2025 gold and silver rush followed private speculators trying to profit from central banks hedging against perceived new risks.
Jomo Kwame Sundaram
Some believed that flexible exchange rates, replacing earlier fixed rates, would resolve the ‘Triffin dilemma’ of the ‘dollar system’, due to its role as world reserve currency.
Many believe OPEC was allowed to raise oil prices from 1972, on condition petroleum purchases would be settled in dollars. ‘Petrodollars’ were thus believed to be the ‘black gold’ underlying the dollar system’s survival after 1971.
Although still the dominant world reserve currency, the dollar’s role has gradually declined over the decades. Trump 2.0’s rhetoric and actions appear to have accelerated de-dollarisation.
Trump’s 2 April 2025 ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs announcement triggered even greater uncertainty and volatility in foreign exchange and other markets worldwide.
Greater policy unpredictability has caused governments and investors to explore new options. Authorities worldwide are considering and developing alternatives to the dollar system.
Besides higher inflation, Trump’s threats and actions, particularly his tariffs, sanctions and wars, have pushed investors to sell dollar assets and seek alternatives.
Various factors have significantly accelerated de-dollarisation. In the first half of 2025, the dollar fell by over 10%, its sharpest fall since the 1973 oil crisis.
K Kuhaneetha Bai
Geopolitical economy commentator Ben Norton highlighted an April 2025 note by the Deutsche Bank foreign exchange research head, noting:
“We are witnessing a simultaneous collapse in the price of all US assets [including stocks, foreign exchange, and bonds] … we are entering uncharted territory in the global financial system…
“The market is rapidly de-dollarising. In a typical crisis environment, the market would be hoarding dollar liquidity…The market has lost faith in US assets. They are actively selling down their US assets.
“US administration policy is encouraging a trend toward de-dollarisation to safeguard international investors from a weaponisation of dollar liquidity.”
Western confiscations
The weaponisation of central banks by the US, Europe, and their allies has caused other central banks to seek ‘safety’ by switching from dollar assets to gold.
Increased weaponisation of the dollar and Western confiscation of others’ assets under various pretexts have accelerated this trend.
Billions of dollars’ worth of Venezuelan central bank gold, held at the Bank of England, was confiscated by the UK government during the 2019 Washington-instigated Caracas coup attempt.
After the coup failed, the Bank of England refused to return the gold to Venezuela. Trust in Western governments and central banks thus continued to erode.
Similarly, the US Fed and European Central Bank confiscated over $300 billion worth of Russian dollar-, euro- and sterling-denominated assets after it invaded Ukraine.
European authorities have since pledged to transfer these Russian assets to Ukraine rather than return them to their owners.
Western confiscations of the central bank reserves of Iran, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Russia and others have alarmed authorities and publics worldwide.
Central banks’ reserve managers have increasingly viewed gold as safe despite greater volatility. Besides serving as a hedge, the precious metal also offered lucrative speculative gains.
Mitigating risk
Many monetary authorities have reversed their earlier accumulation of dollar-denominated US Treasury bills and bonds in their official reserves.
While US government debt has continued growing, inflationary pressures have mounted, albeit episodically. Gold and silver holdings are believed to help hedge against inflation and fiat currency debasement.
Gold holdings in central bank reserves increased significantly after the 2008-09 global, actually Western, financial crisis, followed by the Western turn to ‘quantitative easing’.
For the first time in three decades, central banks’ total gold holdings in their international reserves exceeded their US Treasury bond holdings in 2025.
About 36,200 tons, or a fifth of all gold holdings, is now held by central banks, rising rapidly over two years from 15% at the end of 2023!
Meanwhile, rising gold prices drew more speculative investments for profit. But such price spikes are not sustainable indefinitely.
Once gold was seen as overpriced, investors turned to other precious metals, notably silver, and other financial assets.
BRICS’ golden hedge?
