By Saifullah Syed
DHAKA, Bangladesh, Mar 11 2025 – The recent student movement in Bangladesh demanding reform of the quota system for public jobs led a ‘march of the people’ towards the official Residence of the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on 5th of August 2024. The security forces of the country, including the army, refused to open fire on the marching crowd. Fearing an imminent attack on her residence without the protection of the army, Sheikh Hasina fled to neighbouring India after being in power continuously since 2008. With Sheikh Hasina fleeing to India on 5th of August 2024 her authoritarian and corrupt rule of 15 years just melted away.

Saifullah Syed

Prior to this sudden and dramatic turn of events, during her rule, the country was mired by institutional and financial corruption and crony capitalism. The interim government that took over under the leadership of Nobel Laureate Prof. Yunus found a country politically broken to the core, financially drained without foreign currency reserve, so much so that openings letters of credit (LC) for imports were restricted. Bangladesh Taka which was trading at 104 in May 2023 to the US Dollar started trading at Taka 120 by the end of 2024.

Delving deep into the distressed financial sector, the White Paper on “the state of Bangladesh Economy” prepared by a Committee of Experts appointed by the Interim Government, revealed that: between 2009 and 2023, illicit financial outflows averaged $16 billion annually– more than double the combined value of net foreign aid and FDI inflows. Politically influenced lending practices left the banking sector with empty coffers. Recognised non-performing loans (NPLs) alone increased nearly ten times since 2010, reaching an equivalent of 7 percent of GDP at end-June 2024.

Widespread concerns were raised about what will happen to the country in the face of such a deep financial meltdown. Will all its economic achievements of the last decade, including reduction of poverty, enhanced food security and reduced dependency on foreign aid, as well as nascent growth of industries, particularly the garment sector, melt away with the political and financial meltdown of the country ?

The political situation remains very uncertain in spite of all the good will and good leadership of Nobel Laureate Prof. Yunus. What may happen politically is very difficult to assess as Bangladesh is now engulfed in the global geo-political quagmire. Internal forces are no longer completely independent to decide the future course of the country without external influence and pressure.

Fortunately, however, the economic situation, particularly the real sectors of the economy remains resilient, strong and thriving and providing relative calm and stability in the rural areas of what is predominantly a rural economy.

Why are the real sectors of the economy are resilient and thriving ?

Unsurprisingly it emerges that the stability and resilience of the economy to withstand socio-political and financial crisis is primarily due to the country’s success in: modernizing and developing its agriculture sector.

It is well established in the literature that every country that has made the transition to development, reduced poverty and increased food security, has done so through high agricultural growth. Empirical evidence shows that higher levels of economic development are positively correlated with agricultural development, particularly with improved efficiency of the sector in terms of land and labour productivity, aggregate value added and capital/labour ratio.

The recent evidence from Bangladesh now also demonstrates that a dynamic agriculture sector also assures: stability at the times of political and financial crisis.

Bangladesh agriculture value added grew at more than 3 percent since the early 2000 till 2023, while population growth continued to decline from 1.2 in 2013 to 1.03 in 2023. This growth has been the powerful driver of poverty reduction since 2000. Indeed, agriculture accounted for 90 percent of the reduction in poverty between 2005 and 2010 (World Bank).

Despite frequent natural disasters and population growth food grain production tripled between 1972 and 2014, from 9.8 to 34.4 million tons. As a result, from being completely dependent on foreign food aid it became almost self-sufficient in basic food and net ODA, as a percentage of GNI fell from 8 in 1977 to less than 1 in 2023 (World Bank).

In addition to contributing to food security and poverty reduction sustained agricultural growth also contributed to growth of manufacturing and services, including now the widely acclaimed garment sector. Low wages, primarily due to agriculture contributing to lower cost of living, fuelled its growth. According to the World Data Info: cost of living (inclusive of rent) in Vietnam and China, the competitors of the Bangladesh garment industry, is 53 and 43 percent respectively higher than in Bangladesh.

