SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
sustainable development goals
How Public Finance for Agriculture Can Improve Food Security, Health, and Climate
By supporting agroecology, multilateral development banks can stop fueling harm and start financing a just and sustainable food systems transition.
Dec 03, 2025
Agriculture is essential to human life. How we feed ourselves matters for nutrition, health, climate, biodiversity, and livelihoods. Nearly 928 million people are employed in farming globally, and food systems are responsible for one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions and most new deforestation.
Multilateral development banks (MDBs), like the World Bank Group (WBG), play a critical role. The WBG has committed to double its agricultural financing to $9 billion a year by 2030. In October it launched AgriConnect, an initiative seeking to transform small-scale farming into an engine of sustainable growth, jobs, and food security.
However, while some MDB investments support equitable and sustainable transformation, too many still fuel environmental destruction and inequity. The World Bank’s private sector arm, IFC, recently invested $47 million in a multi-story pig factory farm in China, for example.
A new report from the University of Vermont Institute for Agroecology analyses MDB agricultural investments and sets out a road map for how banks can support, rather than hinder, sustainable farming. The research finds that the World Bank and other public-sector lenders can drive systemic change by supporting governments with policy reforms, rural extension services, and enabling environments. For example, a $70 million Inter-American Development Bank project in Paraíba, Brazil is promoting inclusive, low-carbon agriculture, and strengthening family farmers and traditional communities through technical assistance and climate-resilient infrastructure.
MDBs’ private sector operations must reform their lending criteria and stop financing destructive projects.
MDBs are better placed than other financial institutions to take long-term, lower-return investments aligned with climate and food security goals. Agroecological farming, a holistic, community-based approach to food systems that applies ecological and social food sovereignty concepts, along with long-term productivity, provides a channel for public sector arms of MDBs to support needed agricultural transformation. MDBs and other public banks therefore, should seek to become the enablers of agroecology. The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the Agence Française de Développement (AFD) are already leading efforts in this direction.
MDB Private Sector Operations: Profit-Driven Harms
In contrast to the IFAD and AFD models, the University of Vermont's Institute for Agroecology’s report found that the majority of private-focused MDBs prioritize “bankable” projects—typically large-scale, industrial, profit-driven agribusiness. This model steers money toward factory farms that use human-edible food as feed, pollute nearby communities, raise the risks of zoonotic disease and antimicrobial resistance, and engage in animal cruelty. In 2023, a report by Stop Financing Factory Farming found that public finance institutions invested US$2.27 billion in factory farming, 68% of the total investment in animal agriculture projects that year.
As evidenced by multiple complaints from impacted communities, these investments undermine poverty reduction, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and Paris Agreement climate goals. MDBs’ private sector operations must reform their lending criteria and stop financing destructive projects.
The opportunity: Public Sector Banks Can Pave the Way for Private-Sector Transformation
Rich country governments currently subsidize agriculture, mostly industrial, at a level of $842 billion per year. According to the IMF, only a quarter is dedicated to support for public goods in the sector. Shifting this support to incentivize investments in agroecology is crucial to sustain the agricultural transformation that public banks themselves have called for.
Public banks have the opportunity to join a growing number of organisations already advancing an ecological approach to meet the SDGs and wider social, cultural, and economic, and environmental objectives. To do so, they must shift from treating agroecology as merely a niche solution and instead invest in it as a priority means for achieving food systems transformation.
Agroecology puts an end to costly and harmful practices, replacing animal cruelty with humane, safe, and fair standards.
By taking this approach, public banks can better support just transitions in food systems, something that is already beginning to take shape. Earlier this year, for example, the World Bank backed an $800 million loan to the Colombian government to advance a greener and more resilient economic transformation.
The private-sector arms of MDBs, such as IFC and IDB Invest, also have a role to play in aligning with the transition. Most importantly, they can support governments with policy advice and financing criteria that break from entrenched models and exclude industrial animal agriculture from eligibility for finance.
While MDBs have taken steps to make agricultural production and rural incomes less vulnerable to climate change, they have yet to commit to agroecological farming as the most effective pathway. In contrast, IFAD is already demonstrating what this can look like, driving agroecological transitions through private-sector incentives in Ethiopia, Peru, and Vietnam. Similarly, AFD is applying agroecology to support family farming in Ethiopia, Haiti, Madagascar, Malawi, and Sierra Leone.
Agroecology as the Future of Sustainable Farming—and Public Agricultural Finance?
If MDBs are looking to advance the SDGs and solve the polycrisis (climate, biodiversity, pandemic risk, and food security), one of the most effective ways in which this can be done is for the public sector to mobilize policy support and significant capital investment into agroecology. Meanwhile, MDB private sector arms can enable this transition by providing policy advice and finance for interventions that break from entrenched models.
Agroecology puts an end to costly and harmful practices, replacing animal cruelty with humane, safe, and fair standards. But it's not just about farming practices. It also helps transform food systems, building resilient, reparative, low-emission economies and improves livelihoods in line with the 2030 SDGs.
By supporting agroecology, MDBs can stop fueling harm and start financing a just and sustainable food systems transition. If they are serious about the SDGs, food security, and climate goals, the road map is clear—MDBs’ public sector operations must enable, their private sector operations must reform, and both must support a transition away from industrial agriculture toward a more just and sustainable food system.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Second World Summit for Social Development: Mind the (Equality) Gap
Putting wind in the sails of the flagging UN Sustainable Development Goals
Nov 05, 2025
Building on the legacy of the first summit held in Copenhagen in 1995, the primary goal of the second World Summit for Social Development is to advance global social development and bolster much-needed momentum for the Sustainable Development Goals set out in the 2030 Agenda. This high-stakes event will be held November 4-6, 2025 in Doha, Qatar, and Better World Info has carried out thorough research on the event.
With just five years to go, the recent United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Progress Report revealed that we are on track to meet only 35% of targets by 2030. Progress on 50% of the targets is weak, and 18% are actually in reverse.
The 2025 UN World Social Report revealed a "global social crisis" characterized by insecurity, inequality, crumbling social cohesion, and diminishing trust.