After Lord Jim O’Neill identified Brazil, Russia, India and China as significant new financial powers outside the Western sphere of influence, BRICS was formed in 2009 by adding South Africa.
BRICS now has ten members and ten partners. Together, they account for 44% of world income, measured by purchasing power parity, and 56% of its people.
Russia, China, and India have been among the largest recent buyers of gold. Other major purchasers include Uzbekistan and Thailand, both BRICS partners.
Trump 2.0 has generated significant apprehension internationally. Without BRICS’ help, his weaponisation of economic policies and agreements has accelerated de-dollarisation.
Although Trump accuses the BRICS of conspiring to accelerate de-dollarisation, their precious metal purchases make sense as a hedge for their reserves.
IPS UN Bureau
VICTORIA, Seychelles, Mar 23 2026 (IPS) - When the 11th Our Ocean Conference opens in Mombasa and Kilifi, Kenya, from June 16-18, 2026, it will mark the first time this influential meeting has been held on African soil. For coastal and island nations across the continent and the wider Indian Ocean – and for the Global South more broadly – the stakes could not be higher: the promises and commitments made there will help decide whether the ocean becomes a source of justice and resilience, or deepens existing inequalities.
James Alix Michel
Since its launch in 2014, the Our Ocean Conference has generated a steady stream of commitments on marine conservation, sustainable fisheries, climate action and pollution control. Billions of dollars have been pledged for marine protected areas, surveillance, research and community projects. Yet, for many communities in the Global South, the reality at sea has often changed far less than the rhetoric on land. Overfishing, climate-driven ecosystem shifts and pollution continue to undermine food security and livelihoods, while benefits from the “blue economy” still tend to flow upwards to those with capital and technology.
I know this process intimately. In 2018, at the Our Ocean Conference in Bali, Indonesia (October 29–30), I was honoured to be invited by renown Philanthropist, Dona Bertarelli, and named one of the founding Pew-Bertarelli Ocean Legacy Ambassadors, alongside John Kerry, former US Secretary of State, and David Cameron, former UK Prime Minister, Heraldo Munoz former Chilean minister of Foreign Affairs and Carlotta Leon.
Our central mission was to champion large-scale marine protected areas (MPAs).
Under my presidency of Seychelles (2004–2016), we set a global example for the Global South. At Rio+20 in 2012, we announced our bold commitment to protect 30% of our 1.35 million km² Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) by 2020 – a full decade ahead of today’s global 30×30 targets. We launched the Seychelles Marine Spatial Plan (SMSP) process in 2014, involving 265 stakeholder consultations and over 100 GIS data layers, culminating in 410,000 km² (30% of our EEZ, an area larger than Germany) designated as Marine Protected Areas in March 2020, with the full SMSP becoming legally binding across our entire EEZ on March 31, 2025. We also pioneered the world’s first sovereign blue bond in October 2018 – a US$15 million issuance (with $21.6 million debt-for-nature swap via The Nature Conservancy) that reduced our borrowing costs from 6.5% to 2.8% while funding fisheries governance, marine protection and blue economy projects through SeyCCAT and the Development Bank of Seychelles.
Mombasa’s significance lies not only in geography but in timing. The High Seas Treaty – formally the BBNJ Agreement entered into force on the 17th January this year having reached 60 ratifications in 2025.
The Treaty offers, for the first time, a framework to create marine protected areas and regulate potentially harmful activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction, which cover nearly half the planet and play critical roles in climate regulation and biodiversity. For African and other developing countries, the way this agreement is implemented will test whether “common heritage of humankind” can move from slogan to reality.
Seychelles was among the first African nations to ratify BBNJ, advocating for high seas MPAs like the Saya de Malha Bank.
The treaty’s provisions on environmental impact assessments, area-based management tools, capacity-building and benefit-sharing will shape who gets to decide what happens on the high seas, and who gains or loses from emerging ocean industries. Without strong institutions, adequate financing and meaningful participation from the Global South, there is a risk that powerful states and corporations will dominate decision-making, reproducing on the ocean the same patterns of inequality seen on land.