People feared that the financial and the political crisis will derail agricultural growth and then the rest of the economy along with it. However, overall agricultural growth of the country kept its pace and total food grain production did not decline. In fact milled rice production increased to 36.6 million tons from 36.3 in 2022/23. Likewise, Rice yield in 2024/25 increased to 4.82 t/ha from 4.70 in 2022/23. Overall growth of value added in agriculture remained at more than 3 percent (Bureau of Statistics).

Continued and sustained agricultural growth provided the life line to industries and the garment sector in particular to withstand the financial crisis. During January 2025, ready-made garment exports reached $3.664 billion, a 5.57 per cent rise from $3.471 billion in the same month of the previous year. Knitwear garment exports rose by 6.62 per cent to $1.850 billion, and woven garments increased by 4.52 per cent to $1.814 billion in the same month.

Overall, Bangladesh’s total exports expanded 24.9 % YoY in Nov 2024, compared with an increase of 25.7 % YoY in the previous month. Garment exports surged 12% in first 7 months of FY24–25, (Export Promotion Bureau of Bangladesh).

Agricultural growth, increased export and continued flow of remittances have helped the country to face the financial meltdown and given the interim Government led by Prof. Younus enough breathing space to search and mediate a solution to the political crisis.

Why did Bangladesh agriculture remained so resilient during this political and financial crisis ? What can we learn from it ?

Bangladesh agriculture development policy framework and plans has benefited from a national consensus and it was backed up by all the previous Governments, since its independence in 1971. This ensured continuity of a sound and consistent policy framework with focus on substantial public investments in technology, rural infrastructure and human capital. As a result, its total factor productivity (TFP), at 1.23, is more than the global average of 1.18.

The country’s agriculture focused on achieving self-sufficiency, and is dominated by the production of rice, largely by smallholder farmers. Production is slowly moving towards greater diversification with high-value crops such as fruits and vegetables, livestock, and fisheries, as demand has increased. However, the overall share of these products remains small, relative to rice. Irrigation has been important for expanded rice production. Education, research, and extension—as well as other facilitators, such as financial investors—are focused on supporting rice production.

The traditional public sector institutions, at national and local level, were primary drivers of setting policy and building the enabling environment, as well as to promote information and communications technology (ICT) with digitalization to overcome traditional constraints (e.g., market and weather information).

All development plans and strategies recognized the importance of modernizing the agriculture sector, developing further resilience to climate hazards, and managing natural resources sustainably. It emphasised that conscious management of key natural resources—land, water, forestry, natural habitats, and air—is crucial for a resilient economy.

However, Bangladesh agriculture sector is now facing a new challenge to diversify its production in keeping with changing demands for diversified food and agri-products, fuelled by increased income of the population. How will it manage to maintain its level of rice production and meet the challenge of diversification, with very limited cultivable land, is yet to be seen.

The author is a former UN official who was Chief of Policy Assistance Branch for Asia and the Pacific of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

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’);  

By Danny Bradlow
PRETORIA, South Africa, Mar 11 2025 – South Africa took over the presidency of the G20 at the end of 2024. Since then the world has become a more complex, unpredictable and dangerous place.

The most powerful state in the world, the US, seems intent on undermining the existing order that it created and on demonstrating its power over weaker nations. Other influential countries are turning inward.

These developments raise concerns about how well mechanisms for global cooperation, such as the G20, can continue to operate, particularly those that work on the basis of consensual decision making.

What’s the G20’s purpose?

The G20 is a forum in which the largest economies in the world meet regularly to discuss, and attempt to address, the most urgent international economic and political challenges. The group, which includes both rich and developing countries, accounts for about 67% of the world’s population, 85% of global GDP, and 75% of global trade.

The G20, in fact, is a misnomer. The actual number of G20 participants in any given year far exceeds the 19 states and 2 international entities (the European Union and the African Union) that are its permanent members.

Each year they are joined by a number of invited “guests”. While there are some countries, for example Spain and the Netherlands, that are considered “permanent” G20 guests, the full list of guests is determined by the chair of the G20 for that year.