Recognizing this mammoth task, the Second World Summit for Social Development (WSSD2) is a vital opportunity to assess the biggest challenges; identify omissions; and recommit to inclusivity, equity, social protection, and sustainability. The event is organized by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), which will collaborate with various stakeholders to facilitate the crucial discussions. WSSD2 will attract over 8,000 participants.
This WSSD2, let's strengthen global partnerships, implement effective policies, foster international cooperation, set concrete proposals, and make it another historic leap for social development.
As UN Secretary-General António Guterres said, "True development is not about prosperity for the few. It is about opportunities for the many, grounded in social justice, full employment, and human dignity.”
The WSSD2 takes place during the same month as the COP30 climate conference. Both summits share the common goals of creating a more just and sustainable world for everyone. Climate change threatens the foundations of our lives; without concrete action, our efforts to enhance social protections are futile. Progress in education, poverty reduction, and social justice will be undermined if we cannot bring global warming under control.
WSSD2: Three Decades in the Making
The first summit brought together 186 countries and was a landmark moment in global efforts to address critical social challenges, including poverty, unemployment, public health, and social exclusion.
Its ambitious agenda concluded with the adoption of the Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action, which outlined several targets and initiatives, and became a foundation for future policies worldwide. Although the summit was, at the time, a historic moment for global progress, many of the hopes and expectations of the declaration were not realised.
More than 30 years have passed since the first summit. A lack of urgency and budget has left the WSSD2 long overdue, as the United Nations' attention has been diverted to Climate and Biodiversity summits (COP Conferences), of which there have been many.
This summit is an essential part of the United Nations' work in an area that has been overlooked for too long. Organized by civil society organisations, the World Social Forum is the only other event which addresses the planet's social needs and alternative visions of globalization.
As UN General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock said, "Without social justice there will never be long-lasting peace and security."
(Photo by Statista/CC BY-ND 4.0)
This year's summit will be co-facilitated by Philippe Kridelka, Belgium's permanent representative to the UN, and Omar Hilale, Morocco's permanent representative. With mounting global tensions and spiraling humanitarian crises worldwide, this conference must go beyond other United Nations summits.
The Doha Political Declaration, which was negotiated well in advance of the summit, does not contain any new or binding indicators, nor obligations for monitoring. This lack of concrete measures and quantifiable goals leaves implementation simply to the goodwill of nations. As we have seen with various climate and biodiversity goals, this does not work.
Even before the summit, the effectiveness of the WSSD2 has drawn sharp criticism from hundreds of NGOs, who have labelled the pre-negotiated declaration insufficient.
Increasing militarization, decreasing effectiveness of multilateralism, widening inequalities, the potential for future pandemics, and a right-wing shift in many influential nations have led to the redirection of vital resources away from our planet's most pressing societal needs.
Instead of ensuring the well-being, safety, and prospects of society, money is siphoned into the production of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear programs, military bases, and the promotion and justification of wars around the world.
The State of the Planet: WSSD2 Key Priorities
The WSSD2 will focus on the weakest performing Sustainable Development Goals.
No Poverty: Over 2.8 billion people, more than one-third of the world's population, live in extreme poverty. Since the last summit, 35% of the people who exited poverty have relapsed back into it.
Zero Hunger: Rates of hunger and food insecurity have increased alarmingly since 2015. Two billion people worldwide lack regular access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food. In 2024, 23% of children had stunted growth, and 6% of those under the age of 5 were affected by wasting.
Gender Equality: If the 2023 rate of progress remains, it would take an estimated 300 years to end child marriage, 286 years to remove discriminatory laws, 140 years for women to be represented equally in workplace leadership roles, and 47 years for equal representation in national politics.
Clean Water and Sanitation: In 2024, 2.2 billion people lacked access to safe drinking water, 3.4 billion people lacked safely managed sanitation, and 1.7 billion people did not have basic hygiene services at home.
Affordable and Clean Energy: In 2024, 645 million people lacked access to electricity. Almost 2 billion people are still using polluting fuels for cooking, exposing them to severe health risks.
Decent Work and Economic Growth: Informal employment remains stubbornly at an estimated 2 billion people, accounting for 58% of the world's employed population. Approximately 65% of the world's population lives in countries where income inequality is widening. There are still 160 million children involved in child labor.
Climate Action: The year 2024 was confirmed as the hottest year ever on record. A recent report by the UN revealed that current policies put the planet on track to reach a catastrophic 3.1°C warming by 2100. This scenario would expose 600 million people to flooding, reduce food yields by half, cause severe water shortages, lead to insurmountable habitat and biodiversity loss, create month-long brutal heatwaves and wildfires, heighten the risks of insect-borne diseases, and profoundly deepen inequalities.
Life Below Water: In 2019, 35% of global fish stocks were overfished. An estimated 5-12 million metric tons of plastic enters the ocean each year, costing the global economy $19 billion every single year. Record-breaking global coral bleaching began in 2023, affecting 84% of global reefs across more than 80 countries. Marine life populations have declined by 49% between 1970 and 2012. One-third of shark and ray species are now threatened with extinction. Goal 14 is the least funded of all the Sustainable Development Goals.
Life on Land: One million animal and plant species are currently threatened with extinction. Habitat loss and land degradation have led to a staggering 73% decline in wildlife populations between 1970 and 2020. Deforestation destroys around 10 million hectares of forest every single year. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework aimed to protect 30% of land by 2030, but progress has stagnated since 2015.
Turning Summits into Action
We need to start building a society where people can thrive, rather than merely survive. With 60% of the planet struggling and 12% suffering, many, unsurprisingly, believe that life is worse now than it was 50 years ago.
Looking back at various climate, biodiversity, and economic summits, it is easy to imagine another lackluster fanfare of fake promises, greenwashing, and corporate lobbying. The stalled progress after the 1995 WSSD and the lack of other social development-focused initiatives puts huge pressure on this year's event in Doha to be a conference of action.
Social development progress has been seriously hindered by underinvestment, a lack of regulation and legality, greenwashing, outdated policies, and a lack of political will. Multiple global crises, including the Covid-19 pandemic, conflict, the climate crisis, and economic downturns, have exacerbated many existing global issues.
