View previous stories
	G20: Trade unions call for defence of democracy, rights and shared prosperity by ITUC, Oxfam America, agencies   Mar. 2026   G20: Trade unions call for defence of democracy, rights and shared prosperity   The Labour 20 (L20) group of unions has warned that the agenda emerging under the United States’ G20 Presidency risks increasing inequalities and undermining democracy and workers’ rights.   “The G20 must stand for a global economy that delivers decent jobs, social justice and shared prosperity. Any attempt to weaken democratic institutions or workers’ protections in favour of billionaires and big corporations will only deepen inequality, instability and undermine democracy.” - ITUC General Secretary Luc Triangle   “Right now, working people need their governments to tackle inequality, climate change and technological disruption – not fuel them with deregulation, fossil fuel expansion and unchecked corporate power,” added Veronica Nilsson, TUAC General Secretary.   The L20 launched its 2026 engagement with a gathering of trade union leaders in early February, and subsequently hosted an event to strengthen efforts to address inequalities, based on the outcomes of the G20 Global Inequality Report.   Under the theme: ‘Reducing inequalities, putting people at the centre of the G20’, it gathered trade unionists, members of the G20 Extraordinary Committee of Independent Experts on Global Inequality, the labour ministers of Brazil and Spain, and the South African G20 Sherpa, as well as the ILO and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs). The participants delivered a strong message on the crucial role of labour in tackling inequalities and the importance of advancing an International Panel on Inequality.   In its statement to G20 governments, the L20 – representing workers across the world’s largest economies – called on leaders to defend democracy, the international rule of law and to promote inclusive growth.   The labour movement cautioned that policies promoted under the US presidency - centred on deregulation, fossil fuel expansion and the interests of big tech corporations - threaten to deepen inequality and weaken democratic institutions.   The L20 emphasised that the G20 must promote:   A democratic, people-centred agenda capable of addressing the major challenges facing working people worldwide.   Rights-based regulation to protect workers, consumers and communities, and to ensure democratic accountability in markets.   A Just Transition to renewable energy that guarantees decent jobs and protects workers’ livelihoods while tackling climate change.   People-centred digitalisation, with strong rules on artificial intelligence and technology to protect jobs, rights, privacy and democracy.   Fair and living wages, strengthened collective bargaining and universal social protection.   Fair taxation, debt relief and stronger multilateral cooperation to reduce inequality and support sustainable development.   Investment in quality public services and education to ensure inclusive growth and prepare societies for the future of work.   The L20 also warned that sidelining engagement groups, including trade unions, and ignoring key issues such as employment, development, health and education weakens the G20’s ability to respond to global challenges.   President of the AFL-CIO Liz Shuler added: “The Trump administration began its second term by dismantling the key agencies that protected workers’ rights around the globe. Now, as the United States hosts the G20, it has taken almost all labor and employment issues off the agenda.   But the labor movement will not abandon our obligation to workers. The L20 will carry on this essential work: upholding the commitments G20 governments have made in previous years and building towards a stronger multilateral system that delivers for all working people.”   The G20 Leaders’ Summit is scheduled to take place in Miami on 14–15 December 2026.   * The Labour 20 – L20 - represents the interests of workers at the G20 level. It unites trade unions from G20 countries and Global Unions and is convened by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and Trade Union Advisory Committee (TUAC) to the OECD.   Apr. 2026   Rather than building on efforts to address inequality, the Trump administration’s agenda for the 2026 G20 presidency is to prioritize elite and corporate interests, writes Charlotte Friar from Oxfam America.   "In just a year, the wealth of the 10 richest U.S. billionaires increased by $698 billion dollars, while low-wage workers struggled as the Trump administration pushed an inequality-fueling agenda. Now, concerns are growing that the same policy choices — those driving a massive transfer of wealth to the richest — could be projected onto the global stage.   The United States recently assumed the presidency of the G20 — a major platform for heads of state and governments to address global economic issues. The presidency is a role that carries significant influence over global economic priorities.   There’s a real risk that the U.S. presidency could advance an economic agenda that prioritizes the interests of the wealthy while sidelining efforts to tackle inequality, strengthen fair taxation, and resolve deepening debt crises worldwide.   Instead of focusing the G20 on poverty alleviation, reducing inequality, or dealing with a pending global economic crisis, the U.S. government focus will center on removing regulatory burdens, unlocking energy supply chains, and pioneering new technologies and innovation. This marks a sharp departure from the 2025 theme of “Solidarity, Equality, and Sustainability” and signals a shift toward exporting the Trump administration’s domestic agenda to the global stage.   This all comes at a time when inequality is rising across most countries, and many low- and middle-income nations face mounting debt and stagnant growth.   