This year, South Africa has invited 13 countries, including Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates. They are joined by 24 invited international organisations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the United Nations and eight African regional organisations, among others.

The G20 should be understood as a process rather than a set of discrete events. Its apex is the annual leaders’ summit at which the participating heads of state and government seek to agree on a communiqué setting out their agreements on key issues. These agreements are non-binding and each of the participating states usually will implement most but not all the agreed points.

The communiqué is the outcome of a two track process: a finance track, consisting of representatives of the finance ministries and central banks in the participating counties, and a “sherpa” track that deals with more political issues. In total these two tracks will involve over 100 meetings of technical level.

Most of the work in each track is done by working groups. The finance track has seven working groups dealing with issues ranging from the global economy and international financial governance to financial inclusion and the financing of infrastructure. The sherpa track has 15 working groups dealing with issues ranging from development and agriculture to health, the digital economy, and education.

The agenda for the working group meetings is based on issues notes prepared by the G20 presidency. The issues notes will discuss both unfinished business from prior years and any new issues that the president adds to the G20 agenda.

The working group chairs report on the outcomes of these meetings to the ministerial meetings in their track. These reports will first be discussed in meetings of the deputies to the ministers. The deputies will seek to narrow areas of disagreement and sharpen the issues for discussion so that when they are presented at the ministerial meeting the chances of reaching agreement are maximised.

The agreements reached at each of these ministerial meetings, assuming all participants agree, will be expressed in a carefully negotiated and drafted communiqué. If the participants cannot agree, the minister chairing the meeting will provide a chair’s summary of the meeting.

These documents will then inform the communiqué that will be released at the end of the G20 summit. This final communiqué represents the formal joint decision of the participating heads of state and government.

The G20 process is supplemented by the work of 13 engagement groups representing, for example, business, labour, youth, think tanks, women and civil society in the G20 countries. These groups look for ways to influence the outcomes of the G20 process.

What is the G20 troika and how does it operate?

The G20 does not have a permanent secretariat. Instead, the G20 president is responsible for organising and chairing the more than 100 meetings that take place during the year. The G20 has decided that this burden should be supported by a “troika”, consisting of the past, present and future presidents of the G20. This year the troika consists of Brazil, the past chair; South Africa, the current chair; and the US, the future chair.

The role of the troika varies depending on the identity of the current chair and how assertive it wishes to be in driving the G20 process. It will also be influenced by how active the other two members of the troika wish to be.

The troika helps ensure some continuity from one G20 year to another. This is important because there is a significant carryover of issues on the G20 agenda from one year to the next. The troika therefore creates the potential for the G20 president to focus on the issues of most interest to it over a three-year period rather than just for one year.

How successful has the G20 process been?

The G20 is essentially a self-appointed group which has designated itself as the “premier forum for international economic cooperation”.

The G20 was first brought together during the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s. At that time, it was limited to a forum in which ministers of finance and central bank governors could meet to discuss the most important international economic and financial issues, such as the Asian financial crisis.

The G20 was elevated to the level of heads of state and government at the time of the 2008 global financial crisis.

The G20 tends to work well as a cooperative forum when the world is confronting an economic crisis. Thus, the G20 was a critical forum in which countries could discuss and agree on coordinating actions to deal with the global financial crisis in 2008-9.

It has performed less well when confronted with other types of crises. For example, it was found wanting in dealing with the COVID pandemic.

It has also proven to be less effective, although not necessarily totally ineffective, when there is no crisis. So, for example, the G20 has been useful in helping address relatively technical issues such as developing international standards on particular financial regulatory issues or improving the functioning of multilateral development banks.

On other more political issues, for example climate, food security, and funding the UN’s sustainable development goals, it has been less effective.

There’s one less obvious, but nevertheless important, benefit. The G20 offers officials from participating countries the chance to interact with their counterparts from other G20 countries. As a result, they come to know and understand each other better, which helps foster cooperation between states on issues of common interest.