Ageing populations reshaping society, a right-wing shift in the political arena, increasing polarization, and international pressure to fund military alliances add additional challenges. The financing gap must be closed. Binding targets have to be set. Nations must be held accountable for inaction.
This WSSD2, let's strengthen global partnerships, implement effective policies, foster international cooperation, set concrete proposals, and make it another historic leap for social development.
As Baerbock said, "Social development is not only a matter of principle, it is also the smartest investment we can make."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Defining Our Role in the Wake of the International Day of Peace
At this challenging time, 80 years since the founding of the United Nations and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a world torn apart by war, there is hope for a just, environmentally sustainable, and peaceful world.
Sep 22, 2025
With two significant interconnected anniversaries occurring this week, Sunday marked the 44th anniversary of the United Nations International Day of Peace. This year‘s theme, “Act Now for a Peaceful World,“ is a call to action, identifying individual responsibility and collective power in “cultivating a culture of peace.“
Noting that this year finds a time of global turbulence, tumult, and uncertainty, it is easy to find oneself despairing. Surrendering to this challenge fuels despair. Hope is realized in identifying our individual response and working together to realize collective power. We must discard outmoded “us and them” thinking, realizing that we are one interconnected human family on this fragile planet that will either learn to live together or perish together.
Everyone has a role to play, and each of us must decide what that role is. It is not necessarily a large role or a small role, it is our role. We can no longer assume that “they will take care of it.” They, are us! We must speak up against violence, hate, discrimination, and inequality. We must practice respect and embrace the diversity of our world. The International Day of Peace builds on the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations. The theme aligns with the broader UN goals of sustainable development, recognizing that a peaceful world is intrinsically linked to social justice, equality, and environmental sustainability.
This week also marks the 11th anniversary of the “UN International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons” on September 26. With current global nuclear arsenals numbering 12,241 weapons, there is no humanitarian, social, or environmental justice and no sustainability as long as these weapons exist. Everything and everyone we care about is threatened. We must recognize the social and economic costs of the continued existence of these weapons. The United States is spending over $110 billion on all nuclear weapons programs in FY 2025 equating to over $209,000 every minute of every day on these weapons with plans for massive expansion of these expenditures in the years to come under the misguided myths of deterrence and “more is better.“
Ultimately there cannot be peace with the planet until there is peace on the planet.
Fortunately, there is hope in the effort to eliminate these weapons both here at home and around the world. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons was instrumental in the development and adoption of the International Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which makes nuclear weapons illegal to have, develop, transfer, use, or threaten to use under international treaty, just as all other weapons of mass destruction are.
At a time when our world is closer to nuclear war than at any time since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 89 seconds till “Doomsday” per the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, there is a growing movement here in the United States to eliminate these weapons. It is called Back From the Brink. This movement that supports the international effort is bringing communities together to abolish nuclear weapons and making the connection between our future and sustainability goals. Currently there are 502 national organizations, 78 municipalities and counties, eight state legislative bodies, 487 municipal and state officials, and 51 members of Congress endorsing. The people‘s voice is rising and being heard and is the best way to affect federal policy. When the people speak, the leaders will follow. This movement can be endorsed by all, and everyone is encouraged to take the simple action of reaching out to your elected officials, both in the US House, Senate, and local officials to endorse this campaign.
So at this challenging time, 80 years since the founding of the United Nations and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a world torn apart by war, there is hope for a just, environmentally sustainable, and peaceful world. Ultimately there cannot be peace with the planet until there is peace on the planet. The choice is ours. It is in our hands on this week of the International Day of Peace.
Keep ReadingShow Less
To Meet the Sustainable Development Goals, Prioritize Animal Welfare
As UN member states gather in New York to discuss progress on global challenges, it is vital that we bring animals back into the fold.
Sep 22, 2025
This month sees United Nations member states gather at the 80th United Nations General Assembly in New York to debate the most important global issues.
Ten years ago, the assembly agreed on a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure peace and prosperity for all by 2030.
One key accelerator that has been continuously overlooked in the SDGs is animal welfare. Nowhere is this more evident than in how we treat farmed animals and manage our food systems. Industrial systems, where the majority of the around 85 billion land animals farmed for food each year are raised, drive climate change, hunger, pollution, and inequality. Yet, higher-welfare, sustainable practices show how respecting animals can help deliver progress across the SDGs. Unless we take animal welfare seriously, we’ll fall short of achieving sustainability. The systems in which we farm animals are an illustration of this.
At the United Nations Environment Assembly in 2022, member states explicitly acknowledged that “animal welfare can contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.” So the mandate is there, but what does this actually mean in practice when it comes to specific goals? How does improving animal welfare drive progress on sustainable development, better people’s lives, and support the environment around us?
Farm Animal Welfare and Climate Change
One of the biggest threats we face is addressed in SDG 13: "Combating Climate Change," a significant contributor to which is the industrial exploitation of animals for food. The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that animal agriculture contributes 14.5% of human-caused emissions.
Higher animal welfare farming systems offer solutions. Agroecological approaches where animals are integrated into local environments that can provide them with food (i.e. grass), and manage their waste in sustainable, regenerative ways, have greater capacities for carbon sequestration potential compared with industrial animal farming. They are also more resilient to climate change and disasters, thereby supporting mitigation and adaptation.
Without changing our relationship with animals, we have no hope of reaching these ambitious SDGs.
We need to introduce policy solutions that enhance such sustainable agriculture practices, alongside those encouraging the reduction of overconsumption of animal-sourced foods.
Our Global Food System Fuels Food Insecurity
Another victim of our intensive animal agricultural system is global food security. There is a misconception that we need to upscale production of animal-sourced foods to feed a growing global population. But this is a fallacy. Evidence from recent decades shows that increased production serves overconsumption. In fact, SDG 2: "Zero Hunger" is out of reach if we continue to squander such vast quantities of human-edible resources on inhumanely farmed animals. A recent study found that fewer than half the calories grown on farms now reach our plates—calories that could be eaten directly by humans. With the World Health Organization (WHO) citing that around 733 million people faced hunger in 2023, feeding crops to humans, instead of animals, should be prioritized if we are serious about achieving food security.