The debate over deep-sea mining makes these concerns concrete. Proponents argue that mining polymetallic nodules and other deep-sea deposits could supply minerals needed for the energy transition.
But scientific assessments warn that such operations may cause long-lasting damage to seafloor habitats, disrupt carbon cycles and threaten species we have barely begun to study. Small-scale fishers, coastal communities and Indigenous peoples worry that the costs will be borne by those least responsible for climate change and least able to adapt.
In recent years, a broad coalition of states, scientists, civil society groups and youth movements has called for a precautionary pause or moratorium on commercial deep-sea mining in the Area. This demand is rooted in the precautionary principle and in a vision of the ocean as a living system, not just a stockpile of raw materials. For many in the Global South, it is also a justice issue: the world cannot repeat, in the deep sea, an extractive model that has left communities polluted and marginalised on land.
In Africa’s Indian Ocean, these debates are particularly urgent. Recently, I joined ocean Renown philanthropist and a strong advocate of Ocean Conservation , Dona Bertarelli in calling for a moratorium on deep-sea mining in Africa’s ocean, especially in the Indian Ocean. Our message to governments is that precaution and long-term stewardship must come before short-term profit – a principle Seychelles has applied through our SMSP and blue bonds.
Kenya has framed the 2026 conference under the theme “Our Ocean, Our Heritage, Our Future”, with a focus on jobs, equity and healthy oceans. This framing resonates across the Global South, where coastal and inland communities face converging crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and economic insecurity.
For the conference to be a turning point, African and other developing countries could push for three outcomes :
First, insist that BBNJ implementation be guided by equity: robust funding for capacity-building and technology transfer, transparent environmental assessments, and benefit-sharing that reaches frontline communities.
Second, unite behind a precautionary moratorium on deep-sea mining until independent science shows it can proceed without irreversible harm and robust global rules exist.
Third, demand commitments that improve lives: secure markets for small-scale fishers, nature-based solutions like mangrove restoration, climate-resilient infrastructure, and support for youth, women and Indigenous leadership. Seychelles proves this works – 30%+ EEZ protection with sustainable financing balancing ecology and equity.
Mombasa sits at the intersection of vulnerability and possibility, like coastal cities across the Global South. Hosting Africa’s first Our Ocean Conference offers a chance to centre perspectives of those who live with the ocean daily.
The test of Our Ocean 2026 will be whether it shifts power towards those most affected and committed to stewardship. For Africa, SIDS and the Global South, Mombasa is a moment to say: the ocean is not a frontier to be mined, but a living foundation for our survival and dignity.
James Alix Michel is the former President of Seychelles (2004–2016) and a global advocate for the blue economy, ocean conservation and climate resilience.
IPS UN Bureau
PORTLAND, USA, Mar 23 2026 (IPS) - On planet Earth, world population in 2026 is 8.3 billion people, which is four times larger than it was a hundred years ago.
Despite this record number of humans living on the planet, world population is expected to continue increasing throughout the 21st century, significantly impacting planetary sustainability.
Over the past two hundred years, the human population on the planet has experienced unprecedented growth rates. For example, it took thousands of years for world population to reach the one billion mark at the beginning of the 19th century, in 1804.
In the subsequent centuries, the growth of world population accelerated with record high rates of demographic growth. It took approximately 123 years for the world’s population to increase from one billion to two billion and 47 years for the world population to double again, reaching four billion in 1974.
The time required for the subsequent billion additions to the world population was relatively short, approximately twelve years. In summary, the human population on planet Earth has increased five-fold since the beginning of the 20th century (Figure 1).
Source: United Nations.
United Nations population projections anticipate that world population will continue to grow throughout the 21st century. By around 2060, world population is expected to reach 10 billion, which is ten times the size it was in 1804. Furthermore, world population is projected to peak at 10.3 billion in 2084 and then slightly decrease to 10.2 billion by the end of the century.