It also ensures that when appropriate, these officials know whom to contact in other countries and this may help mitigate the risk of misunderstanding and conflict.

These crisis management and other benefits would be lost if the G20 were to stop functioning. And there is currently no alternative to the G20 in the sense of a forum where the leading states in the world, which may differ on many important issues, can meet on a relatively informal basis to discuss issues of mutual interest.

Importantly, the withdrawal of one G20 state, even the most powerful, should not prevent the remaining participants from using the G20 to promote international cooperation on key global challenges.

In this way it can help manage the risk of conflict in a complex global environment.

Source: The Conversation AFRICA

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’);  

Excerpt:

Prof Daniel D. Bradlow is Professor/Senior Research Fellow, Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria.

By Catherine Wilson
LONDON, Mar 11 2025 – After three years of bloodshed, extraordinary courage and immense sacrifices in resisting Russia’s invasion, the people of Ukraine are in limbo as peace negotiations to end the war, instigated by United States President Donald Trump, remain unpredictable.

Trump announced his intention to broker an end to the Ukraine war in February, but efforts so far have been plagued by disinformation, undiplomatic behavior, and erratic political signals. And Ukraine and its allies have become increasingly concerned that the U.S. administration could defer to Russia’s demands and a weak peace agreement will lead to continuing insecurity.

“The way of diplomatic settlement of the situation chosen by Donald Trump is absolutely amateur and deadly short-sighted,” Andrii Mikheiev, International Lawyer at the International Centre for Ukrainian Victory in Europe, told IPS. “The main priority for Trump is speed, not the long-term outcomes and having declared the peace-through-strength principle, he is deploying strength to the victim, not to the internationally recognized aggressor, because it may lead to faster results.” As such, “Trump undermines all the accomplishments of the Ukrainian army and western efforts provided through military, humanitarian support and sanctions.”

A citizen waves the Ukraine flag soon after the liberation of Kherson from Russian occupation, Ukraine, 13 November 2022. Credit: Serhii Nuzhnenko (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty)/Collection of war.ukraine.ua

The way in which peace negotiations are being conducted is also creating “an unfolding crisis of trust, both within the U.S. and toward the U.S. as a reliable partner,” Ukrainian documentary filmmaker Anna Kryvenko told IPS. “One moment we hear promises of unwavering support, and the next we see hesitation, political infighting and an undercurrent of deal-making that suggests Ukraine’s fate is just another bargaining chip in their own internal struggles.”

Ukraine, an Eastern European state of about 38 million people, spans Russia to the east and Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Moldova and Romania to the west and south. It became part of the Soviet Union after Soviet troops invaded in 1921 until its declaration of independence in 1991, when the Communist era ended. But Russia, under the expansionist vision of President Vladimir Putin, has never accepted Ukraine’s secession, despite more than 80 percent of Ukrainians supporting EU and NATO membership. In 2014, public frustrations about lack of progress toward these aspirations sparked a popular uprising and ousting of the pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych. Russia responded by seizing the Crimean Peninsula, which was granted to Ukraine by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in 1954.

Putin perceives the expansion of the EU and NATO toward Russia’s borders as a grave threat and, in 2021, delivered an ultimatum to the latter to cease activities in the region, including Ukraine. After NATO’s refusal, Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022.

A funeral is held for Ukrainian defender Andrii Chyshko in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine, May 2024.
Credit: Elena Tita/Collection of war.ukraine.ua

Russian forces are now focused on advancing into the northern and eastern regions of Ukraine, including Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, and have seized about 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory. Russia possesses greater military capacity. But Ukraine, under the leadership of President Volodymyr Zelensky, mobilized a massive military and civilian resistance with the assistance of its western allies that has successfully defended the country.

But the sacrifices have been immense. At least 43,000 Ukrainian soldiers and 12,654 civilians have lost their lives. More than 10 million people have been displaced and 12.7 million need humanitarian assistance, reports the United Nations. Yet while Ukraine is keen for an end to hostilities, “Zelensky and Ukraine want a fair peace, one that would bring security to the embattled country and pay honor to the enormous price that it paid,” claim editors of Kyiv Independent news.

Preliminary meetings were held between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, in Riyadh on February 18, and between U.S. Special Envoy Keith Kellogg and Ukraine’s President Zelensky in Kyiv on February 20.

A funeral is held for Ukrainian defender Andrii Chyshko in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine, May 2024.
Credit: Elena Tita/Collection of war.ukraine.ua

Trump claims he is working “for both Ukraine and Russia,” but many of his public statements have been contradictory. He has labeled Zelensky a dictator without popular support, despite polls showing that his approval rating is 63 percent, and falsely accused him of starting the war. He raised tensions by suggesting that Zelensky would play a negligible part in any peace pact and refused to commit to Ukraine’s security. The support of the U.S. for Russia in the UN General Assembly vote on a resolution on 24 February that condemned Russia’s invasion further cemented European concerns about the fragmenting of the global order. An order based on a post-Second World War alliance of powers upholding democratic values and international law.

European leaders, including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and French President Emmanuel Macron, have struck a united front, hosting regional summits in their capitals to accelerate a plan of action to support Ukraine in peace negotiations. “In the face of this dangerous world, remaining a spectator is madness… and the path to peace cannot pass through the abandonment of Ukraine,” Macron announced on March 5. A peace deal which bows to Russian demands would jeopardize Europe’s security and democratic governance. And potentially pave the way for a widening campaign of Russian aggression on the continent.

Ukrainians truly want peace, but not at the cost of giving up Ukraine. The real question for any negotiations is whether Russia is capable of giving up the war. Zelensky also stated this early this month.

“The danger is in allowing the negotiations to become just another episode of elite maneuvering where the same Putin-backed narratives creep in under the guise of ‘compromise.” Kryvenko warned.

Tetiana Zemliakova, co-organizer of the Invisible University for Ukraine at the Central European University in Budapest, Hungary, told IPS that. “There are two central claims [by Ukraine]: first, there is no other war and second, the aggressor is punished. Based on what we know about Ukrainian society, one would not work without the other,” she said.

Ukraine’s leaders stress that security provisions that protect it from further attack are a key condition for peace and the best instrument is NATO membership, but it’s an option that has been rejected by the U.S. and Russia. Mikheiev stressed that Europe must now escalate its role in defending the continent. Ukraine is very grateful for the military, financial and humanitarian support of the EU and United Kingdom, “but collective Europe must provide real security guarantees for Ukraine, as the eastern border of Europe, by establishing a joint European security system and European army with the involvement of Ukraine… only in this case will the impact be meaningful and send a strong signal to the U.S. and Russia.”

For many Ukrainians, that signal must also be given at the negotiation table. “Anyone designing a peace deal for Ukraine must take into account the risk… If it is so bad, then part of society will find it not just unbearable to tolerate, but bad enough to act. There are enough Ukrainian patriots in the country and allowing Putin to benefit from the peace after all the sacrifices would be absolutely inadmissible,” warned Ukraine’s former Foreign Minister, Dmytro Kuleba, in London on February 21.

A weak agreement that appeases the aggressor and undermines international law would also embolden Russia’s geopolitical ambitions. “Russia’s strategic goal is the political subjugation of Ukraine. Putin will continue until he reaches his goal. Nonetheless, I highly doubt that the next [Russian] government would have the same strategic goal if we removed Putin from the equation,” Zemliakova said.

However, one outcome of Russia’s quest to regain power in Ukraine is that the former Soviet state has been transformed into a united country more resolved in its sovereignty.

“Even after the war ends, there will be irreversible changes in how people see their own history and identity. The war has rewritten narratives about who we are as a country and as individuals…with a stronger sense of unity and purpose,” Kryvenko declared.

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’);  

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Mar 11 2025 – NATO geopolitical strategy has now joined the ‘coalition’ of Western geoeconomic forces accelerating planetary heating, now led again by re-elected US President Donald Trump.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Industrial Revolution
Economic development is typically associated with the spread of industrialisation over the last two centuries. The Industrial Revolution involved greater energy use to increase productive capacities significantly.

Burning biomass and fossil fuels greatly expanded mechanical energy generation. The age of industry in the last two centuries has thus involved more hydrocarbon combustion to increase output.

Uneven development has also transformed population geography. Tropical soils were far more productive, enabling higher population-carrying capacities. Hence, during the Anthropocene over the last six millennia, human settlement was denser around the tropics.

Greater water availability enabled more botanical growth, supporting more fauna that was less subject to seasonal vicissitudes. If not undermined by aridification and desertification, much denser human settlements and populations became more viable in and near the tropics.

Meanwhile, industrialisation has been uneven. It was initially mainly located in the temperate West until after decolonisation following the Second World War (WW2).

However, post-WW2 industrialisation in the Global South was largely denounced as protectionist and inefficient until the East Asian miracles were better understood.

Sustainable development goals
The 1972 Stockholm Environment Summit helped catalyse public awareness of ecological and related vulnerabilities. The 1992 Rio Earth Summit promoted a more comprehensive approach centred on sustainable development.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were drafted in 2001 by a small group appointed by the UN Secretary-General. In sharp contrast, the formulation and greater legitimacy of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) required time-consuming widespread consultations.

Undoubtedly, many SDGs contain apparent contradictions, omissions, and unnecessary inclusions. While participatory processes tend to be messy and slow, genuine cooperation is impossible without inclusive consultation.

After decades, developing countries successfully secured recognition for the need to compensate for losses and damages, i.e., provide climate reparations, yet most prosperous countries have given nothing so far.

While mitigation is undoubtedly crucial for slowing planetary heating, resources for adaptation are urgently needed by all developing countries. Those located in the tropics have been more adversely affected.

Sustainable development should sustain ecology and human progress. Planetary heating should be curbed fairly to ensure those living precariously are not worse off.

Planetary heating
Thus, the neoliberal – and neocolonial – counter-revolution against development economics from the 1980s, with its insistence on trade liberalisation, deprived much of recently independent Africa and others of industry and food security.

The worst consequences of planetary heating are in the tropics, where populations are generally denser but poorer. European settler colonialism in temperate regions exacerbated this, blocking later immigration from the tropics.

Economic growth, higher productivity and living standards have been closely associated with more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the last two centuries. Historical GHG accumulation now exacerbates planetary heating.

The New York Times has identified significant benefits of planetary heating for the US and, by extension, the Global North. Thus, the commitment of the temperate West to urgently address planetary heating remains suspect.

It claimed the melting Arctic ice cap would eventually allow inter-ocean shipping, even during winter, without using the Panama Canal, thus cutting marine transport costs. Planetary warming would also extend temperate zone summers, increasing plant and animal growth.

Sad tropics
Former central banker Mark Carney, then UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, has warned that average planetary temperatures will exceed the 1.5oC (degrees Celsius) threshold over pre-industrial levels in less than a decade.

This threshold was mainly demanded by tropical developing countries but opposed by the Global North, especially temperate European countries, who wanted it higher at 2oC. Planetary heating exacerbates poverty, with most of the world’s poor living in the tropics.

Adaptation to planetary warming is thus very urgent for developing nations. But most concessionary climate finance is earmarked for mitigation, ignoring urgent adaptation needs. Meanwhile, extreme weather events have become more common.

At least ten provinces in Vietnam now have seawater seeping into rice fields, reducing production. As rice is the main staple in Asia, higher prices will reduce its affordability, undermining the region’s food security.

War worsens planetary heating
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) response to the Ukraine invasion has blocked Russian exports of oil and gas, strengthening the US monopoly of European fossil fuel imports.

With higher oil and gas prices, Europe has provided various energy price subsidies to ensure public support for the NATO war against Russia. The UK host secured a commitment to abandon coal at the Glasgow 26th UN climate Conference of Parties at the end of 2021.