Animal and Human Health and Well-Being Are Intrinsically Connected
Our exploitation of animals is also a source of air, soil, and water pollution in many regions, addressed in SDG 6: "Clean Water and Sanitation." Overreliance on fertilizers and pesticides in industrial agriculture systems can cause soil and water pollution. Furthermore, air pollutants such as faecal dust, ammonia, and hydrogen sulphide are consequences of intensive systems, all posing human health risks. This comes in contradiction to SDG 3: "Ensure Healthy Lives and Promote Well-Being for All at All Ages."
There are other health impacts to the way we treat animals. Antimicrobial resistance in humans has been named by the WHO as one of the top global public health and development threats, accelerated by the routine use of antimicrobials in intensive animal farming to offset the risks of concentrating excessive numbers in crowded conditions, or to speed up growth for greater profit.
Animal Exploitation Is Linked to Biodiversity Loss and Nature Depletion
SDG 15 aims to protect life on land, yet globally monitored population sizes of mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians have declined an average of 68% between 1970 and 2016. These drastic reductions reveal a broken relationship between humans and the natural world, and show that far too little action has been taken to date.
Agriculture uses half of the world’s habitable land, with animal farming accounting for 77% of globally available farming land. Land-use change, primarily related to animal agriculture, is a huge contributor to biodiversity loss. To prevent the alarming loss of wildlife, habitat destruction, and pollution, we need to protect animals who play critical roles as pollinators, nutrient recyclers, and environmental custodians. We need bees for our food system, forest-dwelling elephants for carbon storage, and beavers building dams to restore wetlands, to name a few examples.
Our Global Food System Exacerbates Poverty and Inequality
Ultimately, a key driver of the SDGs is the ambitious first goal—to end poverty. But by exploiting animals for food, we are heightening it. The overindustrialization of animal agriculture is lining the pockets of a few global giants, while small-scale farmers are being pushed out. Higher-welfare farming systems can have positive impacts on the livelihoods of smallholders, for many of whom animals are their primary productive asset, creating employment opportunities in the rural economy and reducing poverty. Furthermore, for the many communities who rely on working and other animals for their livelihoods, improving how their animals are cared for will help keep them from the cycle of poverty.
A missing piece in the SDG puzzle
The SDGs provide the blueprint for “peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future.” This may seem like an insurmountable feat. And it is insurmountable if we carry on as before. What is clear is that, without changing our relationship with animals, we have no hope of reaching these ambitious SDGs.
The way we raise, trade, and consume farmed animals is an example of the nexus between animal welfare and hunger, health, climate change, and poverty. But this is an example. Whether wild, farmed, or companion, animal welfare is a lever for sustainable development. Being kind to animals is not just "a nice to have" but a "need to have" if we want to have any hope of a more prosperous future, for the planet and all who live in it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s America First Agenda Threatens the Fight Against Global Poverty
As it retreats from multilateralism, the Trump administration is rejecting the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals, which provide a blueprint to eradicate poverty and pursue inclusive and environmentally responsible economic development.
May 20, 2025
On March 4, 2025, Edward Heartney, a minister-counselor at the U.S. mission to the United Nations, remarked at the General Assembly that the Sustainable Development Goals “advance a program of soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty” and interests.
This rejection of the SDGs aligns with President Donald Trump’s retreat from multilateralism and overall dissatisfaction with the U.N. For example, the Trump administration has moved to pull the United States out of the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Paris agreement on climate action, and the World Health Organization (WHO). In addition, the administration has frozen foreign aid, initiated a global trade war, and failed to pay its U.N. dues as of May 2025.
How can we remodel institutions and programs to be less dependent on American funds while also ensuring the continual engagement of the United States as a leader?
Although intended to prioritize the United States, these developments threaten progress on the SDGs, with negative implications for the global fight against poverty.
What are the Sustainable Development Goals?
The SDGs are a collection of 17 goals set for achievement by 2030, subdivided into targets and indicators. They form the core of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all U.N. member states in 2015. They provide a blueprint to eradicate poverty and pursue inclusive and environmentally responsible economic development under conditions of peace and partnership.
Contrary to Heartney’s claims on sovereignty, the 2030 Agenda is voluntary and non-binding. They are a framework, not a prescription. In fact, the SDGs have not received nearly enough policy and financial support as evidenced by their lack of progress. Although there has been progress in some areas, only 17% of SDG targets are on track to be achieved according to the 2024 SDG report.
How, though, does the America First agenda impact global poverty? While many linkages can be draw, SDGs 3, 5, and 13 provide some examples.
SDG 3: Good Health and Well-Being
SDG 3 covers a wide range of health issues. There are strong correlations between a country’s income status and its performance on some SDG 3 indicators. For example, 2019 data places the cause of death by communicable diseases and maternal, prenatal, and nutrition conditions in low-income countries at 47%, versus only 6% for high-income countries.
Poor health is not only a symptom of poverty. It can compound cycles of poverty through inhibiting disabilities, crippling medical expenditures, and premature death. Meanwhile, the significance of American support for good health across the developing world cannot be overstated, and actions such as freezing foreign aid and cutting the UNAIDS budget are projected to cause the deaths of more than 200,000 people from AIDS and tuberculosis alone by the end of 2025.
However, on the positive side, in South Africa—the country with the highest number of people with HIV-AIDS—the government has committed to provide support for HIV-AIDS treatment in 2025 from the National Treasury, aiming to become a more self-sufficient country.
SDG 5: Gender Equality
There are positive links between improving girls’ and women’s access to health services, education, and economic opportunities and the overall living standards of a country. Hence, SDG 5 aims to end discrimination against girls and women and empower them with equal means. However, the Trump administration’s anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policy risks undermining work and advocacy for SDG 5. While this anti-DEI policy promotes merit-based systems and unity on its face, the administration is also using this campaign to target gender-related programs.