As the world population has grown rapidly, the geographic distribution of billions of people across the planet has also significantly changed since the beginning of the 20th century.
Particularly notable are the changing proportions of the world’s population living in Africa and Europe. At the start of the 20th century, the proportions of the world’s population living in Africa and Europe were 8% and 25%, respectively. By the end of the 21st century, those proportions are projected to be 37% for Africa and 6% for Europe (Table 1).
Source: United Nations.
Another significant change involves the proportion of the world’s population living in Asia. At the beginning of the 20th century, around 60% of the world’s population lived in Asia. However, by the close of the 21st century, that proportion is expected to decrease significantly to 45%.
The proportions of the world’s population living in the other three major regions have been relatively stable, remaining in single digits. The proportions for Latin America and the Caribbean, Northern America and Oceania are approximately 8%, 5% and 1%, respectively.
The shifts in the global distribution of world population have led to significant economic, political, social, and environmental implications. Despite these important consequences, much attention in the media, business boardrooms, and government offices is focused on low fertility rates and the resulting population decline in many countries.
It is the case that more than half of the countries worldwide have fertility rates below replacement levels, leading to population decline and demographic ageing. However, the media often portrays a stable or smaller population in a negative light.
The consequences of the ongoing population growth, projected to reach 10.3 billion people by 2084, will lead to a complex mixture of global problems that many governments, unfortunately, typically ignore, dismiss, or minimize
In such reporting, terms like “weak” or “anemic” are used to describe moderate population growth, while “flat” or “stalled” are used for stable population. Additionally, those who warn of depopulation often predict a future crisis instead of discussing any positive relief from current environmental and climate concerns or the benefits for women and working families.
Many people, especially traditional economists and right-wing politicians, assume that population growth is essential for a flourishing economy. These individuals advocate for population growth because they believe it drives economic growth, increases the labor supply, and stimulates consumption.
The concern about the birthrate crisis is often fueled by those who benefit from a growing population. These individuals often provide information or central messages, such as population collapse, failing economies, demographic crisis, and human extinction, which are then picked up by the media and lead to misleading headlines.
Moreover, many government officials are calling for increased population growth through higher fertility rates and implementing policies and actions to support such outcomes. These calls, policies, and actions are primarily driven by concerns over demographic ageing, declining workforces, and economic sustainability.
In essence, their message is that a growing population leads to a larger economy, more entrepreneurs, market expansion, and innovation. Additionally, some government officials choose to focus on women and blame them for their country’s low birth rates.
In contrast, a stable population is often viewed as stagnant. The demographic ageing of populations and increased human longevity are seen as problematic, leading to a “demographic winter” with significant financial stresses on government budgets for pensions and health care for older individuals.
While the world’s population of 8.3 billion is projected to continue growing throughout most of the 21st century, low fertility rates and demographic ageing are seen as challenges rather than accomplishments.
Additionally, as the planet’s environmental and climate crises accelerate, large portions of society continue to ignore the fact that a world with more than 8 billion people is a critical factor driving them. These groups typically dismiss research findings indicating that a world population of 8 billion, which is continuing to increase, drives climate change, ecological disruption, rising sea levels, biodiversity loss, habitat destruction, resource scarcity, and food insecurity.
For example, global wildlife is currently facing a worsening crisis. The most recent United Nations assessment warns that nearly half of the world’s migratory animal species are declining due to human activity, habitat destruction, and climate change.
Moreover, melting glaciers in Antarctica are hastening sea-level rise in coastal cities. The Thwaites Glacier, in particular, is melting at an alarming pace. If it were to break apart completely and collapse today, it could raise global sea levels by 2 feet in the next few decades, affecting tens of millions of people worldwide.
In summary, the world’s population is currently at a record high of 8.3 billion and is expected to continue growing throughout the 21st century, significantly impacting planetary sustainability.
The consequences of the ongoing population growth, projected to reach 10.3 billion people by 2084, will lead to a complex mixture of global problems that many governments, unfortunately, typically ignore, dismiss, or minimize. These problems include resource strains, increased conflict, environmental damage, climate change, sea level rise, habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, food insecurity, increased unauthorized migration, and greater societal vulnerabilities.
Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population issues.
Mar 23 2026 (IPS) -
CIVICUS discusses Nepal’s upcoming election with youth activist Anusha Khanal of the Gen Z Movement Alliance, a youth-led civil society coalition mobilising for democratic accountability and governance reform in Nepal.
Anusha Khanal
What triggered the Gen Z protests, and how did the state respond?
The immediate trigger was the government revealing its authoritarian tendencies by banning 26 popular social media platforms. This happened during the ‘nepokids’ trend, in which people exposed the wealth of politicians’ families, contrasting with widespread economic desperation. Inflation was high and unemployment among young people stood at around 23 per cent, and there were no pathways for change within existing political structures. But this wasn’t just about jobs. Young people demanded accountability for decades of corruption, poor governance, service delivery failures and a political system completely disconnected from our realities. The leaders of three parties had rotated in power for years without delivering anything meaningful. We mobilised because we had nothing to lose.
The response was brutal. On the first day of protests, police killed several young people. The government refused to show any responsibility, instead seeking to frame the movement as violent and deny it any legitimacy. It criminalised youth anger instead of listening to it. The choice to emphasise property damage over deaths when some buildings were burned and vandalised told us everything about where their priorities lay. The government showed it did not care about young people.
But repression didn’t stop the movement; it accelerated it. Thousands more young people mobilised, and eventually the pressure became impossible to ignore. Oli’s resignation was a forced concession. But it exposed something important: the political system only moves when threatened directly. That’s a lesson we’re carrying into these elections.
How did civil society organisations engage with the movement?
Young people created the movement, not civil society organisations. Once it started, we received a lot of support from wider civil society. It became a people’s movement, with people of all ages taking part, in person and in spirit. Many civil society groups made a conscious choice to support it, document what was happening, share knowledge, help shape narratives, amplify demands and help exert pressure to translate grassroots anger into political demands. We pushed for accountability, investigations into the killings, protection for protesters and systemic reforms around corruption and governance. We insisted that any negotiation include young people at the table, as stakeholders in decision-making.
A major win was a 10-point agreement with the interim government that included commitments to address corruption, improve governance, ensure youth participation in decision-making and move towards more inclusive democracy. We also pushed for the establishment of the Gen Z Council, a body designed to hold government accountable, monitor implementation of reforms and bridge the gap between the state and young people.
But we’ve been realistic about what civil society can and cannot do. We can organise, advocate, document and monitor. We cannot force a government to implement reforms if the bureaucracy resists or political will collapses after elections. That’s why we’re now focused on maintaining pressure and building systems that make it harder for future governments to ignore youth demands.
How have election candidates addressed the movement’s demands?
Anti-corruption and good governance have become dominant themes across party manifestos. All parties are talking about digital governance, e-governance, going cashless and paperless. Some are promising to establish commissions to investigate past corruption or audit public officials’ assets going back decades. Others focus on timecard systems for service delivery, budget transparency and digitisation of transactions. It’s just that corruption is so visible that ignoring it would be political suicide.
The problem is that most parties are vague on implementation. They describe the what but not the how. There are also ideological differences, but most parties are talking about systemic reform and public-private partnerships.
Across the board, parties are responding to the movement’s anti-corruption demand because they have to. The question is whether these commitments are genuine or just campaign rhetoric.
Why are women and excluded groups still so underrepresented among candidates?