As Mrs Thatcher had crushed the militant British coal mineworkers’ trade union in the 1980s, abandoning was easier for UK Conservatives. But the vow was soon abandoned, and coal mining in Europe revived to block cheap Russian oil and gas imports.

Thus, NATO’s energy strategy has exposed European climate hypocrisy, with the West abandoning its coal pledge for geopolitical and geoeconomic advantage. Such considerations have also undermined carbon markets’ ability to mitigate planetary heating.

Last year, the European Parliament voted to give Ukraine 0.25% of their national incomes while official OECD development assistance to the entire Global South has fallen to 0.3%! Burn, tropics, burn!

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’);  

By External Source
ASUNCIÓN, Mar 11 2025 – Despite a push in the past ten years for more female representation and #MeToo movements highlighting the abuse that women have faced for centuries, women’s struggles continue to remain invisible—dismissed, denied, and buried under patriarchal bureaucracy.

Data collected on gender-based violence and poverty remove women’s experiences from the story and often fail to reflect the lived reality of millions. But what if women themselves could shape the data that drives policy? What if their experiences were not just numbers but undeniable evidence?

At Red Dot Foundation and the Poverty Stoplight, we believe in the power of stories—when collected at scale, they become more than personal accounts; they form undeniable proof of systemic issues.

Traditional data collection methods often exclude those most affected—survivors of violence who fear retribution, women in informal economies whose struggles aren’t officially counted, or communities whose realities don’t fit neatly into existing policy frameworks. Crowdsourced data shifts this power imbalance

Through Safecity, Red Dot’s global crowdsourced platform, we enable individuals to anonymously report incidents of sexual and gender-based violence in public and private spaces.

These reports are mapped as hot spots, revealing patterns that challenge official crime statistics, expose hidden dangers, and, most importantly, demand action. Thus far we have collected 86,000 unique incidents from over 86 countries indicating a global problem.

The Poverty Stoplight is the world’s leading crowdsourced big data platform of self-reported multidimensional poverty and inequality data.

The Stoplight has crowdsourced over 700,000 poverty self-assessments from more than 520,000 families in some 60 countries and 24 languages. With this type of detailed, georeferenced, longitudinal dataset, we have the possibility to lay bare practical insights about poverty and inequality, reflecting the diverse lived experiences of women across various communities.

When thinking about the potential of these worldwide poverty efforts to bridge growing levels of discontent and spur a more compassionate social contract as Minouche Shafik speaks on in What We Owe Each Other, we can begin to address the decades-long epistemic injustice that excludes individuals, particularly women and other minorities, from conversations about their own conditions of persistent inequality.

Shifting Power: When Data Comes from the Margins

Traditional data collection methods often exclude those most affected—survivors of violence who fear retribution, women in informal economies whose struggles aren’t officially counted, or communities whose realities don’t fit neatly into existing policy frameworks.

Crowdsourced data shifts this power imbalance. It allows individuals to define their own narratives rather than being defined by institutions that often fail them.

In India, the gap between reported and actual cases of sexual violence is staggering. Official police data only scratches the surface because 80% of survivors choose not to report sexual and gender based violence. Cultural stigma and distrust of law enforcement prevent many from coming forward.

But when women anonymously share their stories on Safecity, patterns emerge—identifying unsafe areas, common patterns of perpetrators, and overlooked threats. This data has led to changes in police patrolling strategies, urban design improvements, and gender-sensitive policy implementations in cities and towns across India and beyond.

Similarly, the Stoplight’s work in poverty mapping follows the same principle—shifting the lens from broad, institutional statistics to real, grassroots-level data that captures the lived experiences of those in poverty.

Whether it’s gender-based violence or economic exclusion, we see a common theme: when people become data creators rather than passive subjects, they reclaim power over their lives and their futures.

The type of insights we garner from the Poverty Stoplight global data have the power to enable the design and enactment of time-effective policies to reach the heart of inequality through targeted interventions and ad hoc solutions.

Using the Stoplight Platform grants us this possibility for its up-to-date information available in real time. In a nutshell, if we strive to take stock of Poverty Stoplight data, we can transform micro-level data points into macro-level intelligence to improve our understanding of structural inequality and its underlying mechanisms, intersectionality, and ongoing narratives.

Veritably, our Global South-based crowdsourced platforms at Red Dot and the Stoplight can allow us to unearth hidden trends, discern seemingly paradoxical insights, build effective interventions, and design strategies tailored to the unique circumstances of each woman, family, and community.

Data-Driven Activism: Turning Insights into Impact

The true power of crowdsourced data lies in what happens next. Numbers alone don’t change the world—action does.

At Red Dot Foundation, we work with law enforcement, policymakers, and local communities to turn anonymous reports into structural change. For example:

• In Faridabad, working with the police, we identified hotspots of harassment, leading to increased patrolling in certain areas, changes in patrolling timings in others, and a deeper understanding of women’s daily realities.
• In Chennai, through the Gender Lab, we identified bus stops that are harassment zones, prompting discussions on safer public transport solutions.
• In Satara district, we are working with educational institutions, children, and parents to create inclusive spaces and transport, ensuring safer commutes for students traveling from remote villages to schools.

Women’s safety audits have led to better-lit streets, safer transportation, and increased trust between citizens and authorities. In cities where our data is used, women have reported feeling more confident navigating public spaces.

The same applies to multidimensional poverty mapping via the Poverty Stoplight. Once the families themselves identify the dimensions they are considered to be poor in, they create an action plan, sometimes working as a household and sometimes as a community. To name but a few examples from Paraguay alone:

• In rural regions of Paraguay in 2024, domestic violence reports went up due to the Poverty Stoplight highlighting and educating women on what domestic violence is, that it’s not acceptable, and how to report it. This was the first step in eliminating domestic violence by bringing it to light and empowering women to report it.
• Women in the community of Repatriación, Arroyito, Chakore used their Stoplight data to recognize environmental pollution as a critical issue that impacts their wellbeing and took action against a local starch factory that had been affecting their quality of life for years. Through organized meetings, petitions, and protests, they persisted despite initial inaction from authorities, ultimately securing a resolution by directly engaging with the factory owner. Their efforts paid off, transforming their community into a cleaner and healthier space.
• A woman in San Pedro, recognizing the lack of drinking water in her neighborhood through the Stoplight, organized her neighbors to form a water commission and advocate for a solution. Initially, they secured a tanker truck from the government, but it only provided non-drinking water, prompting them to push further for a permanent fix. Through collective efforts, financial contributions, and municipal support, they successfully drilled an artesian well, ensuring access to clean water for their community.

When communities collect and access their data, they have the tools to demand better services, fairer wages, and greater economic opportunities. Information is a form of resistance—a way to challenge the status quo and advocate for justice.

All data collection from both organizations maintains strict international and local data privacy regulations, and whether anonymous or individually verifiable, the dataset identifies patterns and trends that serve as starting points for dialogue, investigation, and ingenious community-driven solutions with the potential to sustain over time.

A Future Where Women’s Voices Shape Policy

The fight for gender equality cannot be won in isolation. Sexual violence and economic exclusion are deeply intertwined—poverty increases women’s vulnerability, while gender-based violence limits their ability to access education, jobs, and public life. By combining our efforts, we can build a world where women’s voices shape policies, where data is not a cold statistic but a powerful force for equity, and where every woman’s story counts—not just in International Women’s Month, but every single day.

The question is: Are we ready to listen?

ElsaMarie D’Silva is the Founder of Red Dot Foundation and creator of Safecity, a platform crowdsourcing sexual violence reports. She cofounded the Brave Movement and is a recognized global leader in gender advocacy and social justice. She is a Senior Fellow at the Aspen Global Innovators Group.

Julia Corvalán, PhD, is a social changemaker and wayfinding strategist, currently serving as Global Operations Manager at PovertyStoplight.org at Fundacion Paraguaya, Paraguay’s leading social enterprise. She is a Senior Fellow at the Aspen Global Innovators Group.