Additionally, by February 20, 2025, the freeze on humanitarian assistance resulted in more than 900,000 women per week being denied contraception around the world. Family planning activities were also not part of a limited waiver to the freeze, aligning with the administration’s overall anti-family planning policies. However, support for civil society organizations working on sexual and reproductive health and rights, and volunteerism, can help plug gaps. For example, 200 U.N. Volunteers recently worked with the WHO in the Republic of the Congo to raise awareness about HIV-AIDS and to challenge related stigma via a social media campaign.
SDG 13: Climate Action
The Trump administration’s rejection of the Paris agreement also aligns with support of an “overdue course correction on… climate ideology, which pervade the SDGs,” in the words of Heartney. The Paris agreement—the preeminent international treaty to combat climate change—is essential to SDG 13. Without the participation of the United States, which is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world, the Paris agreement and SDG 13 are set to fail.
However, at this stage, climate action is not an “ideology” but a necessity, and the Green transition is not with its own economic opportunities that could advantage the United States.
Similar to the case of SDG 3, not only do low-income households experience the worst impacts of climate change, these impacts can compound poverty through property damage, income disruptions, displacement, and premature death. This further threatens progress on SDG 1.1 (extreme poverty), which has been one bright spot of success amid the ailing SDGs. For example, between 1990 and 2019, the prevalence of extreme poverty in developing Asia fell from 58% to 5%. Climate change, however, could push millions back into extreme poverty by 2030.
Fortunately, efforts like AMERICA IS ALL IN commit Americans to the Paris Agreement even as climate action is moving forward on other fronts. For example, Green bonds have seen rapid growth—rising from $40 billion in 2015 to more than $500 billion in 2023—with the United States being a top issuer in that period.
Looking Forward
In mid-July, New York will host the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF), which will review five SDGs, including SDGs 3 and 5. The HLPF provides an opportunity to have important conversations about these issues, and to find solutions.
For example, although the SDGs need the participation of the United States, how can we remodel institutions and programs to be less dependent on American funds while also ensuring the continual engagement of the United States as a leader? The recently adopted Pact for the Future—while not without flaws—also offers an impetus for discussions on why multilateralism is retreating. Finally, it is important to continue leveraging the potential of SDG localization in light of insufficient national action and leadership.
When it comes to multilateral action, the Trump administration is about to prove that the United States is not, in fact, an indispensable nation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Transforming the Global Scientific System: Why Fundamental Shifts Are Desperately Needed
In times of insecurity and conflicts worldwide, it is important to remember that international research collaboration has a role to play in building bridges—and a brighter future for all.
Dec 23, 2024
Global expectations for sustainable development took another hit in 2024. Carbon emissions reacheda new high, world leaders settled on an underwhelming climate finance goal, and countries failed to sign the global plastic treaty.
There was, however, one major accomplishment. In September, at the United Nations (UN) Summit of the Future, Member States adopted the Pact for the Future reconfirming their commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Pact underscores the critical role of science, technology, and innovation (STI) and outlines several key action items — from increasing the use of science in policy making, to promoting interdisciplinary collaboration to tackle complex global challenges, to supporting developing countries in harnessing STI for sustainable development.
If implemented, these measures will transform the global scientific community and science systems worldwide, requiring fundamental shifts in the organization, practice, and funding of science.
As the landscape of actors working towards the SDGs continues to grow, complexity and fragmentation are likely, which could undermine the effectiveness of individual SDG-related efforts. As such, global research efforts and research funding require strategic coordination and prioritization. In recent years, the scientific community has developed a number of research priority frameworks, including the Six Transformations, Unleashing Science, and Towards Sustainable Transformation, that can help steer global collective efforts and accelerate progress towards SDGs.
The Pact also emphasizes the need to increase the use of science in policy making. Although there is significant research on the SDGs, it is often ignored in public debates on societal transformations and rarely used in policy processes. While resolving this challenge is a complex matter, creating practical interfaces between science and policy could certainly help.
A recent initiative of the World Bank, the Coalition for Capacity on Climate Action (C3A), seeks to bridge the gap between science and Ministries of Finance. It is a prime example of how to better integrate climate science considerations in economic and financial decision-making processes. The SDSN SDG Transformation Center is also working directly with governments, including in Benin and Uzbekistan, to support efforts in developing science-based pathways for SDG implementation, identifying SDG priorities and context-specific solutions, and aligning policies and financial flows with such priorities. Initiatives like these hold great potential to be scaled and replicated across countries.
As the Pact stresses, responding effectively to current and future challenges requires the engagement of all relevant stakeholders. At the recent Annual C3A Symposium, participating Ministries of Finance emphasized the critical importance of engaging diverse dimensions of expertise to better understand the complexity and dynamic processes of global challenges and changes. Transdisciplinary research can be an effective tool, as it embraces diverse scientific and societal views and helps to identify common context-specific solutions. By providing space for dialogue, learning, and trust building, transdisciplinary research also helps break down the silo mentality that still persists across many institutional structures. But, for this approach to become common practice, both funders and research institutions must introduce incentives and innovative funding models to reduce the structural barriers to transdisciplinarity.
As it stands, engaging in transdisciplinarity can be risky for scientists, especially for early-career researchers. Stakeholder engagement efforts are rarely recognized, and opportunities for transdisciplinary career development within disciplinary institutions are limited and not oftenrewarded. For several years, the International Science Council (ISC) has promoted the creation of environments and reward systems conducive to transdisciplinary research. While transdisciplinarity has become a more frequent requirement in research calls, much remains to be done to fully harness the benefits of knowledge co-production across disciplines and societal actors.
The design of research funding programmes also plays a critical role. Beyond basic research-linked activities, funding mechanisms should support public engagement, science–policy interfaces, capacity development, community-building, and peer learning. Research funding needs to also enable the accumulation, application, and deployment of knowledge. Longer-term funding is especially needed for international research collaboration on societal transformations towards sustainability.
While no single country can address complex sustainability challenges, the scale of current support for global multilateral scientific collaboration on pressing global challenges still remains marginal. Despite a few examples of global sustainability research collaborative funding efforts, including the ISC Science Missions for Sustainability and the Belmont Forum, research funding mostly prioritizes national scientific efforts over international research collaboration, with only 5% of research projects dedicated to multilateral collaboration.