Campaign financing is a massive problem. The government sets spending limits, but everyone knows that’s not what happens on the ground. To run a serious campaign with widespread reach, you need sponsorship from wealthy backers or business interests. If you’re a woman earning a minimum wage, you simply cannot compete against candidates funded by millionaires. There is no public financing system, no state support for candidates from marginalised backgrounds. The economic system excludes most women and poor people before we even get to party selection processes.
Safety is another critical issue that doesn’t get enough attention. Digital violence against women running for office is rampant. Women and queer candidates face abuse, harassment and threats online and offline. When we encourage female and queer colleagues to run, the response is often hesitancy, due to the lack of support and because we haven’t created safe enough spaces for them to participate in politics. Although the constitution guarantees women 33 per cent representation, the reality on the ground is completely different.
Then there’s the distribution of candidacy slots within parties, which is opaque and controlled by party leaders. Even after public pressure, many parties failed to meet the female quota in direct candidacies. Some did better in proportional representation slots, but even there, they selected women who are mostly well-connected and wealthy. The movement emphasised inclusion, but we’ve regressed when it comes to candidate selection.
What obstacles stand in the way of reform?
The first challenge is that we’re almost certainly heading towards a coalition government, which means compromise on every issue. When multiple parties have to negotiate and share power, reform agendas get watered down. Parties will prioritise holding their coalition together over pushing through the anti-corruption and governance reforms they promised. We’ve seen this pattern before. What isn’t clear yet is what kind of coalition will result and what compromises will be made.
The second challenge is the bureaucracy. Nepal’s bureaucracy can be notoriously resistant to change, transparency and accountability. A reform can pass parliament and still die in implementation because mid-level bureaucrats refuse to change how they work. Even though the law to establish the Gen Z Council has been passed, it hasn’t been formed yet. We can identify problems, document failures and advocate loudly, but we cannot force a government to act. If the bureaucracy decides to drag its feet, we have limited leverage. Structural incentives favour the status quo, and that’s before we even consider whether individual politicians will prioritise reforms over personal interests or patronage networks.
But we’re not giving up. Civil society’s role now is to maintain constant pressure, document what does and doesn’t get implemented and call attention when governments fail to keep their promises. The Gen Z Council gives us a formal mechanism to do this, and we can also raise our voices independently of it. We need to build broader coalitions, keep the movement’s demands visible in public discourse and make clear that if a government fails to deliver, there will be consequences. Real change is slow and difficult — but it’s possible if civil society stays organised and vigilant and doesn’t compromise on core demands.
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
Instagram
Anusha Khanal/LinkedIn
SEE ALSO
Nepal’s Gen Z uprising: time for youth-led change CIVICUS Lens 10.Oct.2025
‘The government was corrupt and willing to kill its own people to stay in power’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Dikpal Khatri Chhetri 02.Oct.2025
‘The Social Network Bill is part of a broader strategy to tighten control over digital communication’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Dikshya Khadgi 28.Feb.2025
SAO PAULO, Brazil, Mar 23 2026 (IPS) - The 70th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW70) (March 9-19), held at the United Nations headquarters, brought together governments, decision makers, civil society, and international organizations to address a central issue: access to justice for women and girls.
Taking place in a complex global context, the session reflected both the continued relevance of multilateral cooperation and the evolving nature of discussions on gender equality. As noted in UN remarks during the session, “this year’s theme cuts to the heart of the struggle for equality: access to justice,” giving emphasis on the importance of strengthening legal systems and ensuring that rights are effectively realized.
Sustaining momentum on Gender Equality
One of the key outcomes of CSW70 was the adoption of the Agreed Conclusions, which reaffirm the international community’s commitment to advancing gender equality and improving access to justice worldwide.
While the conclusions were adopted through a recorded vote (an approach less common in CSW processes) the result demonstrated broad support among member states for maintaining and advancing existing frameworks.
Observers noted that the outcome reflects a continued global commitment to the principles first established at the Fourth World Conference on Women and articulated in the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action.
Civil society organizations also welcomed the outcome, highlighting that the adoption of the conclusions signals that cooperation remains possible, even in a changing geopolitical landscape.
Focusing on access to justice
Discussions throughout the session emphasized that access to justice extends beyond legal frameworks. It includes the ability of women and girls to navigate institutions, obtain remedies, and be protected under the law.
Globally, women have achieved significant legal advancements over the past decades, yet disparities persist in many regions.
As emphasized by UN officials, “no country in the world has achieved full legal equality,” reinforcing the importance of continued efforts at national and international levels.
This shared recognition helped anchor discussions in practical solutions, including strengthening judicial systems, expanding legal aid, and addressing barriers faced by marginalized groups.
Evolving discussions and diverse perspectives
CSW70 also reflected the diversity of perspectives among Member States on how best to advance gender equality.
A number of proposals were introduced during negotiations addressing definitions, policy language, and implementation approaches. These included discussions on how to frame gender, how to address sexual and reproductive health and rights, and how to reflect different national contexts in global agreements.
While not all proposals were incorporated into the final text, the process itself illustrated the dynamic nature of multilateral dialogue. It also highlighted the importance of balancing shared global commitments with national priorities and legal frameworks.
Observers noted that such discussions, while sometimes complex, are part of the ongoing evolution of international cooperation.
The use of a recorded vote, rather than consensus, marked a notable procedural development at CSW70. The session also included discussions around procedural options, such as potential amendments or motions that could influence the negotiation process.
While these mechanisms are part of standard UN practice, their consideration reflects the range of tools available to Member States in shaping outcomes.
The role of civil society
Civil society organizations played an active and visible role throughout the session, while still with a limited space, but contributing expertise, advocacy, and on-the-ground perspectives.
While formal negotiations are led by Member States, civil society contributions helped inform discussions and maintain focus on implementation and accountability. Participants widely recognized that continued collaboration between governments and civil society will be essential for translating commitments into tangible outcomes.
Global South perspectives and contributions
Delegations from regions including Latin America, Africa, and Asia worked to ensure that the outcomes reflected diverse realities and development contexts. In particular, coordination among Latin American countries (including Brazil and Chile) supported regional dialogue and helped maintain constructive engagement throughout the session. Brazilian organizations brought new projects and perspectives around climate resilience to high-level representatives.
These contributions highlight the growing influence of Global South actors in multilateral spaces, not only as participants but as key contributors to consensus-building and policy development. At the same time, the diversity within the Global South itself underscores the importance of inclusive dialogue that reflects a wide range of experiences and priorities.
Areas for continued attention
Alongside its achievements, CSW70 also pointed to areas where further work may be needed.
Differences in perspectives on certain issues (such as specific policy language or implementation approaches) indicate that continued dialogue will be important in future sessions. These discussions reflect the complexity of advancing global agreements in a diverse international community.
Additionally, the evolving nature of negotiations suggests an opportunity to further strengthen mechanisms for collaboration and consensus-building.
Looking ahead
CSW70 reaffirmed the importance of sustained international cooperation in advancing gender equality and access to justice. While the session did not resolve all differences, it demonstrated that progress remains possible through dialogue, engagement, and shared commitment.
As the global community continues to build on the foundations established by the Beijing Platform for Action, the focus will remain on translating commitments into concrete improvements in the lives of women and girls.
In this context, CSW70 stands as a reminder that multilateral processes are not only about outcomes, but also about the continued willingness of countries to come together, exchange perspectives, and move forward collectively (for real).
Fernanda Lagoeiro is a Brazilian journalist specializing in gender, climate and health issues. She has been covering issues relating to social impact, nonprofit sector, and environmental agendas, with a focus on underreported perspectives and human-centered storytelling. She has also contributed to national and international media outlets (such as Der Tagesspiegel, Deutsche Welle etc) and to institutional projects, focusing on accessible and impactful narratives.
IPS UN Bureau