U.S. officials are pitching a “back to the basics” approach — which in reality is a sidelining of issues such as inequality, poverty, labor, climate, and gender. It is also widely anticipated that the Trump administration will restrict avenues for civil society participation.   Current plans suggest a focus on the leaders’ summit and financial track, a reduction in working groups, and formal engagement limited to business stakeholders, excluding civil society organizations, women’s groups, labor unions, and youth representatives.   Even acknowledging that past G20 efforts on sustainable development have been uneven, this “back to the basics” approach risks abandoning critical priorities altogether.   Recent G20 presidencies led by Brazil and South Africa demonstrated a different trajectory, placing inequality and debt at the center of global discussions.   South Africa’s 2025 presidency elevated the urgency of inequality by commissioning the first-ever G20 report on the issue. Led by Professor Joseph Stiglitz, the report described a global “inequality emergency” and proposed the creation of an International Panel on Inequality to guide coordinated action.   Against this backdrop, the Trump administration’s domestic policies, including the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), represent one of the largest upward transfers of wealth in decades, making it unlikely that current U.S. leadership will champion similar efforts internationally.   Progress on global tax cooperation is also under threat. Brazil’s 2024 presidency achieved a breakthrough agreement to cooperate on taxing high-net-worth individuals. While extreme wealth concentration has increased in recent years, research shows billionaires pay effective tax rates close to 0.3 percent of their wealth — well below what average workers contribute.   Yet in 2025, the Trump administration has already taken actions that undermine these efforts, including withdrawing from UN tax negotiations, pressuring other advanced economies to shield U.S. corporations from global tax agreements, and opposing measures such as digital services and carbon taxes.   Climate action presents another area of concern. G20 countries are responsible for approximately 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet many continue to fall short of their commitments. The U.S. administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and rollback of domestic climate policies reflect a broader retreat from climate leadership.   The Trump administration’s emphasis on expanding energy supply chains raises the possibility that fossil fuel development could be prioritized over clean energy transitions, particularly if multilateral development banks are encouraged to increase investments in oil and gas projects.   Taken together, these signals suggest that the 2026 U.S. G20 presidency could mark a significant retreat. Rather than building on recent efforts to address inequality, debt, and climate change, it may instead shift the forum toward a narrower agenda that prioritizes elite and corporate interests.   The direction ultimately taken will have far-reaching consequences, not only for the credibility of the G20 but for the future of global economic cooperation.   As the U.S. government so blatantly prioritizes wealthy interests, it is a critical moment for civil society to step forward — organizing and advancing an agenda that breaks decisively from the G20’s all-too-often emphasis on preserving the status quo.   Now is the time for people, institutions, and movements to unite and champion bold new forms of multilateral cooperation that serve billions, not billionaires.   http://www.ituc-csi.org/G20-L20-defence-of-democracy http://inequality.org/article/us-g20-for-billionaires   Apr. 2026   UN warns against privatizing assistance as US urges nations to back ‘trade over aid’ plan. (AP, agencies)   The U.S. is urging other nations to back a “trade over aid” initiative at the United Nations as part of the Trump administration’s broader shift away from donor-focused development assistance and toward a America First agenda seeking greater private investment in support of US multinationals interests.   The U.N. is warning against privatizing a global aid system that delivers crucial assistance to some of the world’s most vulnerable populations.   Ahead of the initiative being formally introduced at the U.N. at the end of April, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has ordered all U.S. diplomats to deliver a call to action to high-level foreign officials to sign on with their support, according to a diplomatic cable sent this week and obtained by The Associated Press.   According to the directive, the “Trade Over Aid Initiative” is meant to encourage U.N. member states to “make pro-business reforms” to their aid processes by facilitating conversations between governments, the private sector and international organizations.   The proposal also calls for “free market” policies to attract foreign trade that include “limited regulation, lower taxation, fossil fuel energy sources, private property rights, and the sanctity of contracts.." (ISDS rights).   While signing on to the proposal is nonbinding and does not create obligations or require changes to national laws, it would reflect the increasingly dire global aid situation as powerful countries like the U.S., the United Kingdom and others have dramatically decreased funding for humanitarian aid and increased their nations’ defense spending.   The latest move is also seen by the U.N. and other international organizations as further abandoning the aid system at a moment of growing conflicts around the world and widespread humanitarian needs, while increasing the risk of exploitation by for-profit companies.   Despite the U.S. effort, the United Nations says it is committed to putting in place the sustainable development agenda by 2030, U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said, which includes ending poverty, achieving gender equality and urgently tackling climate change.   “For us, trade, investment, and private sector engagement can be powerful drivers of growth and job creation,” he told AP. “They should, however, not be used to substitute international development cooperation or for principled humanitarian assistance.”   Eric Pelofsky, who served at the State Department under the Barack Obama and George W. Bush administrations, blasted the effort in a statement, saying that “there’s no American who looks at a picture of a starving child and sees an opportunity for companies to enrich themselves.”   “That’s because Americans have historically run to the fire to help rather than looking for ways to sell fire hoses to those suffering,” Pelofsky said, who is now an executive at the Rockefeller Foundation. “This approach betrays America’s traditions, values, and national security interests — and it makes us less safe.”   The Trump administration has dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development, dramatically reduced aid funding and funding to United Nations agencies.   * In the UK Aid agencies express alarm over the developments:   "Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) matters because it can provide life-saving, direct, and targeted funding for countries and communities with the most acute needs, including humanitarian support, healthcare, and clean water, so any cuts to programmes will have devastating impacts on the communities they serve. The UK government’s own Equality Impact Assessment for the cuts in 2025/26 already paints a bleak picture of the impact of the UK aid cuts. Life-saving programmes, including the ‘Ending Preventable Deaths Support Programme’, a key component of UK support to end preventable deaths of women, newborns and children, will see budget reductions.."   http://www.bond.org.uk/news/2026/03/oda-allocations-for-2026-onwards-show-the-grim-reality-of-aid-cuts/ http://www.bond.org.uk/news/2026/04/a-day-of-statistics-painting-a-bleak-picture-for-the-worlds-marginalised http://www.one.org/press/uk-bilateral-aid-to-africa-slashed-by-more-than-half-as-labours-cuts-leave-millions-without-basic-healthcare-and-urgent-humanitarian-support/ http://www.chathamhouse.org/events/all/standard-event/aid-conflict-and-global-leadership-un-humanitarian-chief-tom-fletcher   http://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/death-aid-cuts-oxfam-reaction-oecd-preliminary-data-aid-spending-2025 http://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/child-under-five-could-die-every-forty-seconds-2030-due-us-aid-cuts-oxfam-analysis http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/unicef-calls-urgent-investment-life-saving-services-children-global-humanitarian http://www.wfp.org/news/wfp-projects-food-insecurity-could-reach-record-levels-result-middle-east-escalation http://www.wfp.org/global-hunger-crisis http://www.wfp.org/publications/food-security-impact-reduction-wfp-funding http://www.nrc.no/news/2025/december/2026-millions-in-need-will-not-get-aid-unless-global-solidarity-revived http://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/analysis/2025/12/11/abrupt-transitions-global-humanitarian-overview-pushes-dangerous-trend   http://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports-briefs/a-generational-collapse-tracking-the-toll-of-trumps-humanitarian-aid-cuts/ http://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(26)00008-2/fulltext http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01186-9/fulltext http://www.cgdev.org/blog/global-collapse-funding-food-insecure http://humanitarianaction.info/document/global-humanitarian-overview-2026/article/trends-crises-and-needs-world-breaking-point http://humanitarianaction.info/document/global-humanitarian-overview-2026 http://reliefweb.int/report/world/year-no-other-ngo-statement-launch-new-un-2026-appeal   * Forbes March 2026: 3,428 billionaires wealth now a record $20.1 trillion, up $4 trillion from last year. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reports global military spending of over $2700 billion in 2024.   25 Mar. 2026   Aid groups crippled by foreign aid cuts plead for funds as Middle East humanitarian crisis grows. (AP)   Humanitarian organizations under intense strain because of the United States’ steep cuts to foreign aid say they are scrambling to find the funds needed to respond to the war in the Middle East, where millions of people have already been displaced by the widening conflict.   U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision last year to dissolve the U.S. Agency for International Development — once the world’s leading donor of humanitarian assistance — forced aid groups around the world to fire tens of thousands of staffers and shutter lifesaving programs.   Now, some of those same groups are struggling to mount a response in the Middle East. Already, the United Nations’ refugee agency, UNHCR, estimates 3.2 million people inside Iran and 1 million people in Lebanon have been displaced since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes against Iran on Feb. 28.   The UNHCR — which axed 30% of its staff last year due to the funding cuts — has issued an urgent appeal for donations, noting that in Lebanon alone, the agency needs an additional $61 million to support 600,000 people over just the next three months. Across the region, the agency said its operations are “dramatically underfunded,” particularly in Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Afghanistan.   “The drop in global humanitarian funding is having a major impact on humanitarian actors at the very moment as needs are rising sharply,” the UNHCR said. “These reductions mean we are operating with far fewer people and resources at a time when displacement is growing.”   The aid groups’ mounting anxieties come as the U.N.’s World Food Program — which saw its funding cut by a third last year — warned last week that nearly 45 million more people would face acute hunger if the war doesn’t end by the middle of the year and if oil prices stay above $100 a barrel.   “If this conflict continues, it will send shockwaves across the globe, and families who already cannot afford their next meal will be hit the hardest,” WFP’s deputy executive director and chief operating officer Carl Skau said in a statement. “Without an adequately funded humanitarian response, it could spell catastrophe for millions already on the edge.”   The Trump administration dismantled USAID after the president erroneously claimed it a waste of money. Several other countries have also cut humanitarian aid, claiming they needed the funds to shore up defense budgets.   The results have been devastating for the world’s most vulnerable; children have starved to death, young girls have been forced into underage marriage and impoverished HIV-positive patients have struggled in vain to find lifesaving medication.   “As people around the world struggle with rising fuel and food prices, people who live in the poorest countries are the hardest hit. The largest cuts to Official Development Assistance in history have real human consequences for ordinary people; more hunger, more people dying from preventable diseases, and more instability,” said David McNair, Executive Director at ONE.   http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/16/trump-officials-foreign-aid http://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(26)00008-2/fulltext http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/feb/03/aid-cuts-avoidable-deaths-study-children-uk-us-donor-countries http://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/press-releases/trump-administration-turning-humanitarian-aid-into-a-bargaining-chip-by-threatening-to-withhold-aid-to-zambia-if-political-demands-are-not-met-oxfam/ http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/feb/25/zambia-us-health-aid-deal-exploitation-mining-concessions-data-sharing-targets http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/nov/08/us-countries-share-data-pathogens-epidemic-potential-health-aid Visit the related web page
	Nature is everybody’s business by Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity Dr. David Obura, Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services   Feb. 2026   * In 2023, global public and private finance flows with directly negative impacts on nature, were estimated at $7.3 trillion, of which private finance accounted for $4.9 trillion, with public spending on environmentally harmful subsidies of about $2.4 trillion.   * Less than 1% of publicly reporting companies mention their impacts on biodiversity in their reports.   Every business depends on biodiversity, and every business impacts biodiversity. The growth of the global economy has been at the cost of immense biodiversity loss, which now poses a critical and pervasive systemic risk to the economy, financial stability and human wellbeing. This is a central finding of a landmark new report published today by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).   Even companies that might seem far-removed from nature or that do not see themselves as nature-based rely, directly or indirectly, on material inputs, regulation of environmental conditions. Yet, businesses often bear little or no financial cost for their negative impacts on the environmental conditions we all depend on for life. Businesses are central to halting and reversing biodiversity loss.   The IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment report finds that the current conditions in which businesses operate are not compatible with achieving a just and sustainable future, and that these conditions also perpetuate systemic risks.   Businesses often face inadequate or perverse incentives, barriers that hinder efforts to reverse nature’s decline, an institutional environment with insufficient support, enforcement and compliance, as well as significant gaps in data and knowledge. These combine with business models that result in ever-increasing material consumption and an emphasis on reporting quarterly earnings, whilst contributing to the degradation of nature around the world.   The Report makes the point that fundamental change is possible and necessary to create an enabling environment to align what is profitable for business with what is beneficial for biodiversity and people.   “This Report draws on thousands of sources, bringing together years of research and practice into a single integrated framework that shows both the risks of nature loss to business, and the opportunities for business to help reverse this,” said Matt Jones (UK), one of three Co-chairs of the Assessment.   “This is a pivotal moment for businesses and financial institutions, as well as Governments and civil society, to cut through the confusion of countless methods and metrics, and to use the clarity and coherence offered by the Report to take meaningful steps towards transformative change. Businesses and other key actors can either lead the way towards a more sustainable global economy or ultimately risk extinction…both of species in nature, but potentially also their own.”   Business-as-usual incentives are driving nature’s decline and do not support the transformative change necessary to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.   For example, large subsidies that drive losses of biodiversity are directed to business activities with the support of lobbying by businesses and trade associations.   In 2023, global public and private finance flows with directly negative impacts on nature, were estimated at $7.3 trillion, of which private finance accounted for $4.9 trillion, with public spending on environmentally harmful subsidies of about $2.4 trillion.   In contrast, $220 billion in public and private finance flows were directed in 2023 to activities contributing to the conservation and restoration of biodiversity, representing just 3% of the public funds and incentives that encourage harmful business behaviour or prevent behaviour beneficial to biodiversity.   “The loss of biodiversity is among the most serious threats to business”, said Prof. Stephen Polasky (USA), Co-chair of the Assessment. “Yet the twisted reality is that it often seems more profitable to businesses to degrade biodiversity than to protect it. Business as usual may once have seemed profitable in the short term, but impacts across multiple businesses can have cumulative effects, aggregating to global impacts, which can cross ecological tipping points.   The Report shows that business as usual is not inevitable – with the right policies, as well as financial and cultural shifts, what is good for nature is also what is best for profitability. To get there, the Report offers tools for choosing more effective measurements and analysis.”   The Report finds that a wide range of methods, knowledge and data exist for measuring business impacts and dependencies, which can already inform decisions and action. Yet less than 1% of publicly reporting companies mention their impacts on biodiversity in their reports.   The Report makes it clear that all businesses, including financial institutions, have a responsibility to address their impacts and dependencies. The authors point out in their report the many actions that businesses can take now that benefit business and biodiversity.   “Better engagement with nature is not optional for business – it is a necessity”, said Prof. Rueda. “This is vital for their bottom line, long-term prosperity and the transformative change needed for a more just and sustainable future. To avoid greenwashing though, it is essential that businesses have transparent and credible strategies, which clearly demonstrate their actions and how they contribute to biodiversity outcomes and that they publicly disclose their impacts and dependencies as well as their lobbying activities”.   The Report explores both actions that can be taken by businesses themselves and ‘signalling’ actions that can publicly influence and inspire action by others.   Another central message of the Report is that businesses cannot, by themselves, deliver the scale of change needed to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. Collaboration, collective and individual actions are essential to create an enabling environment where businesses contribute to a just and sustainable future.   Five specific components are identified as central to such an enabling environment: policy, legal and regulatory frameworks; economic and financial systems; social values, norms and culture; technology and data; and capacity and knowledge. The Report provides more than 100 specific examples of concrete actions that can be taken, across each of these five components, by businesses, governments, financial actors and civil society.   “Better stewardship of biodiversity is central to managing risk across the whole of the economy and throughout societies – it’s not some distant environmental issue, but a core challenge now in every boardroom and cabinet-room,” said Prof. Polasky.   “We need to move beyond the fallacy of a binary choice between governments and decision-makers being either pro-environment or pro-business. All business depends on nature, so actions that conserve and sustainably use nature can also be those that help businesses thrive in the long-term.   One of the innovations of this Report is that it provides a template for accelerating collaboration and collective actions at all levels among and by governments, financial actors, other actors including civil society, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, consumers, NGOs, international organisations, and academia in addition to the action needed by businesses and financial institutions themselves.”   Speaking about the significance of the Business and Biodiversity Report, Dr. David Obura, Chair of IPBES said: “This IPBES Assessment Report was delivered with urgency, as a vital contribution to efforts by businesses, governments, financial actors and the whole of society to meet the goals and targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change".   "It relates very directly to Target 15 of the Global Biodiversity Framework, which focuses on businesses, but ultimately to all our shared global goals because businesses are at the centre of how our economies, and large parts of our society, depend on and impact nature”.   "Nature is everybody’s business and the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of biodiversity is central to business sustainability and success".   http://www.ipbes.net/business-impact http://www.ipbes.net/node/97532 http://ipbes.canto.de/v/IPBES12Media/ http://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1y/k1yl72cx8w http://www.ipbes.net/nexus-assessment http://www.ipbes.net/media_release/Values_Assessment_Published http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/time-to-align-economic-practice-with-ecological-reality-the-critical-need-to-include-nature-in-macroeconomic-models/ http://www.ipsnews.net/2026/02/a-business-necessity-align-with-nature-or-risk-collapse-ipbes-report-warns/ http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/biodiversity http://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/biodiversity/ http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/governments-must-protect-nature-or-pay-a-higher-price-for-borrowing-study-finds/   # Biodiversity is the natural world around us, and the variety of all of the different kinds of organisms - the plants, animals, insects and microorganisms that live on our planet. Every one of these live and work together in ecosystems to maintain and support life on earth, and exist in delicate balance. Biodiversity is one of the most precious and important things we have.   Without biological diversity, our entire support system for human, as well as animal life, would collapse. We rely on nature to provide us with food and clean water, for medicines, to prevent flooding and other extreme weather effects. So much is provided by the natural ecosystems around us – they’re truly vital to life on earth. Because biodiversity is so crucial to our future survival, its loss is a crisis on a global scale. Visit the related web page
	View more stories