Ongoing public science funding cuts and rising geopolitical tensions — which have become particularly apparent over the past years — are not conducive to cross-border scientific initiatives. But in times of insecurity and conflicts, it is important to remember that international research collaboration on global sustainability challenges provides a common language and critical mechanism that helps bridge the divide between nations. Strengthening international research collaboration and implementing the STI actions outlined in the Pact for the Future is, therefore, a necessity for ensuring a more peaceful, sustainable, and resilient future for all.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Second Trump Presidency Would Be a Planetary Disaster
A Republican victory in November would be an existential threat to climate action and a scorched-earth nightmare for the nation—and the world—simply cannot afford.
Oct 25, 2024
The 2024 U.S. presidential election is a referendum on whether or not America will be a partner or a roadblock to global climate action. Just a week after the U.S. election, the next global climate conference will work out the technical details and new global climate finance goal at Baku’s COP29. The U.S. election will set the tone and tenor of this important meeting. Whoever wins in November will determine if the United States will be a global partner to the diverse issues connected to climate, energy transition, and development finance—or a nation withdrawn at best and a hostile actor at worst.
Globally, climate-fueled events are costing us all $16 million per hour through wildfires, storms, and drought—amplifying livelihood insecurities and potentially putting the global sustainable development goals out of reach. The majority of Americans polled want to see climate policies that can address the climate shocks being felt today. But only the Democratic ticket of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz has a plan to address these challenges.
The climate crisis does not exist in a political vacuum. That’s why the Biden-Harris administration has centered climate in various arenas: international aid, foreign policy, conservation, energy, and so much more. On President Biden’s first day in office, the administration rejoined the Paris Agreement and reversed many of the environmental rollbacks President Trump enacted. As Vice President, Kamala Harris worked tirelessly to pass the monumental Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The IRA is among the world's largest single investment in climate to date, including incentives for renewables and expanding on programs for communities coping with climate and environmental injustices. A Harris-Walz administration would continue and expand off the IRA to address the climate and environmental challenges Americans are facing at home while maintaining emissions reduction targets that meet global climate goals.
A future President Harris would see America continuing its leadership role in global climate forums. She would address the myriad of climate challenges as economic opportunities that can be interwoven throughout domestic and global endeavors. A future President Harris would continue policies normalized around the world—like participating in the World Bank and in global climate forums in partnership. This is a future where the United States continues to wield influence and shape agendas on climate, security, and international development. This is in sharp contrast to what the other side is offering.
As president, Trump took the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement, expanded oil development on previously protected lands, and slashed environmental protections that protect Americans from unsafe air and water. Environmentally, we can expect the same and much worse from a second Trump administration.
The Republican Platform this year was limited on details, but outlined core goals that align with the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 playbook. In the past, republican presidents have aligned and adopted the Heritage Foundation’s agendas. For instance, President Reagan adopted roughly 60% of their Mandate for Leadership.
If Project 2025 is implemented it would represent an America in retreat. It would harm global cooperation on climate and potentially break multilateral forums. A Trump-Vance ticket is offering an America unmoored from geopolitical and economic reality; a future where the U.S. removes itself from the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the World Bank. Without U.S contributions to these institutions, though all must do more and reforms remain necessary, global climate action would be strained for most emerging and developing countries. Today, the U.S. is the largest contributor to the World Bank, which provides the lion’s share of global climate finance, amounting to $38.6 billion in 2023.
A Trump-Vance administration would—once more—remove the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and depart from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Detaching the United States from global climate frameworks would mean global climate goals are unlikely to be met. Coal-reliant nations like China, Australia, and India would have a free pass to continue to exploit coal despite the costs and risks, both nationally and globally. An unsustainable path towards 2.0°C or 3.0°C would become more likely.
America and the world cannot afford to ignore climate, especially when it’s cheaper, more beneficial economically, and avoids the worst climate consequences to face our climate reality head on. The world cannot afford a prospective U.S. presidential ticket hellbent on fostering global and domestic instability across the board. A ticket that considers science as fiction cannot act in the best interest of the American people at home nor abroad.
Elections are about the future, juxtaposed against the challenges of the present. Climate is today’s challenge and opportunity. A Trump-Vance ticket would be a scorched earth reality for our climate, inevitable energy transition, and the financing developing nations need. It is no competition—the world needs a future President Harris.
Note: The opinions expressed are solely that of the author and do not represent an endorsement from any of her current or past affiliated organizations.
Keep ReadingShow Less
730 Million People—Including 20% of Africans—Faced Hunger Last Year
Jul 24, 2024
More than 730 million people around the world faced hunger last year, including 1 in 5 Africans, with over half a billion people set to be chronically malnourished by the decade's end if current trends continue, according to a report published Wednesday by a United Nations agency.
One in 11 people globally went hungry in 2023, the latest U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) report revealed.
"The report shows that the world has been set back 15 years, with levels of undernourishment comparable to those in 2008-2009," according to the FAO. "An alarming number of people continue to face food insecurity and malnutrition as global hunger levels have plateaued for three consecutive years."
"Hunger is not something natural. Hunger is something that requires a political decision."
The agency noted significant variation in regional trends as "the percentage of the population facing hunger continues to rise in Africa (20.4%), remains stable in Asia (8.1%)—though still representing a significant challenge as the region is home to more than half of those facing hunger worldwide—and shows progress in Latin America (6.2%)."
"If current trends continue, about 582 million people will be chronically undernourished in 2030, half of them in Africa," FAO said, warning that "the world is falling significantly short of achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2, Zero Hunger, by 2030."
FAO Director-General Qu Dongyu said in a statement that "transforming agrifood systems is more critical than ever as we face the urgency of achieving the SDGs within six short years. FAO remains committed to supporting countries in their efforts to eradicate hunger and ensure food security for all."
"We will work together with all partners and with all approaches, including the G20 Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty, to accelerate the needed change," Qu added. "Together, we must innovate and collaborate to build more efficient, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable agrifood systems that can better withstand future challenges for a better world."
