The Human Consciousness Now...Our World in the Midst of Becoming...to What? Observe, contemplate Now.
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 19 2026 (IPS) - When smoking was common in the corridors of the UN, in the delegate’s lounge and in committee rooms during the 1970s and 90s, the office of the Secretary-General sent a memo that read: “Smoking was Discouraged” in the UN building—sounding far short of a ban.
The Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov (1994-2004), currently the country’s Foreign Minister, left a Security Council meeting and pulled out a cigarette in the presence of half a dozen reporters waiting for him outside the chamber.
As he approached the reporters, one of them told him that the Secretary-General had banned smoking in the building. And Lavrov shot back: “This building does not belong to the Secretary-General. It belongs to member states: he said, as he lit his cigarette.
And Lavrov was dead on target.
The ban on smoking became effective only after the 193-member General Assembly adopted a resolution back in 2008—18 years ago.
Under Resolution 63/8 and Secretariat Information Circular ST/IC/2016/10, the United Nations enforced a complete ban on indoor smoking and the sale of tobacco products across all UN Headquarters premises. Smoking and vaping were restricted exclusively to designated, signposted open-air areas.
• The resolution 63/8, adopted on November 3, 2008, mandated a total ban on indoor smoking and tobacco sales at UN Headquarters in New York, while recommending similar restrictions across all regional and country offices system-wide.• Information Circular ST/IC/2016/10: This administrative issuance updated and superseded prior circulars (such as ST/IC/2009/29), reiterating strict compliance guidelines for staff, delegates, and visitors regarding the smoke-free workplace mandate.
But apparently there were violations of the ban.
A new circular released last week by the UN’s Media and Liaison Unit (MALU) has reiterated the ban on smoking– and well ahead of the arrival of thousands of delegates who will be at the UN for the General Assembly sessions in mid-September.
“Please remember: terraces, verandas, entrances and other outdoor spaces are not automatically smoking areas. Smoking and vaping should take place only where the area is specifically designated and clearly marked”.
The World Health Organization (WHO), says the circular, states that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke and that fully smoke-free environments provide the most effective protection.
Even brief exposure can affect cardiovascular and respiratory health, particularly for people with asthma, cardiovascular disease, other respiratory conditions, or heightened sensitivity to smoke.
Second-hand smoke can drift beyond the person smoking and affect colleagues, delegates, visitors and service personnel who have not chosen to be exposed. Vape aerosol may also contain nicotine, ultrafine particles and other potentially harmful substances; for this reason, vaping is subject to the same UNHQ restrictions.
According to WHO, a UN agency based in Geneva, tobacco damages nearly every organ in the body, causing cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung disease, reduced fertility, weakened immunity and premature death.
• Tobacco kills more than 7 million people each year, including over 1.6 million non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke.• All forms of tobacco use are harmful, and there is no safe level of exposure.
• Around 80% of the world’s 1.2 billion tobacco users live in low- and middle-income countries
• Nicotine is highly addictive and harmful, particularly for children, adolescents and young adults whose brains are still developing.
The tobacco epidemic, says WHO, is one of the biggest public health threats the world has ever faced, responsible for over 7 million deaths annually as well as disability and long-term suffering from tobacco-related diseases.
Tobacco use is a major risk factor for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, over 20 different types or subtypes of cancer, and many other debilitating health conditions.
All forms of tobacco use are harmful, and there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco. Cigarette smoking is the most common form of tobacco use worldwide. Other tobacco products include waterpipe tobacco, cigars, cigarillos, heated tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, pipe tobacco, bidis and kreteks, and smokeless tobacco products.
Nicotine is highly addictive and harmful, particularly for children, adolescents and young adults whose brains are still developing. Nicotine exposure during adolescence can affect brain development, including impacts on attention and learning.
Early nicotine use can increase the likelihood of long-term dependence and future use of other nicotine and tobacco products. Nicotine use also increases cardiovascular risk, the WHO warned.
“Around 80% of the 1.2 billion tobacco users worldwide live in low- and middle-income countries (2), where the burden of tobacco-related illness and death is heaviest. Tobacco use contributes to poverty by diverting household spending from basic needs such as food and shelter to tobacco. This spending behaviour is difficult to curb because tobacco is very addictive”.
The economic costs of tobacco use are substantial and include significant health care costs for treating the diseases caused by tobacco use, as well as the lost human capital that results from tobacco-attributable morbidity and mortality.
IPS UN Bureau Report
Aug 19 2026 (IPS) -
CIVICUS discusses the state of civic and humanitarian action in Gaza with Ibrahim Arandas, a Palestinian activist and project manager at SPARK Gaza, a civil society organisation that provides humanitarian and psychosocial support.
Ibrahim Arandas
What’s life like for people in Gaza now, and what needs are most urgent?
Today, life is defined by scarcity and uncertainty. Israel has turned Gaza into something far worse than a concentration camp. It has engineered a system designed not just to confine and suffocate an entire population, but to erode people’s lives day after day, generation by generation. This is not a simple military operation but deliberate, prolonged destruction, calibrated to keep people alive, but just enough to avoid global outrage while denying every basic condition of human dignity.
The psychological toll is enormous. Aid agencies report that anxiety and severe helplessness have become the norm rather than the exception, particularly among families who have lost their homes, routines and support networks. Our most urgent needs are clean water, healthcare, shelter and mental health support.
What has changed and what obstacles to humanitarian work remain?
When the ceasefire was announced, we thought it meant the end of the war and the suffering. Before the war, two million of us lived across Gaza. We have lost friends and family, and now live in just 36 per cent of the territory.
The hardest issue we face is reaching vulnerable people with the aid they need, including basic supplies, healthcare and mental health support. Patients need healthcare, but our teams cannot reach them. Israel makes movement between areas extremely hard, particularly during periods of escalation, when near-constant closures and limited crossings determine who enters and leaves Gaza.
This is a high-risk, complex environment and we have to stay adaptive to reach the sites and people who depend on us. Every movement implies high risk, but there’s no risk register.
How has your organisation’s work evolved?
We have grown. Gaza has lived through many wars, but we’d never faced conditions like these. In Gaza, you can’t plan a month or two ahead. Things collapse, and the plan has to be redesigned every day.
In our European Union-funded project, we had to constantly redesign how we deliver programming, shifting activities and timelines and sometimes moving sessions online, because access to project sites and young people can change from week to week depending on movement restrictions and security conditions.
We work under constant uncertainty, with internet and network cut-offs overnight and contact with front-line workers lost within an hour. From this, we learned and adapted existing global standards to our context. I developed and published a framework I call ‘adaptive conflict project management’, useful for working in conflict-affected areas like Gaza. It sets out how to build a risk plan, delegate to frontline workers rather than only leaders, divide projects across areas because movement is restricted and keep every worker feeling safe and supported.
How has civil society sustained the response and what support does it need?
Coordination has been essential. One of our few sources of resilience is local organising, combined with international partners who bring resources and access to global platforms like CIVICUS. The combination of local knowledge and international backing has kept civic and humanitarian work alive under the most difficult conditions.
As a frontline worker, what I believe is most needed is sustained access. It’s not just about the volume of aid, but about the ability to plan around consistent access to people and areas. We also need investment in local capacity, not only emergency relief, so Gaza’s civil society can lead the recovery rather than only respond to the crisis. We want to lead this recovery and think beyond emergency relief.
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
Ibrahim Arandas/Facebook
Ibrahim Arandas/Instagram
Ibrahim Arandas/LinkedIn
SEE ALSO
Gaza: ceasefire an illusion CIVICUS Lens | Article 15.Mar.2026
Gaza: ‘Humanitarian aid matters for survival, but its dynamics diminish Palestinian agency’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Ali Abdel-Wahab 16.Feb.2026
‘Life in Gaza’s shelters is marked by deprivation – but also by the endurance of human dignity’ CIVICUS Lens | Anonymous interview 12.Aug.2025
SYDNEY, Aug 19 2026 (IPS) - The 13th of August marked the 100th birthday of Cuba’s revolutionary leader Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz – in short Fidel Castro. Amidst an intensified US siege and the threat of invasion, Cubans commemorated their dear leader’s centenary birth anniversary with events that included an International Book Fair, art exhibitions, concerts and gatherings of delegates from left-wing organisations across the continent.
Anis Chowdhury
Wayne Smith, a US diplomat with a long experience in Cuba, believes Fidel Castro will be remembered because “he stood up to the United States and survived”. When Castro died in 2016, the leading US news media CBS carried an opinion piece, entitled, “How Fidel Castro stood up to the U.S., and won”.
The illegal blockade of Cuba contributes to shortages of food, medicine, fuel, and essential supplies, increasing the cost of everyday life for the Cuban people. However, when Castro welcomed Pope John Paul II in 1998 and let the pictures do the talking, the world saw Cuba surviving in spite of the US trade embargo.
Castro’s legacy
Castro’s legacy was best summarised by Ken Livingstone, former mayor of London. In 2006, during his visit to Cuba, Livingstone said, “What’s amazing here is you’ve got a country that’s suffered an illegal economic blockade by the United States for almost half a century and yet it’s been able to give its people the best standard of health care, brilliant education… to do this in the teeth of an almost economic war is a tribute to Fidel Castro”.
Thus, Cuba attained high human development measured by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)’s Human Development Index (HDI). In comparison with the world average of 0.746 based on 185 countries, Cuba’s HDI was 0.762 in 2023. In 1994, Cuba’s HDI reached 0.887. Underlying the above global average HDI is a high adult literacy rate of nearly 100% and a high life expectancy of approximately 78.1 years at birth.
These are the results of free health care and free education for all, considered a right. Cuba has the highest ratio of doctors to patients in the world, at 9.8 per 1,000 people (2021), which was 0.9 in 1960. Its infant mortality of 3.86 per 1,000 live births is one of the lowest in the world. At the William Soler Paediatric Hospital in Havana, more than 90% of the new-borns who needed neonatal surgery survived their procedures.
Malaria, polio, tetanus, and measles have been eradicated in Cuba due to years of investment in primary care and assiduous attention to the population’s health. Cuba’s long-standing commitment to health has led to a successful COVID-19 pandemic response. Cuba spends a larger proportion of its gross domestic product on education than any other country in the world.
Unfortunately, the recent tightening of the unilateral illegal blockade by the Trump administration is inflicting heavy costs and reversing Cuba’s unique development gains.
A true internationalist
Castro was a true internationalist leader of the proletariat and stood by freedom fighters, especially in Africa. At a rally of approximately 1 million Cubans in 1962, Fidel Castro presented the Second Declaration of Havana, a call to revolutionary action to anti-imperialist and working-class fighters internationally. Castro often reiterated, the Cuban people’s internationalist aid to liberation struggles was “paying our debt to humanity.”
Castro sent his first batch of military support to Algerian President Ben Bellah in 1963. Castro’s Cuba trained the revolutionaries in Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Namibia, Democratic Republic of Congo and Cape Verde and fought with them against the colonial rule. Castro branded apartheid “a creation of Western capitalism and imperialism”, and his Cuba helped bring down the system of apartheid in South Africa by providing resources and training to African National Congress (ANC) fighters.
Despite the hardship illegally imposed on it by the US, Cuba always stood by the world’s oppressed and hapless people. In 1960, Cuba joined the relief effort after the Chilean earthquake. In 1963, it sent health-care workers to assist the newly independent state of Algeria.
Castro’s Cuba has been despatching cadres of health-care professionals all over the world to combat disasters and epidemics. Cuban doctors were on the scene in Haiti during the cholera outbreak that followed the 2010 earthquake; they arrived in west Africa during the 2013–16 Ebola crisis. And when COVID-19 spread to Europe, two Cuban health professional teams landed in Italy. By the end of April, 2020, more than 1000 Cuban health-care workers were helping foreign countries respond to COVID-19.
Castro conceptualised and implemented an inclusive model of healthcare that brought doctors to the people. He extended Cuban medical aid to other countries, demonstrating the essentially internationalist and human nature of the Cuban Revolution.
Clare Wenham, assistant professor of global health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science observed, “The international health programme is about solidarity; Cuba believes that healthy populations are the bedrock of global society and they want to support that any way they can”.
Mandela and Castro
Like many revolutionaries and freedom fighters in the Global South, Nelson Mandela was inspired by the Cuban Revolution’s triumph in 1959. Charged with the task of starting a guerrilla army in 1961, Mandela looked to the writings of Cuban Communists for guidance.
Mandela visited Cuba in 1991 to express his gratitude to Castro, calling Castro’s Revolution “a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people”. Mandela further added, “We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of a vicious, imperialist-orchestrated campaign. We, too, want to control our own destiny.”
During a public event in Havana, Mandela asked Castro to visit South Africa. Referring to Castro, Mandela asked, “Who trained our people, who gave us resources, who helped so many of our soldiers, our doctors? … “You have not come to our country – when are you coming?”
Castro attended Mandela’s presidential inauguration in May 1994. Barbara Masekela, South Africa’s former ambassador to the US and who accompanied Mandela to Cuba in 1991, said Mandela’s friendship with Castro had been “born in the trenches of the freedom struggle”.
A true friend of the oppressed
Norberto Fuentes, a writer once close to Castro and now living in exile, believes the Cuban leader’s relevance is as “the spokesman for silence, for the man who has no army, no Congress, no face. The man who has nothing”.
Thousands of Cuban internationalists contributed to decisive battles for independence of African countries, while fostering cooperation in the fields of health, education, and training.
Despite hardships due to the US’s illegal blockade, Castro’s Cuba has remained a shining example of internationalism and holds a special place in the history of people’s struggles against imperialism.
Anis Chowdhury, Emeritus Professor, Western Sydney University (Australia). He held senior UN positions in Bangkok and New York and served as Special Assistant to the Chief Advisor for Finance (with the status and rank of State Minister) in the Professor Yunus-led Interim Government. E-mail: anis.z.chowdhury@gmail.com; a.chowdhury@westernsydney.edu.au
IPS UN Bureau
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 18 2026 (IPS) - Indigenous communities have long advocated for the environment through the lens of their traditional knowledge systems and cultures. But much more work needs to be done to translate their presence into influence.
A new report from Nia Tero, an international nonprofit that aims to strengthen Indigenous guardianship over ancestral lands and waters, examines the factors that have limited Indigenous Peoples’ influence in global environmental decision-making.
The report, “Beyond Fragmentation: Advancing Coherence, Equity, and Indigenous Leadership Across the Rio Conventions”, was formally launched at the 17th Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), or COP17, currently underway in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, during a side event focused on strengthening coherence across the Rio Conventions.
The UNCCD is one of three climate frameworks that emerged from the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It, along with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is one of the landmark global conventions that address environmental crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and desertification in the modern age.
This year, all three conventions will be hosting climate conferences, starting with UNCCD COP17, which makes it an appropriate occasion to launch the report, according to Margarita Mora, Chief Programmes Officer at Nia Tero.
The goal of the report, Mora told Inter Press Service, is to “encourage Parties, UN bodies, and funders to better support Indigenous Peoples’ meaningful participation here and across this year’s Rio Conventions gatherings”.
Margarita Mora, Chief Programmes Officer, Nia Tero. Credit: Nia Tero
“Launching the report at COP17 helps draw greater attention to the UNCCD, which remains the least known of the three Rio Conventions, and starts a conversation we can carry into the climate and biodiversity COPs later this year,” said Minnie Degawan of the Kankanaey-Igorot, an indigenous group from northern Luzon, Philippines, and the Managing Director, FSC Indigenous Foundation.
The report examines Indigenous Peoples’ recognition and participation in the Rio Conventions. Climate change, biodiversity loss and land degradation are all interconnected. These all impact lands and territories, which are “central to Indigenous Peoples’ identity, cultures, and ways of life,” Degawan, the report’s author, told Inter Press Service.
Drawing on expert interviews and surveys with participants, the report reveals what it describes as a fragmented response to these issues. While environmental harms are interconnected, they are governed through their frameworks, institutions and funding streams. This siloed approach to the Rio Conventions presents challenges to Indigenous Peoples. Representatives may be expected to attend multiple conferences where they discuss related issues through different institutional structures. Thus, they address topics like safeguards, territorial governance, and traditional knowledge separately.
Minnie Degawan of the Kankanaey-Igorot, an indigenous group from northern Luzon, Philippines, and the Managing Director, FSC Indigenous Foundation. Credit: SC Indigenous Foundation
The recognition of Indigenous Peoples has seen considerable progress since the Rio Conventions were first introduced. Traditional leaders and activists have advocated for the formal acknowledgement of Indigenous rights in these climate frameworks, their efforts spanning decades. The report notes that this recognition is not consistent across the frameworks.
Neither the UNFCCC nor the UNCCD explicitly referenced Indigenous Peoples or their rights in their original texts. However, subsequent decisions, provisions and ongoing advocacy have strengthened the recognition of Indigenous Peoples, their rights and their participation within the two frameworks. On the other hand, the CBD directly references Indigenous and local communities in its original framework, acknowledging their dependence on biological resources in accordance with traditional knowledge that is relevant to biodiversity efforts.
Since then, Indigenous people’s engagement within the Rio Conventions can be measured in a few ways, including a broader recognition of them as stakeholders within these processes, participation in formal and informal conferences, and a recognition of traditional knowledge in addressing environmental challenges.
While the visibility and participation of Indigenous representatives has increased over the years, this does not necessarily translate into meaningful influence when it comes to decision-making processes. The decisions in these frameworks are largely determined by the States, with insufficient input from Indigenous Peoples at these conferences. Indigenous Peoples still attend climate conferences as observers, with limited influence in formal text negotiations. The influence should “[go] beyond having Indigenous Peoples in the room”, Degawan said.
As she elaborates in the report, Indigenous Peoples’ participation in text negotiation is somewhat limited. Most of their involvement in climate conferences takes place in side events or informal dialogues. This is ironic, given that the report was launched at a side event. Structural barriers such as language constraints, accreditation issues, travel and visa issues and insufficient funding only further limit opportunities.
This is also indicative of a wider issue of the cost of participation. Indigenous representatives are expected to attend multiple meetings, which require extensive investments and resources. This is in service to increasing their visibility, but at present it creates a risk of burnout and a concentration of knowledge and expertise among what is a relatively small group of experienced negotiators and technical experts.
All of these factors emphasise the need to improve conditions for Indigenous Peoples to enact meaningful influence in climate discussions. “It means creating the conditions for Indigenous Peoples to actually shape decisions – from setting priorities and contributing to negotiating texts before they are finalised to influencing how commitments are implemented and financed,” Degawan said.
What Degawan and the report observe is that representatives can build on existing benchmarks within the Rio Conventions and identify where their participation has been stronger, so they can apply these strategies across all three. This would mean building greater coherence among existing structures so that different institutions and actors work together in a way that reflects the interconnected nature of environmental challenges and the realities Indigenous Peoples experience. For their part, Nia Tero are dedicating their efforts to supporting coordinated Indigenous engagement during UNCCD COP17.
“The goal is not to create new benchmarks, but to ensure that progress in one convention can help raise the standard for meaningful Indigenous Peoples’ participation across the others,” Degawan said.
“The real measure of progress is whether participation translates into meaningful influence over negotiations and decisions affecting Indigenous Peoples and ancestral territories. Full, meaningful inclusion of Indigenous Peoples at this and the following Rio Conventions COPs will put the international community – not just Indigenous Peoples – in the best position to achieve humanity’s shared goals for a healthy, prosperous planet,” said Mora.
The report recommends that the convention secretariats move beyond making rhetorical commitments and take practical steps, including improving Indigenous Peoples’ access to negotiating spaces and providing them with more opportunities to input into negotiating texts. These bodies should also strengthen safeguards to ensure Indigenous participation mechanisms are not treated in isolation.
Progress in their participation across the Rio Conventions warrants reflection on Indigenous Peoples’ representation in other frameworks. Within the context of broader structural changes, such as those introduced under the UN80 initiative, there have been questions of consolidating mandates in the name of increasing efficiency in the UN system, which should serve every member of the international community.
Degawan warned that Indigenous representatives are concerned over a potential weakening of the hard-won gains in recognition and formal spaces within the UN system. Any reforms should therefore, she said, build on these gains rather than roll them back.
The full report is available at www.niatero.org/RioReport
IPS UN Bureau Report
NAIROBI, Aug 18 2026 (IPS) - Despite record participation in global biodiversity reporting and planning processes, countries remain off track to meet the world’s 2030 biodiversity goals, according to discussions that concluded this month at two key meetings under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
Delegates left Nairobi with a package of recommendations on conservation, finance, business accountability and implementation that will now move to COP17 in Yerevan, Armenia, where governments will assess collective progress under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF).
The warning emerged from two back-to-back meetings under the Convention on Biological Diversity: the 28th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-28), held from 27 July to 1 August 2026, and the seventh meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI-7), held from 4 to 12 August 2026. Together, the meetings were the last major negotiating session before COP17, which kicked off yesterday (August 18, 2026), where governments will conduct the first formal review of collective progress towards the KMGBF and consider measures to speed up implementation in the second half of the decade.
A Global Review Reveals the Gap Between Commitment and Delivery
The first global review of the KMGBF dominated discussions across both meetings. The review came at the halfway point between the adoption of the framework in 2022 and its 2030 deadline, drawing on an unprecedented volume of national submissions. By February 2026, 172 parties had submitted national biodiversity targets aligned with the framework, while 130 parties had filed national reports on implementation.
The assessment also examined 85 National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), more than 180 commitments from non-state actors, submissions from multilateral organisations, and dozens of case studies from Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
Taken together, the submissions painted a mixed picture. Governments have integrated the framework into national planning processes at an unprecedented rate, but progress remains uneven. The review found encouraging movement on several conservation-related targets, while action on biodiversity finance, subsidy reform, business accountability and inclusive governance lagged behind. It also exposed significant weaknesses in monitoring and reporting, with countries citing data gaps, financial constraints, limited technical capacity and institutional challenges as barriers to tracking progress.
The overarching conclusion was clear: despite growing engagement, the world is not on track to achieve the framework’s 2030 targets.
“It is true that progress is being made across all targets. However, implementation is not yet happening at the pace and scale needed to achieve the KMGBF. Fewer than half of aligned national targets assessed by Parties are currently on track, with some of the largest gaps in mobilising biodiversity finance, reforming harmful subsidies, addressing business impacts and dependencies, and shifting toward sustainable consumption,” said Astrid Schomaker, executive secretary of the CBD.
Jennifer Tauli Corpuz, of IIFB, spoke at the SBI on August 9. She called for Indigenous Peoples and local communities’ greater engagement in decision-making processes. CREDIT: IISD
Wildlife, Technology and Emerging Governance Challenges
The implementation gap was reflected across several of the issues discussed in Nairobi, from wildlife management and emerging technologies to business accountability and biodiversity finance.
Discussions on sustainable wildlife management and synthetic biology highlighted the growing complexity of biodiversity governance. Delegates debating sustainable wildlife management moved well beyond questions of species conservation, examining how biodiversity policies intersect with livelihoods, equitable benefit-sharing, community participation and the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
The discussions reflected a growing recognition that conservation measures are more likely to succeed when they incorporate social and economic considerations alongside ecological objectives. Representing the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB), Jennifer Tauli Corpuz argued that effective wildlife management depends on the “transparent, structured and meaningful participation” of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in decision-making processes.
Synthetic biology presented a different set of challenges. While delegates broadly agreed on the need to strengthen capacity-building, scientific cooperation and knowledge-sharing, discussions also exposed ongoing questions about how international biodiversity institutions should respond to rapidly evolving technologies. As scientific innovation advances, governments are increasingly being asked to balance potential benefits with concerns related to governance, risk management and oversight.
Taken together, the two agenda items illustrated how biodiversity negotiations are evolving. Future CBD discussions are likely to focus increasingly on balancing ecological objectives with technological innovation, social equity and effective governance.
Business Accountability Under Greater Scrutiny
A major focus of SBSTTA-28 was the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Business and Biodiversity Assessment, which examined how companies and financial institutions influence biodiversity outcomes.
Presenting the findings, IPBES Chair David Obura said the assessment identifies more than 100 practical actions that companies can take across their operations, supply chains and financial portfolios to reduce biodiversity impacts and support nature recovery.
“Businesses can no longer be seen only as drivers of biodiversity loss. They are also an essential part of the solution,” Obura said, adding that companies already have tools available to begin addressing biodiversity risks and dependencies.
The assessment linked many recommendations to KMGBF Target 15 on business disclosure and accountability. Negotiations highlighted continuing debates over disclosure requirements, supply-chain transparency and biodiversity impact reporting, underscoring growing expectations that corporate biodiversity impacts be measured rather than merely acknowledged.
The opening plenary of the 28th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-28) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. CREDIT: Ahmed Nayim Yussuf/UNEP
Finance Emerges as a Central Political Challenge
At SBI-7, discussions shifted from technical issues to implementation challenges, including resource mobilisation, capacity-building, biodiversity mainstreaming and the Convention’s financial mechanisms.
The prominence of finance was closely linked to the findings of the global review, which identified finance among the weakest-performing areas of the framework. Although biodiversity finance has increased since the KMGBF was adopted, the review concluded that progress remains insufficient and that the 2025 milestone of mobilising USD 20 billion annually in international biodiversity finance was likely not achieved. Countries also reported continued challenges in securing financial resources, technology transfer and technical support needed for implementation.
These findings shaped much of the discussion at SBI-7, where delegates debated resource mobilisation, the Convention’s financial mechanism and the role of the Cali Fund, which is intended to channel private-sector contributions toward biodiversity conservation. While broad agreement exists on the need for greater biodiversity finance, significant differences remain over how resources should be raised, governed and distributed.
Echoing concerns raised by many developing countries, a delegate from the African Union stressed that “adequate, predictable and accessible financial resources are essential conditions for developing countries to translate global commitments into concrete national actions”.
“Ambition alone is not enough to accelerate implementation: it requires commensurate means,” he added.
Youth and Gender Advocates Push for More Inclusive Governance
Youth representatives from the Global Youth Biodiversity Network (GYBN) welcomed progress on sustainable wildlife management but argued that current recommendations do not go far enough on business accountability, calling for stronger provisions on transparency, traceability and biodiversity impact assessments throughout wildlife-related supply chains. More broadly, youth advocates also called for greater inclusion in biodiversity decision-making. “A global review of progress is incomplete if it does not reflect the information, concerns, needs and priorities of youth and other rights-holders,” said a GYBN delegate.
Preparations ahead of COP17 have also drawn greater attention to gender-responsive biodiversity governance. In Armenia, the CBD Women’s Caucus, together with the Armenian COP17 Presidency, the CBD Secretariat and the Raoul Wallenberg Institute, organised a training programme to strengthen women’s participation in biodiversity policy processes.
Mrinalini Rai of Women4Biodiversity argued that women, youth, Indigenous Peoples and local communities are not simply stakeholders but rather “key actors in the implementation, monitoring and review of the framework.” She said their knowledge systems, leadership and contributions are fundamental to ensuring biodiversity policies are “equitable, inclusive and effective”.
These discussions reflect a growing recognition that implementation challenges are not only technical or financial but also institutional and that broader participation is essential to strengthening biodiversity governance and implementation.
Looking Ahead to COP17Despite the challenges identified in the review, Schomaker expressed optimism about the road to COP17.
“I think that we can all leave Nairobi with a sense of satisfaction at what we have accomplished here, but the task awaiting us in Yerevan in nine weeks will take all the stamina and determination that Parties can summon.”
When governments gather in Yerevan in October for COP17, they will face a clear challenge: turning commitments into the financial, institutional and policy action needed to keep the framework’s 2030 goals within reach.
IPS UN Bureau Report
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 18 2026 (IPS) - Since the collapse of the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon announced in June, the humanitarian situation in Lebanon has deteriorated sharply. Marked by high casualties, immense destruction to civilian infrastructure, and widespread displacement, access to essential services has become increasingly strained as the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is scheduled to end its operations by the end of the year.
Over the course of the summer, UNIFIL has recorded a “near daily presence” of Israeli forces in Lebanese airspace and military activities on the ground. Between August 7 and 8, Israeli forces fired 455 projectiles into south Lebanon, alongside 97 breaches of Lebanese airspace. 229 of these projectiles hit Lebanon on August 8 alone, marking the highest single-day total since June 21.
According to UN Deputy Spokesperson for the Secretary-General, Farhan Haq, the majority of airspace violations involved drones, with smaller numbers attributed to helicopters and fighter jets. In recent weeks, peacekeepers noted a large presence of unguarded weapons, unexploded ordnance, and improvized explosive devices in their areas of operation.
On August 12, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) issued a flash update on the latest humanitarian developments in Lebanon. According to Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health, there have been at least 4,335 deaths and 12,277 injuries recorded as of August 10, including 355 deaths and 276 injuries since the June 19 ceasefire.
The escalation in bombardment has resulted in immense damage to critical infrastructure, agricultural land, and residential buildings. The August 5 demolition of a well and the August 7 fires at Chaqra and Wadi Saluki water stations in the Nabatieh Governorate have left Lebanese water systems increasingly strained. Furthermore, extensive fires from incendiary strikes have ravaged forests and farmlands in western Bekaa Governorate, resulting in significant losses in land and agricultural yields.
“Demolition of this type raises huge flags about compliance with international humanitarian law,” said UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk, describing the recent hostilities as a “wholesale destruction” of civilian homes. “I met yesterday a man who told me that he returned to his village in this zone … south of this so-called yellow line. The Israelis were there; they prevented him from going anywhere close to it, and he saw how the village was demolished.”
On August 5, approximately 130 families were newly displaced from Mansouri to Tyre, marking the first displacement order since July 11. OCHA states that approximately 352,793 people remain displaced across Lebanon, including 22,800 displaced civilians in 232 collective shelters, where they face persistent challenges accessing basic services.
In these shelters, limited fuel supply has resulted in the collapse of electricity and water systems, compounding health, hygiene, and safety risks. The vast majority of displaced families lack access to healthcare, medication, and protection services, while relying on cash assistance to survive.
Humanitarian organizations have expressed alarm over the impending conclusion of UNIFIL’s mandate at the end of the year, arriving at a time when lifesaving operations are most urgently needed. Human Rights Watch (HRW) noted that the U.S. and Lebanon strongly opposed extending the mandate. While there is broad support from the other members of the Council, any measures to extend the mandate or delay its termination are subject to a veto from the U.S.
“Pulling the plug on UNIFIL without a robust international force in place would effectively abandon millions of Lebanese civilians to an uncertain and potentially disastrous fate,” said Louis Charbonneau, UN director at HRW. “UN missions may not be a lasting solution, but the peacekeepers are a crucial deterrent against attacks on civilians and human rights abuses.”
IPS UN Bureau Report
DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania, Aug 17 2026 (IPS) - After moving more than 6,000 km across Eurasia, the Silk Road Caravan has reached Mongolia with stories from pastoralists whose livelihoods are increasingly threatened by drought, degraded land and shrinking access to grazing areas.
Since leaving Türkiye in May, the thud of horse hooves has echoed through landscapes in the Russian Federation, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and China. Along the way, its riders met pastoralists adapting to a harsher climate and deteriorating rangelands. Now their experiences have converged in Ulaanbaatar, where the caravan’s final leg coincides with the opening of COP17 of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Governments, scientists, financial institutions, businesses and civil society have gathered there to address the pressures on the world’s drylands.
The journey has brought an old question into the spotlight: can global efforts to restore rangelands succeed without the knowledge of the people who have managed them for generations?
Delegates in traditional attire gather at the UNCCD COP17 venue in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, on Aug. 17, 2026, as the conference brings together pastoralists, Indigenous representatives and policymakers to discuss land degradation, drought and rangeland restoration. Credit: UN photo
For centuries, caravans travelling the ancient Silk Road carried goods, ideas and cultures between distant civilisations. This one has carried stories of communities trying to keep up their land productive and their livelihoods intact as drought and degradation spread across drylands from Eurasia to Africa.
Its arrival on the eve of COP17 highlights the conference’s challenge of turning commitments to land restoration into action on the ground.
Land Degradation
Land degradation and drought cost the global economy USD 900 billion annually and affect 40% of the world’s land and 3.2 billion people. Droughts have increased by almost one-third since 2000 and generate at least USD 300 billion in annual losses, according to UN data.
For Tanzania’s pastoralist communities, Neema Seki, an Indigenous women and youth advocate connected to the Pastoralist Women’s Council, urged world leaders in Ulaanbaatar to guarantee land security for pastoral communities.
“The most rapidly changing aspect is access to land. This by implication affects everything else in pastoral livelihoods. Without land tenure security, livestock health is impacted, mobility is affected, and family food security is affected,” she told IPS.
Her warning is central to the COP17 debate as land degradation increasingly threatens pastoralist women’s rights, livelihoods and mobility.
“In a pastoralist setting, women play a significant role that is oftentimes not stated. If livestock health deteriorates, women are mostly responsible for feeding them, bringing water from far distances to water the ailing or weak livestock,” Seki said.
She added that restrictions on pastoral livelihoods can also create a gendered burden that national climate and conservation policies rarely capture.
“Another aspect is a reality that when the pastoral livelihoods are dismantled by restrictions on access to resources, women oftentimes remain in the land to suffer while men are able to go into cities to look for work while women remain with children at home.”
Mongolian ceremonial guards stand beside the national flag during the opening of UNCCD COP17 in Ulaanbaatar on Aug. 17, 2026. The conference is focused on accelerating global action on land restoration and drought resilience. Credit: UN photo
That experience is echoed thousands of kilometres away in Niger, where Abarchi Harouna, a pastoralist leader with the association Nodde Nooto and co-chair of the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists for West and Central Africa, argues that mobility itself is an environmental management tool.
“Mobility is essential to pastoralism because it allows livestock keepers to search for water, pasture and salt wherever they are available,” Harouna told IPS.
For nomadic pastoralists such as Tanzania’s Maasai, restricting traditional migration corridors directly affects livelihoods.
“When governments restrict access to traditional routes and water points, nomadic pastoralists are deprived of pasture, water and salt,” he said.
“This can lead to a pastoral crisis, with significant livestock deaths and even conflicts between farmers and herders.”
Relevance in Mongolia
Similar pressures are evident in Mongolia, where pastoralism is key to the economy, yet nearly 77 percent of the country’s land suffers from degradation. Rangelands cover about 70 percent of its territory and support the livelihoods of roughly one-third of the population, leaving pastoral communities exposed to climate shocks.
Rangelands cover 54% of the Earth’s land surface, support about 2 billion people and provide nearly 70% of global livestock feed and one-sixth of the world’s food. Yet up to half are degraded, particularly in dry regions facing mounting climate pressures.
Harouna challenges a persistent narrative that pastoralism itself is responsible for land degradation.
“Livestock keepers are never responsible for land degradation. This narrative is incorrect. Livestock mobility ensures the health of pastures.”
He points instead to the ecological functions performed by mobile herds.
“Animals carry the seeds of grasses and woody plants from one place to another, thereby enriching biological diversity.”
Manure, he said, fertilises soils, while trampling can loosen compacted ground.
“The knowledge of livestock keepers helps governments and all stakeholders restore degraded land and improve resilience to climate change.
For Seki, a similar knowledge system exists in Tanzania but is increasingly undermined by government policies.
“One of the greatest traditional knowledge practices by pastoralists which is being wrongly discouraged by government policies is pastoral mobility,” she said.
The implications extend to a younger generation that, despite the pressures, has not necessarily abandoned pastoralism.
“Young pastoralists still see pastoralism as the best livelihood system. They are, however, daily confronting the ugliness caused by state-restrictive policies and the climate crisis,” Seki said.
The Economics of Waiting
COP17 organisers are seeking to frame restoration not just as an environmental obligation but also as an economic investment.
The conference estimates that about USD 355 billion is needed every year to combat land degradation and drought, compared with the current investment of roughly USD 77 billion. That leaves an annual financing gap of USD 278 billion.
The private sector currently contributes only around six percent of global finance for land restoration and drought resilience.
Closing that gap will be central to the negotiations.
The conference will explore ways of reducing investment risks and encouraging businesses, financial institutions and governments to finance regenerative landscapes. An initiative linked to the COP has recorded commitments of more than USD 9 billion across more than 210 million hectares.
The argument for investment is strengthened by the potential returns: every dollar invested in drought resilience can generate returns of up to USD 10, while some nature-based solutions can generate benefits many times their cost.
UNCCD Executive Secretary Yasmine Fouad has described the challenge bluntly: “The world does not lack solutions; the challenge is taking them to scale.”
From Commitments to Measurable Results
Mongolia’s Prime Minister N. Uchral has called for a shift “from talk to action, from targets to implementation, and from commitments to measurable results”.
The conference comes at a time when multilateral cooperation faces pressure and the world’s environmental crises grow increasingly interconnected. Land degradation affects food production. Drought intensifies water insecurity. Loss of vegetation contributes to biodiversity decline. Livelihood losses can drive migration and deepen competition over scarce resources.
As the first of the three Rio Convention COPs being held in 2026, COP17 offers an opportunity to connect land policy with negotiations on biodiversity and climate change later in the year.
It is also taking place during the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists, giving pastoral communities a prominent place in the global policy calendar.
Seki argues that women and young people should be recognised as custodians of knowledge and resources.
“Women and young people play a great role in the pastoral system. This role extends to forest stewardship and resource management.”
Yet, she said, traditional knowledge often gets sidelined.
“Both women and young people are discouraged by state policies and conservation policies from using traditional knowledge for ecology and nature sustainability.”
COP17’s agenda includes a proposed policy framework on rangelands and pastoralists and the launch of a Rangelands Flagship Initiative aimed at attracting long-term investment into sustainable rangeland management and pastoral livelihoods.
For Harouna, restrictions on livestock mobility potentially affect agriculture, pastoral production and the environment. He warns that declining soil fertility could trigger dismal crop yields, while degraded grazing areas could foster invasive pests, consequently affecting livestock and reducing milk and meat supplies.
Exchange of Knowledge
The Silk Road Caravan’s final journey across Mongolia will take participants from the Gobi Desert to the country’s central forests and grasslands. They are expected to meet nomadic herder families, researchers, local authorities and pastoral cooperatives and visit restoration projects.
The challenge for delegates is to ensure the caravan’s lessons continue beyond the conference.
For dryland communities in Tanzania, Niger and Mongolia, restoration can determine whether livestock survive, families remain on their land, food production continues and ecosystems endure.
As the conference opens under the theme “Restoring Land. Restoring Hope”, its success may depend on whether the afflicted communities living on vulnerable landscapes receive the space, resources and recognition they need to restore and manage them.
IPS UN Bureau Report