European Union

It's unlikely Iran's diplomats would be jumping ship if they believed the regime was sustainable. Now is the time to isolate Tehran even further, cutting all diplomatic ties and signalling to other would-be turncoats that it's now or never

The lawmaker is part of a minority coalition government that will be sworn in on 23 February

Warning comes after the head of the International Seabed Authority lobbied officials in Brussels

Written by Tim Peters and Jakub Przetacznik with Silke Maes.

On 18 December 2025, the European Council agreed to a €90 billion loan to Ukraine to cover the country’s financial needs in the years 2026 and 2027. The European Commission has subsequently presented three legislative proposals to implement the European Council’s decision: (i) a proposal for a €90 billion Ukraine Support Loan financed by the EU except for Czechia, Hungary and Slovakia; (ii) a proposal to amend the Ukraine Facility to use it for the disbursement of the new loan; and (iii) a proposal to amend the EU’s multiannual financial framework to use it as a guarantee for the loan, and to finance the grants used for the borrowing cost subsidy.

The loan will be financed through EU borrowing on the capital markets backed by the EU budget’s headroom. The EU budget will pay for the interest rates and other associated costs for Ukraine.

While €30 billion of the loan are meant to support the Ukrainian budget, €60 billion will be used to strengthen Ukraine’s defence capabilities. The Commission proposal stipulates that defence products financed from the loan should, in principle, originate from the EU, European Economic Area, European Free Trade Area and Ukraine. Only if products are not available there, or cannot be delivered fast enough, can products from other third countries be bought.

In the past, Article 41(2) of the Treaty on European Union had been seen as an obstacle to financing weapons and military equipment from the EU budget. However, as the proposed Ukraine Support Loan is based on Article 212 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the rules on the EU’s common foreign and security policy do not apply.

Legislative Proposals

• COM(2026) 20 – Proposal for a regulation implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the Ukraine Support Loan for 2026 and 2027
• COM(2026) 22 – Proposal for a regulation amending Regulation (EU) 2024/792 establishing the Ukraine Facility
• COM(2026) 21 – Amended proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027

Read the complete study on ‘EU support for Ukraine for 2026-2027‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

ECA warns new CAP design could fragment the single EU market

Global health group warns deepfakes could worsen vaccine uptake

DRAFT OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2028-2034, amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1679 and repealing Regulation (EU) 2021/1153
Committee on Security and Defence
Petras Auštrevičius

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

EU unity gives way to the rise of multi-country coalitions

Some applicants refuse to give up on the dream of a permanent EU job, despite repeated failure

Green groups warn of ‘recycled’ bottles made from virgin petroleum, while recyclers fear lost market share

Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2026 - EP

By exporting Ukrainian arms, the country will attract funds to purchase the weapons it needs on the front lines

Monday 9 February

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Monday 9 February

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Credit: Port Vila Market, Vanuatu – Kevin Hellon / shutterstock.com

By Tobias Ide
Feb 9 2026 (IPS)

 
The Pacific Island countries are at the frontline of climate change. Their territories mostly consist of small, low-lying islands, with long coastlines and vast ocean spaces between them. Many livelihoods are based on agriculture or fishing, and importing water or food is often infeasible or expensive. This makes those large ocean nations highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such as storms, droughts, and rising sea levels. Analysts have expressed concerns that this can result in various forms of socio-political conflict.

However, the Pacific Island countries have received scarce attention in research on climate change and conflict. This is surprising given the Pacific Island countries’ high climate vulnerability and increasing geopolitical relevance. A few years back, a Nature article did not find a single peer-reviewed study on the climate-conflict nexus in the Pacific. And while recent work added important insights on potential pathways between climate and conflict in the Pacific Island countries, the region remains understudied.

A new study tackles this knowledge gap by systematically collecting data on conflict events (such as protests, riots, and communal violence) in Fiji, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu. It then determines statistical associations between the occurrence of such conflicts—protests, riots, communal violence etc.—and climate extremes like storms, heatwaves, and floods. The results are surprising.

Climate extremes do not drive conflict risks

The researchers found that climate disasters are not a significant predictor of conflict events. This is true for both cities and rural areas. In cities, high values of (and competition for) land, immigration after disasters, and opportunities for political mobilisation have long been considered to make climate-related conflicts more likely, yet no such statistical signal was detected. Even when looking only at conflicts around natural resources like water or forests, climate extremes are not a good predictor.

These findings could nuance common wisdom about climate change and conflict. Experts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have concluded that climate change increases conflict risks, even though other conflict drivers are more important. Such a linkage is particularly likely in climate vulnerable regions with a history of political instability, and it is also more applicable to low-intensity conflicts like protests (as compared to large-scale violence like civil wars). Yet, the study focuses on such smaller-scale conflict. Fiji, Solomon Island, and Vanuatu are also highly vulnerable to climate change and suffered through political instability (coups, civil war, and unrest) in the past.

How to make sense of the absence of conflict

As a starting point, it is important to clarify three things. First, the absence of conflict does not necessarily imply peace, particularly if those least responsible for climate change suffer most from its consequences. Second, the study focuses on visible and collective forms of conflict. Disasters, but also competition for disaster-related support schemes, might well result in lower-level, less visible forms of conflict, such as household and intimate partner violence or lower social cohesion within communities. Studying these forms of conflict is certainly a key task for future work. Third, evidence is not perfect. The new study, for instance, covers only the period 2012 to 2020, studies just three Pacific Island countries, and could not include rainfall anomalies due to a lack of data.

That said, the absence of a correlation between climate extremes and socio-political conflict events is still noteworthy. It indicates the Pacific Islands have significant levels of agency and resilience. This is not to romanticise local communities and national governments—as everywhere in the world, they have their share of tensions and shortcomings. But the Pacific Island countries possess well-established traditional institutions and, at least in some areas, strong community and civil society networks. Given their remote location, tropical climate, and oceanic geography, they have plenty of knowledge and experience in dealing with climate extremes like droughts, floods, and storms as well. These are important assets for coping peacefully with the impacts of climate change.

Consider the example of Vanuatu after cyclone Pam in 2015. Despite being one of the most intense storms to ever hit the South Pacific, the death toll was relatively low, and the country recovered rather quickly from its impacts. This was the case because local community structures and NGO-led Community Climate Change Committees coordinated well, and they thus played a key role in preparing for the storm and in delivering disaster relief and recovery. These activities did not just utilise but also strengthened traditional social networks. Furthermore, state institutions effectively utilised the inflow of international aid to deal with the cyclone’s impacts, thereby increasing trust in the government. Consequentially, no major conflicts erupted in the aftermath of Pam.

Avoid doomsday thinking – and provide tailored support

Which insights can decision makers draw from these findings?

It is important to avoid doomsday scenarios when thinking about climate change in the Pacific. For sure, the respective countries are highly exposed to and quite vulnerable to climate change. But if policy makers and media portray the Pacific Island countries as helpless victims of climate change and prone to conflict, the consequences are problematic: a lack of economic investment, external support mostly focussed on relocation, and an ignorance of local capacities.

By contrast, emphasising how Pacific communities successfully deal with and maintain peace in the context of climate change provides different perspectives. It highlights how local communities and state institutions (despite not being perfect) have significant capacities for climate change adaptation and bottom-up peacebuilding. National governments and international donors should utilise those capacities by providing tailored support, responding to the needs and priorities of those on the frontline of climate change. Rather than preliminary resignation or relocation, this can support the building of climate-resilient peace.

Related articles:
There Is No Security Without Development, Anything Else Is a Distraction
Do We Need a Pacific Peace Index?
The Trump Presidency and Climate Security in the Indo-Pacific Region

Tobias Ide is Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations at Murdoch University Perth. Until recently, he was also Adjunct Associate Professor of International Relations at the Brunswick University of Technology. He has published widely on the intersections of the environment, climate change, peace, conflict and security, including in Global Environmental Change, International Affairs, Journal of Peace Research, Nature Climate Change, and World Development. He is also a director of the Environmental Peacebuilding Association.

This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Nature-positive business operations can contribute to both business success and the environment, according to IPBES’ Business Biodiversity Assessment. Credit: iStock/IPBES

By Busani Bafana
BULAWAYO, Zimbabwe & MANCHESTER, United Kingdom, Feb 9 2026 (IPS)

Business can still remain profitable while protecting the environment but invest in nature-positive operations, says a landmark report by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which finds that global companies have contributed to the escalating loss of biodiversity.

The IPBES Methodological Assessment Report on the Impact and Dependence of Business on Biodiversity and Nature’s Contributions to People, known as the Business and Biodiversity Report, says global business has benefited from nature but has immensely contributed to the decline in biodiversity. It is time it changes how it does business because biodiversity decline is a “critical systemic risk threatening the economy, financial stability, and human well-being.”

The global economy, driven by business, is dependent on healthy biodiversity and nature for materials, climate regulation, clean water, and pollination. However, the current economic system treats nature as free and infinite, creating perverse incentives for its exploitation. Businesses are largely rewarded for short-term profit, even when their activities degrade the natural systems they rely on, creating a huge risk to the economy and society, the report said.

The cover of the Business and Biodiversity Report. Credit: IPBES

It Must Be Business Unusual Now

Approved at the recent 12th session of the IPBES Plenary, held in Manchester, United Kingdom, the report calls for the end of business as usual. Global businesses, heavily dependent on nature and impacted by nature, must quickly change their operations or face collapse.

“Businesses and other key actors can either lead the way towards a more sustainable global economy or ultimately risk extinction… both of species in nature but potentially also their own,” noted the report.

Based on thousands of sources and prepared over three years by 79 leading experts from 35 countries from all regions of the world, the report is the first assessment of the impacts and dependencies of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.

Current conditions perpetuate business as usual and do not support the transformative change necessary to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, said the report, pointing out that large subsidies that drive biodiversity losses are directed to business activities with the support of businesses and trade associations.

For example, in 2023, global public and private finance flows with directly negative impacts on nature were estimated at USD 7.3 trillion. Of this amount, private finance accounted for USD 4.9 trillion, with public spending on environmentally harmful subsidies at about USD 2.4 trillion, the report said.

In contrast, USD 220 billion in public and private finance flows were directed to activities contributing to the conservation and restoration of biodiversity, representing just 3 percent of the public funds and incentives that encourage harmful business behaviour or prevent behaviour beneficial to biodiversity.

The new report shows that business as usual is not inevitable – with the right policies, as well as financial and cultural shifts, what is good for nature is also what is best for profitability, said Prof. Stephen Polasky, co-chair of the assessment, who highlighted that the loss of biodiversity was among the most serious threats to business.

“Business as usual may once have seemed profitable in the short term, but impacts across multiple businesses can have cumulative effects, aggregating to global impacts, which can cross ecological tipping points,” Polasky said.

Polasky said during a press briefing today (February 9, 2026) that business can immediately act without waiting for governments to create an enabling environment. They can measure their impact and dependencies by increasing the efficiencies of their operation, reducing waste and understanding new business opportunities and products.

A 2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by IPBES warned that one million species face extinction in the next few years as a result of overexploitation of resources, development, and other human activities, posing serious consequences for people and the planet.

Global business, which turns profits from nature, has contributed to the loss of biodiversity as a result of poor production practices that have poisoned river systems, emitted dangerous high greenhouse gases and led to land degradation. This is despite business being affected by natural disasters, from extreme weather floods and droughts to climate change.

The report is the latest assessment by IPBES, an independent intergovernmental body comprising more than 150 member governments. IPBES, often described as the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) for biodiversity, provides policymakers with objective scientific assessments about the state of knowledge regarding the planet’s biodiversity, ecosystems and the contributions they make to people.

IPBES Chair, David Oburo,  said the assessments done by IPBES are balanced by the knowledge systems needed to integrate information business and its impacts and dependencies on biodiversity.

He said there is a need to move away from the scientific language often used in talking about impacts and dependencies of businesses to simplifying it to be about risks and opportunities “so that the messaging that comes out from our assessments is really accessible to the audience that needs to access that information.”

The IPBES methodological assessment report warned that the current system was broken because what is profitable for businesses often results in loss of biodiversity.

A Peruvian indigenous Quechua woman weaving a textile with the traditional techniques in Cusco, Peru. The IPBES Business and Biodiversity Report suggests business should integrate Indigenous knowledge into their operations. Credit: iStock/IPBES

IPBES Executive Secretary, Luthando Dziba, said nature was everybody’s business. The conservation and restorative use of biodiversity is central to business success. Although businesses have contributed to innovations that have driven improvement of living standards, that same success had come at the cost of biodiversity.

An Enabling Environment Is Good for Biodiversity

The report offers a key solution of creating a new “enabling environment” where what is profitable for business aligns with what is good for biodiversity and society. Current conditions — laws, financial systems, corporate reporting rules, and cultural norms — do not reward businesses for protecting nature.

There are many barriers to protecting nature, such as the focus on short-term profits versus long-term ecological cycles. In addition, there is a lack of mandatory disclosure and accountability for environmental impacts, inadequate data, metrics, and capacity within the business community, as well as the failure to integrate Indigenous and local knowledge in biodiversity protection.

The creation of an enabling environment needs coordinated action policy and legal frameworks where governments should integrate biodiversity into all trade and sectoral policies. Besides, there is a need to redirect the USD 7.3 trillion in harmful flows using taxes, green bonds, and sustainability-linked loans to reward positive action.

Businesses must engage with Indigenous Peoples and local communities with Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), while access to and sharing of location-specific data on business activities and biodiversity should be improved.  Leverage technology such as remote sensing and artificial intelligence for better monitoring and traceability across business supply chains.

Measure It to Manage It

Another key finding of the report is that business could improve the measurement and management of its impacts and dependencies on nature through appropriate engagement with science and Indigenous and local knowledge.

Assessment co-chair Prof. Ximena Rueda noted that data and knowledge are often siloed, as scientific literature was not written for businesses. Besides, a lack of translation and attention to the needs of business has slowed uptake of scientific findings.

“Among business there is also often limited understanding and recognition of Indigenous Peoples and local communities as stewards of biodiversity and, therefore, holders of knowledge on its conservation, restoration and sustainable use,” said Rueda in a statement.

Industrial development threatens 60 percent of Indigenous lands around the world, and a quarter of all Indigenous territories are under high pressure from resource exploitation. However, Indigenous Peoples and local communities often find themselves inadequately represented in business research and decision-making, said the report.

Commenting on the report, Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), noted that while all businesses depend on nature, some were more exposed to risks stemming from resource depletion and environmental degradation. She said companies need a deeper understanding of the breadth of their dependencies and impacts on biodiversity to act better.

“In too many boardrooms and offices around the world, there is still a dearth of awareness of biodiversity protection as a business investment,” said Schomaker in a statement. “Too often, public policy still incentivises behaviour that drives biodiversity loss.”

While Alexander De Croo, Administrator, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), said too often biodiversity is an invisible and expendable asset on a balance sheet of global companies, but that was changing.

“Awareness is now accelerating of the risks to development if biodiversity fails—and of the economic opportunities and future prosperity that emerge where it thrives,” De Croo said.

The report underscored that we cannot business-as-usual our way out of the biodiversity crisis. Governments need to stop incentivising the destruction of biodiversity and start rewarding environmental stewardship. Besides, business leaders should now integrate natural capital accounting into their business strategy to disclose their environmental footprint while contributing to a positive global economy.

The evidence is clear: our economic prosperity is inextricably linked to nature’s health, and we are severing that vital link at our peril.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Support Science in Halting Global Biodiversity Crisis—King Charles
• Explainer: Why Nature Is Everyone’s Business

Written by Sebastian Clapp

Facts and figures

The EU’s defence industry is at a pivotal moment, shaped by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the United States’ shifting priorities, and a renewed drive for strategic autonomy. After years of underinvestment and persistent fragmentation, the EU is now seeking to rebuild military capability and strengthen its defence industrial base. The European defence industry comprises a number of large prime contractors, mid-caps and a large number of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). According to Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) data, and the author’s calculations for the EU-27, the EU-based defence industry’s turnover is estimated at around €148 billion in 2024, an increase of more than 60 % since 2021 in nominal terms. Exports amounted to roughly €48 billion in 2024 and direct employment in the EU defence industry amounted to around 500 000 people.

Table 1 – Top EU defence companies by revenue

CompanyCountryRevenue*Global rankingThalesFrance15 900#10LeonardoItaly13 822#13AirbusEuropean12 705#14RheinmetallGerman8 245#18SaabSweden5 542#26MBDAEuropean5 305#27SafranFrance5 198#29Naval GroupFrance4 716#33

Source: DefenseNews, 2024. *Revenue from defence in US$ million (2024).

Table 2 – EU defence industry revenue, 2021-2024

Source: ASD data, 2025 and author’s calculations.

The EU’s defence industry remains largely concentrated in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden. However, a report shows that prime producers of the 46 most critical defence items are located across 23 Member States. Thales of France ranked as the largest defence company in the EU by defence revenue in 2024, followed by Italy’s Leonardo. That year, 20 companies headquartered in the EU featured among the world’s top 100 defence firms, including five based in France and four in Germany, together generating defence revenues of approximately US$112 billion, or about €104 billion. By contrast, 48 of the top 100 defence companies were based in the United States, accounting for roughly US$334 billion in defence revenue. Lockheed Martin alone, the leading global defence firm, reported defence revenues of US$68.39 billion. Five of the top 100 were based in China, together accounting for US$355 billion in revenue. The ownership structure of Europe’s leading defence firms underscores the strategic character of the sector.
In many instances, national authorities maintain blocking or controlling shares, which helps safeguard alignment with national priorities and allows for direct public oversight. Across continental Europe, ownership is commonly concentrated either within the state or among family-controlled enterprises. Prominent examples include Dassault (almost 70 % of shares held by the Dassault family’s Groupe Industriel Marcel Dassault), Naval Group (over 60 % of shares are held by the French state), Fincantieri (70 % of shares held by the state-owned Italian sovereign wealth fund, CDP Equity S.p.A.), and Liebherr Group (entirely owned by the Liebherr family). State participation can narrow the scope for cross-border cooperation and industrial consolidation. While mergers between defence firms may deliver economic benefits through economies of scale, they are often treated as strategically sensitive due to their implications for national security and sovereignty. Family-owned firms similarly pursue nationally anchored corporate strategies, reducing their openness to deeper EU-level integration. Golden power rules and the veto capacity of dominant family shareholders further reinforce this structural rigidity. Researchers found that the combined effect is a European defence industrial base that remains fragmented and less competitive than more consolidated markets.

What does the European defence industry produce?

The European defence industry produces a broad range of military equipment and technologies and therefore provides an extensive industrial offering. Its production spans: military aeronautics, including combat, transport and mission aircraft, and helicopters; land capabilities, such as main battle tanks, armoured vehicles across multiple classes, logistics and tactical transport assets, artillery and ammunition of different calibres, alongside individual combat equipment; naval platforms from submarines to surface combatants; space-related defence capabilities; missile systems at both tactical and strategic levels; and defence-specific electronics, information and communication technologies, cyber capabilities and autonomous systems – notably drones, which have experienced a particular boom in production. Despite this breadth, the EU industry does not currently provide domestic solutions in several critical segments, including medium altitude long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicles, tactical ballistic missiles and long-range artillery rockets. These gaps reflect long-term underinvestment and sustained dependence on the United States security guarantee.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the rapid availability of military equipment became a key priority for EU governments and armed forces. Firms based outside Europe – benefiting either from larger domestic markets as in the United States or from higher baseline levels of defence readiness as in South Korea – were better positioned to maintain higher production capacity and to deliver or pledge substantial quantities of equipment at speed. By contrast, many European manufacturers were limited by long periods of industrial contraction and underinvestment. This context has evolved markedly since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion. EU ammunition production capacity, for example, rose from around 300 000 rounds per year in 2022 to an estimated 2 million by the end of 2025, reflecting a pace of industrial expansion that, according to the Financial Times, exceeds peacetime growth rates by a factor of three.

EU and Member States’ support for the defence industry

EU Member States’ defence expenditure has risen sharply since 2021, reflecting a sustained shift towards higher investment in defence. Defence spending reached an estimated €381 billion in 2025, representing a rise of almost 63 % compared to 2020. Expenditure grew from 1.6 % of GDP in 2023 to 1.9 % in 2024 and is expected to reach approximately 2.1 % in 2025. Growth has been driven primarily by investment, which approached €130 billion in 2025. Investment accounted for 31 % of total defence expenditure in 2024, with equipment procurement dominating and exceeding €88 billion. Defence research and development spending also expanded significantly, reaching €13 billion in 2024 and a projected €17 billion in 2025. The EU has introduced several measures to complement and amplify national efforts. These include financial support instruments such as the SAFE loan facility, budgetary flexibility via the national escape clause, and cooperation through the European Peace Facility. In parallel, EU budget instruments such as the European Defence Fund, military mobility funding, the Act in Support of Ammunition Production (ASAP), the European Defence Industry Reinforcement through Common Procurement Act (EDIRPA) and the European defence industry programme (EDIP) aim to reduce fragmentation and strengthen the competitiveness of Europe’s defence industrial base.

European Parliament position

Parliament has consistently called for an increase in defence spending and for boosting the EU defence industry. Members welcome rising national defence spending but urge deeper European cooperation to prevent market fragmentation and call for expanded industrial output and greater interoperability.

Read this ‘at a glance’ note on ‘European defence industry‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

By CIVICUS
Feb 9 2026 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses the genocide case against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with Mohammed Nowkhim of the Arakan Rohingya Society for Peace & Human Rights (ARSPHR), a civil society organisation led by Rohingya people born out of refugee camps in Bangladesh to document atrocities, preserve survivor testimony and advocate for accountability and justice.

Mohammed Nowkhim

On 12 January, the ICJ began hearings in the genocide case brought by The Gambia against Myanmar over the military’s treatment of the Rohingya Muslim minority. The Gambia, representing the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s 57 members, accuses Myanmar of breaching the Genocide Convention. The Gambia’s justice minister presented evidence of mass killings, sexual violence and village destruction during a government crackdown in 2017 that forced over 700,000 Rohingya people to flee to Bangladesh. Rohingya survivors testified in closed sessions. Myanmar denies genocidal intent, characterising its actions as counterterrorism. A final judgment is expected before the end of the year.

What atrocities were committed against Rohingya people and what is being examined in court?

During what were called ‘clearance operations’ in 2017, Myanmar security forces burned entire villages, raped women, killed children and threw them into fires and wells. According to documented reports, over 10,000 people were killed and around 700,000, including me, were forced to flee Myanmar. These were not random acts of violence; they were systematic and targeted attacks aimed at erasing our community.

In 2019, The Gambia, supported by 11 other states, filed a case against Myanmar at the ICJ, accusing it of genocide. Judges are now examining evidence of mass killings, sexual violence, village destruction and forced displacement. They are also reviewing official policies and actions that show intent to destroy Rohingya people as a group, including patterns of violence, coordination by state forces and the systematic denial of basic rights.

This case shows that genocide claims can be examined through law rather than dismissed for political convenience. But for the Rohingya, this is not just a legal process. It represents acknowledgment and a source of hope for present and future generations. After decades of denial and silence, our suffering is being heard at the world’s highest court and recognised in a legal space where truth matters. The hearings can’t erase our wounds, but they can offer some solace and a path towards justice.

What evidence supports the case against Myanmar?

The case was built on years of evidence-gathering. The Gambia relied on extensive material from the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar and United Nations (UN) fact-finding missions, as well as documentation collected over many years by human rights organisations, including Fortify Rights, Human Rights Watch and Rohingya-led groups.

Civil society played a key role when states failed to act. Even when the world looked away, organisations continued to document the truth and refused to let these crimes be erased or rewritten. Long before any court agreed to listen, groups including the ARSPHR were collecting survivor testimonies, documenting violations and carefully preserving evidence, knowing it might one day be used in court. Without that work, much of what happened would have been lost and perpetrators couldn’t have been challenged.

In a way, civil society became the memory of the Rohingya people. Today, this evidence forms part of the case before the ICJ.

Why is accountability so difficult?

Politics often protects perpetrators. Those with power choose stability over justice and shield those responsible for crimes. Myanmar’s authorities continue to deny wrongdoing and refuse to cooperate, which delays justice.

International law also has its limits. Justice moves slowly because ICJ rulings do not automatically lead to consequences. International courts can establish the truth, but they can’t force states to act. Enforcement depends on political will, often through the UN Security Council, where countries such as China and Russia can block action, even when crimes are clear and well documented.

What must happen to ensure justice?

There must be real action. Perpetrators must be held accountable, Rohingya citizenship must be restored and discriminatory laws that enabled genocide must be removed. Any return of refugees must be voluntary, safe and dignified. It can’t happen without international monitoring and guarantees of protection. People can’t be sent back to the same conditions that forced them to flee.

Ultimately, justice is not only about the past, but also about ensuring that future generations of Rohingya can live with rights, safety and dignity. This case is only the beginning. What happens after the judgment will decide whether justice is real or only symbolic.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Threads
Twitter
Mohammed Nowkhim/Facebook
Mohammed Nowkhim/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Myanmar’s junta tightens its grip CIVICUS Lens 12.Dec.2025
International Court of Justice offers hope of rules-based order CIVICUS Lens 19.May.2025
Myanmar at a crossroads CIVICUS Lens 28.Oct.2024

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

By the SDG Report
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 9 2026 (IPS)

Eradicating extreme poverty for all people everywhere by 2030 is a pivotal aim of the Sustainable Development Goals. Extreme poverty, defined as surviving on less than US$3.00 per person per day at 2021 purchasing power parity, has witnessed remarkable declines over recent decades.

However, in 2025, 808 million people – or 1 in 10 people worldwide – were living in extreme poverty, an upward revision from earlier estimates because of the updated poverty line. If current trends continue, 8.9 per cent of the world’s population will still live in extreme poverty by 2030.

A shocking revelation is the resurgence of hunger levels to those last observed in 2005. Equally concerning is the persistent increase in food prices across a larger number of countries compared to the period from 2015 to 2019. This dual challenge of poverty and food security poses a critical global concern.

Credit: UN

Why is there so much poverty

Poverty has many dimensions, but its causes include unemployment, social exclusion, and high vulnerability of certain populations to disasters, diseases and other phenomena which prevent them from being productive.

Why should I care about other people’s economic situation?

There are many reasons, but in short, because as human beings, our well- being is linked to each other. Growing inequality is detrimental to economic growth and undermines social cohesion, increasing political and social tensions and, in some circumstances, driving instability and conflicts.

Why is social protection so important?

Strong social protection systems are essential for mitigating the effects and preventing many people from falling into poverty. The COVID-19 pandemic had both immediate and long-term economic consequences for people across the globe – and despite the expansion of social protection during the COVID-19 crisis, 47.6 per cent of the world’s population – about 3.8 billion people – are entirely unprotected, including 1.4 billion children in 2023.

In response to the cost-of-living crisis, 105 countries and territories announced almost 350 social protection measures between February 2022 and February 2023. Yet 80 per cent of these were short-term in nature, and to achieve the Goals, countries will need to implement nationally appropriate universal and sustainable social protection systems for all.

What can I do about it?

Your active engagement in policymaking can make a difference in addressing poverty. It ensures that your rights are promoted and that your voice is heard, that inter-generational knowledge is shared, and that innovation and critical thinking are encouraged at all ages to support transformational change in people’s lives and communities.

Governments can help create an enabling environment to generate pro- productive employment and job opportunities for the poor and the marginalized.

The private sector has a major role to play in determining whether the growth it creates is inclusive and contributes to poverty reduction. It can promote economic opportunities for the poor.

The contribution of science to end poverty has been significant. For example, it has enabled access to safe drinking water, reduced deaths caused by water-borne diseases, and improved hygiene to reduce health risks related to unsafe drinking water and lack of sanitation.

The updated international poverty line of $3.00 resulted in a revision in the number of people living in extreme poverty from 713 to 838 million in 2022. (World Bank)

• If current trends continue, 8.9 per cent of the world’s population may still be living in extreme poverty by 2030 and only one in five countries will have halved their national poverty levels.
• For the first time on record, over half of the world’s population now receives at least one form of social protection benefit. Despite this milestone, 3.8 billion people remain uncovered.
• The share of government spending on essential services, such as education, health and social protection, is significantly higher in advanced economies than in emerging and developing economies.
• Guaranteeing basic social security floors in low- and middle-income countries requires an additional $1.4 trillion annually, or 3.3 per cent of their aggregate GDP in 2024.
• A surge in action and investment to enhance economic opportunities, improve education and extend social protection to all, particularly the most excluded, is crucial to delivering on the central commitment to end poverty and leave no one behind.

Source: The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2025

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

A woman in a remote hamlet in Kashmir, India, migrates to a safer location with her child as floodwater inundates her hometown. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINAGAR & NEW DELHI, Feb 9 2026 (IPS)

When the rain begins in Kashmir’s capital Srinagar, Ghulam Nabi Bhat does not watch the clouds with relief anymore. He watches them with calculation. How much can the gutters take? How fast will the river rise? Which corner of the house will leak first? Where should the children sleep if the floor turns damp?

“Earlier, rain meant comfort,” said Bhat, a resident of a low-lying neighbourhood close to the city’s waterways. “Now it feels like a warning.”

On many days, the rain does not need to become a flood to change life. Streets fill up within hours. Shops shut early. The school van turns back. A phone call spreads across families, asking the same question, “How is your area?”

For millions across India and the wider region of emerging Asia (a group of rapidly developing countries in the region, including China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam), this is the new normal. Disasters no longer arrive as rare, once-in-a-generation ruptures. They come as repeated shocks, each one leaving behind repair bills, lost wages, and a deeper sense that recovery has become a permanent routine.

A recent analysis from the OECD Development Centre shows that emerging Asia has been facing an average of around 100 disasters a year over the past decade, affecting roughly 80 million people annually. The rising trend is powered by floods, storms, and droughts. The report estimates that natural disasters have cost India an average of 0.4 percent of GDP every year between 1990 and 2024.

Behind the national figure lies a quieter, more poignant story. It is the story of how repeated climate and weather shocks get absorbed by households and not just spreadsheets. By the savings a family built for a daughter’s education. By a shopkeeper’s stock bought on credit. By a farmer’s seed money saved from the last season.

In the north Indian state of Bihar’s flood-prone belt, Sunita Devi, a mother of three, says she has stopped storing anything valuable on the floor. Clothes sit on higher shelves. The grain container has moved to a safer corner. The family’s documents stay wrapped in plastic.

Local residents in Kashmir’s capital, Srinagar, stack sandbags to safeguard their homes from floods in 2025. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS

“When water comes, you run with children,” she said. “The rest is left to fate. You can rebuild a wall. You cannot bring back the days you lost.”

Her village has lived with floods for decades, but she says what has changed is frequency, uncertainty, and cost. It is not only about big river floods that make headlines. It is also about sudden waterlogging, damaged roads, broken embankments, and illnesses that rise after the water recedes.

“Earlier we could predict. Now we cannot. Sometimes the water comes fast. Sometimes it stays. Sometimes it leaves and then comes again,” Devi told IPS.

Professor Kaveh Madani, director of the United Nations University’s Institute for Water, Environment, and Health, told IPS that water bankruptcy in Asia should be treated as a national security issue, not a sector issue.

“The priority is shifting from crisis response to bankruptcy management: honest accounting, enforceable limits, protection of natural capital, and a just transition that protects farmers and vulnerable communities,” said Madani.

Across emerging Asia, floods have emerged as one of the strongest rising trends since the early 2000s, the OECD Development Centre report notes. The reasons vary from place to place, but the result looks familiar: disrupted lives, damaged homes, and a cycle of repair that drains communities.

In Kashmir’s capital Srinagar, small shop owner Bashir Ahmad keeps an old wooden rack near the entrance. It is not for display. It is for emergencies. When rain intensifies, he quickly moves cartons of goods off the floor.

“My shop is small; my margin is smaller. One day of water is enough to destroy many things. Customers do not come. Deliveries stop. You just wait and watch,” Ahmad said.

He says the biggest loss is not always the damaged stock. It is the days without work. For families that live week to week, even a short shutdown becomes a long crisis. Rent does not pause. School fees do not pause. Loans do not pause.

The OECD analysis, while regional in scope, points to a hard truth that communities already know. It claims that disasters have economic aftershocks that last long after television cameras leave. When repeated losses occur every year, they reduce growth and reshape choices. Families postpone building stronger houses. They avoid investing in small businesses. They spend more time recovering than progressing.

“Disasters are no longer exceptional events. They have become recurring economic shocks. The problem is not only the immediate damage. It is the repetition. Repetition breaks household resilience,” Dr Ritu Sharma, a climate risk researcher based in Delhi, said.

Sharma says India’s disaster losses should not be viewed as a headline percentage alone.

They should be viewed as accumulated pressure on ordinary life.

“A flood does not only damage a bridge. It delays healthcare visits. It interrupts immunisation drives. It breaks supply chains for food and medicines. It can push vulnerable families into debt traps. What looks like a climate event becomes a social event. It becomes a health event. It becomes an education event.”

In the report’s regional comparisons, the burden is uneven. Some countries face higher average annual losses as a share of GDP, especially those exposed to cyclones and floods. India’s size allows it to absorb shocks on paper, but that size also means more people remain exposed. From Himalayan slopes vulnerable to landslides to coastal districts bracing for cyclones to plains dealing with floods and heat, risk is spread across geography and across livelihoods.

Prof. Nasar Ali, an economist who studies climate impacts, says the real damage is often hidden in the informal economy.

“A formal sector company can claim insurance, borrow on better terms, and restart faster. A vegetable vendor cannot. A small grocery shop cannot. A family with a single daily wage earner cannot. Their loss is immediate and personal. They also take the longest to recover,” Ali said.

He believes disaster impacts also deepen inequality because the poorest households lose what they cannot replace.

“A damaged roof for a rich family is a renovation problem. A damaged roof for a poor family can mean sleeping in damp rooms for weeks, infections, missed work and children dropping out temporarily.”

The report also turns attention toward a policy question that has become urgent across Asia: how should governments pay for disasters in a way that does not repeatedly divert development funds?

The analysis highlights disaster risk finance, tools that help governments prepare money in advance rather than relying mainly on post-disaster relief. This includes dedicated disaster funds, insurance mechanisms, and rapid financing that can be triggered quickly after a shock.

For communities, the debate may sound distant. But the outcomes are visible in the speed of recovery and the dignity of response.

“When a disaster happens, help should come fast,” said Meena Devi, who runs a small grocery shop in Jammu’s RS Pura area and has seen repeated waterlogging during intense rains. “We close our shop. Milk spoils. People cannot buy things. Then we borrow money to restart. If support is slow, we fall behind.”

She said her biggest fear is not a single disaster but the feeling that another one is always near.

“If it happens once, you survive. If it happens again and again, you get tired from inside,” she said.

For Sharma, preparedness must be more than emergency drills. It must include planning that reduces exposure in the first place.

“Some risks are unavoidable, but many are amplified by where and how we build,” she said. “If cities expand without drainage capacity, or if construction spreads into floodplains, then disasters become predictable. That is not nature alone. That is policy.”

In Srinagar, Bhat says residents often feel they fight the same battle every year. Cleaning drains. Stacking sandbags. Moving belongings. Calling relatives. Watching the river level updates. The work looks small, but it is exhausting because it never ends.

He pointed to marks on a wall that show where water once reached.

“We always think, maybe this year it will be better,” he said. “Then rain comes, and your heart starts beating faster.”

Asked what would make him feel safe, he did not talk about big promises. He spoke about basics. A drain that works. A road that does not collapse. A warning that comes early. Help that comes on time.

For Sunita Devi in Bihar, the dream is even simpler: a season where the family can plan without fear.

“We want to live like normal people. We want to save money, not spend it on repairing what the water broke,” she said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Big Nature-Based Finance Turnaround Needed to Restore, Protect Ecosystems
• World Living Beyond Its Means: Warns UN’s Global Water Bankruptcy Report
• Refugees Forced to Fill Gaps as Funding, Power and Legal Recognition Move Out of Reach

Excerpt:

A recent report reveals that Asia faces about 100 natural disasters every year, affecting 80 million people. Beyond the statistics are the disrupted lives, damaged homes, and a cycle of repair that drains communities.