FAO argued that "achieving SDG 2 Zero Hunger requires a multifaceted approach, including transforming and strengthening agrifood systems, addressing inequalities, and ensuring affordable and accessible healthy diets for all."
"It calls for increased and more cost-effective financing, with a clear and standardized definition of financing for food security and nutrition," the agency added.
The new report comes ahead of this November's scheduled G20 Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty Task Force Ministerial Meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. On Wednesday, Qu praised Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva—who currently chairs the G20—for centering food security in the bloc's agenda.
In the 2000s, Lula's leftist government implemented plans including Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) and Bolsa Familia (Family Allowance) that significantly reduced malnutrition and poverty in Brazil.
"We need to build on the progress achieved in this region, and share this experience with other regions, especially Africa," Qu said.
Speaking in Rio de Janeiro on Wednesday, Lula said that "hunger is not something natural. Hunger is something that requires a political decision."
Cindy McCain, executive director of the U.N.'s World Food Program (WFP), said Wednesday that "a future free from hunger is possible if we can rally the resources and the political will needed to invest in proven long-term solutions."
"I call on G20 leaders to follow Brazil's example and prioritize ambitious global action on hunger and poverty," she continued. "We have the technologies and know-how to end food insecurity—but we urgently need the funds to invest in them at scale."
"WFP is ready to step up our collaboration with governments and partners to tackle the root causes of hunger, strengthen social safety nets, and support sustainable development so every family can live in dignity," McCain added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
10 Principles for Perpetual Peace in the 21st Century
The United Nations-based structures are fragile and in need of an urgent upgrade; we should consider this one at the U.N. Summit of the Future in September.
Jul 24, 2024
Next year will mark the 230th anniversary of Immanuel Kant’s celebrated essay on “Perpetual Peace” (1795). The great German philosopher put forward a set of guiding principles to achieve perpetual peace among the nations of his day. As we grapple with a world at war, and indeed at dire risk of nuclear Armageddon, we should build on Kant’s approach for our own time. An updated set of principles should be considered at the United Nations Summit of the Future in September.
Kant was fully aware that his proposals would face the skepticism of “practical” politicians:
The practical politician assumes the attitude of looking down with great self-satisfaction on the political theorist as a pedant whose empty ideas in no way threaten the security of the state, inasmuch as the state must proceed on empirical principles; so the theorist is allowed to play his game without interference from the worldly-wise statesman.
Nonetheless, as historian Mark Mazower noted in his magisterial account of global governance, Kant’s was a “text that would intermittently influence generations of thinkers about world government down to our own day,” helping to lay the groundwork for the United Nations and international law on human rights, the conduct of war, and arms control.
Kant’s core proposals centered on three ideas. First, he rejected standing armies. Standing armies “incessantly menace other states by their readiness to appear at all times prepared for war.” In this, Kant anticipated by a century and a half the famous warning by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower of the dangers of a military-industrial complex. Second, Kant called for non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations. In this, Kant inveighed against the kind of covert operations that the U.S. has used relentlessly to topple foreign governments. Third, Kant called for a “federation of free states,” which in our time became the United Nations, a “federation” of 193 states pledged to operate under the U.N. Charter.
Kant put great hopes on republicanism as opposed to one-person rule as a check on war-making. Kant reasoned that a single ruler would readily succumb to the temptation of war:
...a declaration of war is the easiest thing in the world to decide upon, because war does not require of the ruler, who is the proprietor and not a member of the state, the least sacrifice of the pleasures of his table, the chase, his country houses, his court functions, and the like. He may, therefore, resolve on war as on a pleasure party for the most trivial reasons, and with perfect indifference leave the justification which decency requires to the diplomatic corps who are ever ready to provide it.
By contrast, according to Kant:
...if the consent of the citizens is required in order to decide that war should be declared (and in this [republican] constitution it cannot but be the case), nothing is more natural than that they would be very cautious in commencing such a poor game, decreeing for themselves all the calamities of war.
Kant was far too optimistic about the ability of public opinion to constrain war-making. Both the Athenian and Roman republics were notoriously belligerent. Britain was the 19th century’s leading democracy, but perhaps its most belligerent power. For decades, the U.S. has engaged in non-stop wars of choice and violent overthrows of foreign governments.
There are at least three reasons why Kant got this wrong. First, even in democracies, the choice to launch wars almost always lies with a small elite group who are in fact largely insulated from public opinion. Second, and equally important, public opinion is relatively easy to manipulate through propaganda to stir the public backing for war. Third, the public can be insulated in the short term from the high costs of war by financing war through debt rather than taxation, and by relying on contractors, paid recruits, and foreign fighters rather than conscription.
Kant’s core ideas on perpetual peace helped move the world toward international law, human rights, and the decent conduct in war (such as the Geneva Conventions) in the 20th century. Yet despite the innovations in global institutions, the world remains dreadfully far from peace. According to the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, we are 90 seconds to midnight, closer to nuclear war than at any time since the clock’s introduction in 1947.
The global apparatus of the U.N. and international law has arguably prevented a third world war to date. U.N. Secretary-General U Thant, for example, played a vital role in peacefully resolving the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet the U.N.-based structures are fragile and in need of an urgent upgrade.
For this reason, I urge that we formulate and adopt a new set of principles based on four key geopolitical realities of our time.
First, we are living with the nuclear Sword of Damocles over our heads. President John F. Kennedy put it eloquently 60 years ago in his famous Peace Speech, when he declared:
I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age where great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age where a single nuclear weapon contains almost 10 times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War.
Second, we have arrived at true multipolarity. For the first since the 19th century, Asia has overtaken the West in economic output. We are long past the Cold War era in which the U.S. and Soviet Union dominated, or the “unipolar moment” claimed by the U.S. after the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991. The U.S. is now one of several superpowers, including Russia, China, and India, with several regional powers as well (including Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea). The U.S. and its allies cannot unilaterally exact their will in Ukraine, the Middle East, or the Indo-Pacific region. The U.S. must learn to cooperate with the other powers.
Third, we now have an extensive and historically unprecedented set of international institutions for formulating and adopting global goals (e.g., regarding climate, sustainable development, and nuclear disarmament), adjudicating international law, and expressing the will of the global community (e.g., in the U.N. General Assembly and U.N. Security Council). Yes, these international institutions are still weak when the great powers choose to ignore them, yet they offer invaluable tools for building a true federation of nations in Kant’s sense.
Fourth, humanity’s fate is more tightly interconnected than ever. Global public goods—sustainable development, nuclear disarmament, protection of the Earth’s biodiversity, prevention of war, pandemic prevention and control—are far more central to our shared fate than at any previous time in human history. Again, we can turn to JFK’s wisdom, which rings as true today as then:
So let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s futures. And we are all mortal.
What principles should we adopt in our time that could contribute to perpetual peace? I propose 10 Principles for Perpetual Peace in the 21st Century, and invite others to revise, edit, or make their own list.
The first five of my principles are the Principles of Peaceful Coexistence proposed by China 70 years ago and subsequently adopted by the Non-Aligned nations. These are:
1. Mutual respect of all nations for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other nations;
2. Mutual non-aggression of all nations towards other nations;
3. Mutual non-interference by all nations in the internal affairs of other nations (such as through wars of choice, regime change operations, or unilateral sanctions);
4. Equality and mutual benefits in the interactions among nations; and
5. Peaceful co-existence of all nations.
To implement these five core principles, I recommend five specific principles of action:
6. The closure of overseas military bases, of which the U.S. and U.K. have by far the largest number.
7. The end of covert regime-change operations and unilateral coercive economic measures, which are grave violations of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations. (Political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke has carefully documented 64 U.S. covert regime-change operations during 1947-1969, and the pervasive destabilization caused by such operations.
8. Adherence by all nuclear powers (U.S., Russia, China, U.K., France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea) to Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: “All Parties must pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
9. The commitment by all countries “not to strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other countries,” (as per the OSCE Charter). States will not enter into military alliances that threaten their neighbors, and commit to resolve disputes through peaceful negotiations and security arrangements backed by the United Nations Security Council.
10. The commitment by all nations to cooperate in protecting the global commons and providing global public goods, including fulfillment of the Paris climate agreement, the Sustainable Development Goals, and reform of U.N. institutions.
Today’s great power confrontations, notably the U.S. conflicts with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, are largely due to America’s continued pursuit of unipolarity via regime change operations, wars of choice, unilateral coercive sanctions, and the global network of U.S. military bases and alliances. The 10 principles listed above would help to move the world to peaceful multilateralism governed by the U.N. Charter and the international rule of law.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Young People to World Leaders: 'Time to Let Youth Lead'
"We need more young people represented in all spheres of decision-making—within government, at the United Nations, in civil society, private sector, and academia. And they must be taken seriously."
Apr 16, 2024
"We still believe in the promise of a better world for all. Do you?"
That's how a letter to world leaders, spearheaded by the United Nations Youth Office, begins. It was released Monday, ahead of the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Youth Forum, as part of a campaign arguing that "it's time to let youth lead."
The letter stresses that "all around us, humanity is in peril. The impacts of war and conflict, humanitarian catastrophes, the mental health crisis, and the climate emergency have reached unimaginable heights."
"To rebuild trust and restore hope, we need to see meaningful youth engagement become the norm at all levels."
Last year was the hottest in human history, and temperatures in recent months suggest that trend will continue—largely thanks to planet-heating pollution from fossil fuels. Thousands of children have been killed in fighting around the world, from Ukraine and Sudan to the Gaza Strip—where the death toll has helped spur a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
"But we know that it doesn't need to be this way. While no one nation can solve these challenges alone, it is the inability of leaders to work together in pursuit of the collective good that is putting our common future in jeopardy," the letter states. "We cannot afford to lose hope—the stakes are simply too high. That is why, as young people and allies, we are rallying together as a global community to make our voices heard."
Emphasizing how including diverse perspectives helps to "ensure we don't continue to repeat past mistakes" and that the youth "will live with the consequences of the decisions taken today," the letter calls on "all leaders and institutions to take immediate action to make global policymaking and decision-making spaces more representative of the communities they serve."
"We need more young people represented in all spheres of decision-making—within government, at the United Nations, in civil society, private sector, and academia. And they must be taken seriously," it argues. "To rebuild trust and restore hope, we need to see meaningful youth engagement become the norm at all levels, backed by dedicated resourcing everywhere around the world."
According to the youth, "The Summit of the Future this September will be one important opportunity for governments to commit to finally giving young people their rightful seat at the table."
The summit's U.N. webpage describes it as "a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enhance cooperation on critical challenges and address gaps in global governance, reaffirm existing commitments including to the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and the United Nations Charter, and move towards a reinvigorated multilateral system that is better positioned to positively impact people's lives."
Ahead of that summit, ECOSOC is hosting the youth forum from Tuesday through Thursday at U.N. headquarters in New York City. Attendees are set to share recommendations and ideas in preparation for the September event.
The young people joining the forum are also expected to participate in discussions focused on five SDGs: partnerships for the goals, no poverty, zero hunger, climate action, and peace, justice, and strong institutions.
"The energy and conviction of young people are infectious, and more vital than ever. Our world is bristling with challenges, tragedies and injustices—many of them linked," U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said in remarks to the forum on Tuesday.
"In the face of all these crises, public trust is plummeting. Alienation is growing. And the international system is creaking. The future of multilateralism is at stake. And so we need action and we need justice," he continued. "I salute young people around the world for standing up, speaking out and working for real change. We need you. And I am fully committed to bringing young people into political decision-making; not just listening to your views, but acting on them."
Guterres noted that "we established a new Youth Office in the United Nations to advance advocacy, coordination, participation, and accountability for and with young people."
"We will renew the United Nations Youth Strategy—to take this work to the next level. And I am committed to making sure young people have a strong role as we gear up for the Summit of the Future in September," he pledged, detailing various other initiatives.
"Every generation serves as caretaker of this world. Let's be honest: Mine has been careless with that responsibility," said the 74-year-old U.N. chief. "But yours gives me hope. The United Nations stands with you. Together, let's deliver justice. Let's deliver solutions. And let's create a world of peace and prosperity for all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy