Category Archives: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Week of Action for Peace and Climate Justice

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

Excerpts from the website of Climate Militarism

The Week of Action for Peace and Climate Justice was launched in 2024 and runs yearly, involving a wide range of events and actions organised by groups around the world, from webinars to advocacy events to digital publications to demonstrations. 

Working together, we will:

° Raise public awareness of the links between war, militarism/militarisation, social and climate injustice;

° Build connections between peace, climate and justice movements;

° And build momentum for collective action and policy making against militarism and for social and climate justice.

You can take part in the Week of Action from anywhere, by organising your own event, publication or action for peace and climate justice, or by promoting existing campaigns that address the WoA themes. Use the key resources on this website, especially the toolkit, to help you plan your event/action, and contact us for any other support.

The first-ever Global Week of Action for Peace & Climate Justice in 2024 brought together activists, students, researchers, and communities from every corner of the globe to demand an end to the militarised systems fuelling climate breakdown. Over the course of just one week — from 21 to 28 September — more than 60 coordinated events took place across at least 20 countries and five continents, creating a global wave of awareness and action. 

The second Global Week of Action for Peace & Climate Justice took place September 15-21, 2025 and included events around the world as listed here.

The Week of Action for Peace and Climate Justice is being facilitated by a sub-committee of the Arms, Militarism and Climate Justice Working Group, including International Peace Bureau (IPB), Peace Boat, Stop Wapenhandel, War Resisters International (WRI), Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR), The Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) and Transnational Institute (TNI). The wider global mobilisation effort taking place in September (see (see website here) is coordinated in part by the Climate Action Network (CAN), 350.org, Asian People’s Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), War on Want, Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ) and the Climate Clock.

(Editor’s note: See CPNN article here about the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ).)

(article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

Despite the vested interests of companies and governments, Can we make progress toward sustainable development?

(Article continued from the left column)

Why?

War and militarism are causing climate breakdown and consuming essential resources needed to address social, climate and ecological crises. Next to taking lives and devastating whole communities, the build-up and use of armed force destroys lands and ecosystems, polluting waters, soils and air and leaving behind toxic remnants and unexploded weapons that cause harm to generations long after conflicts end. The world’s militaries account for 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions: if they were a country, they would be the world’s fourth largest national emitter. And still, militaries remain exempt from global reporting and reduction agreements. Further, military industries depend on vast amounts of metals, minerals and fossil fuels; the US military is the single largest institutional fossil fuel consumer in the world. Indeed, fossil-energy fuels both wars and climate disaster – and the shareholders profiting from fossil fuel extraction are closely linked with those profiting from global arms, mining and tech industries. Together, they drive global violence and injustice. 

But some people argue militarism is part of the solution: that we need harder borders, more arms and bigger armies to cope with climate breakdown. They claim that war can be made green – but this is a false solution. Today’s escalation of armed, social and ecological harms share systemic roots and must be tackled together. Ecologies of harm require ecologies of resistance. 

And we do have alternatives that can both protect ourselves and the planet. It is vital that movements for peace, social and climate justice understand the connections between our causes and work together for a world that values the safety and wellbeing of everyone; foregrounding people and planet over power and profit. No climate justice without social justice and neither without demilitarisation! 

Why Now?

In September, world leaders will meet at the UN General Assembly — just six weeks before the UN Climate Conference COP30 in Brazil. We are at a crossroads. 2025 must be a turning point for a just transition, for peace, and for real democracy. Right now, powerful governments are sliding toward authoritarianism, engaging in brinkmanship and reversing decades of progress. Multilateral commitments to climate action as well as arms control and disarmament are being weakened or abandoned. Big Business – including fossil fuel, arms, tech, mining and agrifood companies – and their lobbyists have more influence than the people. Frontline communities suffer the most — yet are shut out of the decisions that shape their lives. Leaders should take direction from communities, not corporations. 

This is our moment to draw the line — and take back our future from those who profit by destroying it.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ) 

. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

Information from the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice

The Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ) is a network of over 200 climate justice groups and organisations working at international, regional and local level on climate justice and related realities.

DCJ was formed in 2012 in Bangkok, with 200 groups agreeing to a common platform and mission, with the intention of being a campaign vehicle to collectivise Global South grassroots voices. It focuses on bringing on groups and organiszations together rather than unaffiliated individuals.

Since then, DCJ has been campaigning on Energy transformation (through the Reclaim Power mobiliszations), Just Transition, Climate Finance, False and Real Solutions, anti-militariszation, food systems, land rights and equitable access to resources including clean air, water and energy. DCJ is the convener of climate justice groups in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where DCJ makes up one half of the Environmental NGO (ENGO) Constituency alongside Climate Action Network (CAN).

To become a member, an organization needs to fill out a form and inform the Global Coordinator. The form includes an explicit endorsement to DCJ’s Platform document.

What we are fighting For

Fight for the transformation of energy systems

An end to dirty and harmful energy; a fulfilment of peoples’ rights to energy for their basic needs;

A swift change to public and community renewable and clean energy;

An end to the excessive and wasteful energy consumption by corporations and elites.

Fight for food sovereignty, for peoples’ rights to sufficient, healthy and appropriate food and sustainable food systems

The promotion of sustainable climate change resilient agriculture and agro-ecology;

Democratic access to land and land-based resources;

The rights of small food producers;

The recognition of women’s roles and rights in agriculture, aquaculture, fishing and pastoral systems;

Farmers’ control of seed diversity;
The global re-organization of food production and trade towards prioritizing consumption of locally produced food.

Fight for peoples’ rights to sufficient, affordable, clean, quality water

For the sustainable, equitable and democratic us and management of water resources;

For the protection of water sources and watersheds from extractive industries, dirty and harmful energy projects.

Fight for just transitions for all workers beginning with those in the dirty and harmful energy industries

Create jobs for building climate resilience and bringing down greenhouse gas emissions;

Defend and ensure the fulfillment of the rights of all working people including gender and reproductive rights;

Provide sustainable, decent and climate change resilient livelihoods and jobs for all.

Fight for people’s safety and security of homes and livelihoods from climate disasters

The rights of climate-displaced peoples and climate migrants;

Community managed programs for adaptation, resilience building and renewable energy systems in disaster response and reconstruction efforts;

The end to corporate domination and profiteering from disaster relief and reconstruction.

Fight for the social, political, economic, cultural and reproductive rights and empowerment of all of our people and communities

Including indigenous peoples, workers, farmers, pastoralists, fishers, urban and rural poor, women and LGBT, children and youth, migrants, refugees, stateless, unemployed, landless, seniors, differently abled – and their equitable rights to and responsibility for the commons.

And the delivery of climate finance as part of these reparations.

(article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

Despite the vested interests of companies and governments, Can we make progress toward sustainable development?

(Article continued from the left column)

Fight for reparations for climate debt owed by those most responsible for climate change

Fight for the mobilization and delivery of climate finance

By all states as part of their obligations to attend to the needs and welfare of their citizens; Ensure that climate finance is allocated and used equitably, democratically and appropriate to its purposes.

Fight for the end to deception and false solutions

In mitigation and adaptation (“maladaptation”) such as offsets and carbon trading, marketbased approaches to forests (REDD) and agriculture (“Climate Smart”), soil and water, large-scale geo-engineering, and techno-fixes, nuclear energy, mega hydro dams, agro-fuels, “clean” coal, GMOs, the waste to energy incineration industry, large-scale “re-modeling”;

Stop corporate and private finance capture of climate programs.

Fight for the end to policies, decisions and measures by governments, elites, institutions and corporations (domestic, regional and global) that increase the vulnerabilities of people and planet to impacts of climate change

Such as logging and deforestation, destruction and corporate takeover of forests and mangroves by dirty and harmful industries, unregulated extractive industries, monocropping plantations, trade liberalization, privatization of essential services, discriminatory and harmful migration and border policies, discrimination of women, seniors, children indigenous groups, ethnic communities, poor families and communities.

Fight to stop the commodification and financialization of nature and nature’s functions

Fight for an international climate agreement that is rooted in science, equity and justice

Based on historical responsibility; without offsets and loopholes; aimed at limiting temperature rise to well below 1.5º C;

Ensuring delivery of finance and technology and other mechanisms to empower people and communities to build resilience and deal with loss and damage.

International Members

ActionAid
Africa Trade Network
African Water Network (AWN)
Alternatives Asia
Asia/Pacific Network on Food Sovereignty (APNFS)
Asia/Pacific Forum on Women Law and Development (APWLD)
Asian Regional Exchanges for New Alernatives (ARENA)
Campana Mesoamericana para la Justicia Climatica
Corporate Accountability
Corporate Accountability & Public Participation Africa (CAPPA)
Biofuelwatch
Earth in Brackets [Earth]
ETC Group
FERN
Focus on the Global South
Friends of the Earth International
Gastivists
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives GAIA
Global Forest Coalition (GFC)
Ibon International
Iniciativa Construyendo Puentes – Redes Latinoamericanas frente al Cambio Climatico
International Campaign on Climate Refugees’ Rights
International Indigenous Peoples Movement for Self Determination and Liberation (IPMSDL)
International Lawyers.org
Jubilee South – Asia/Pacific Movement on Debt and Development (JSAPMDD)
LDC Watch International
Migrant Forum Asia (MFA)
Oil Change International
Push Europe
Social Watch International
South Asia Alliance for Poverty Eradication (SAAPE)
South Asian Dialogues on Ecological Democracy
Southern and Eastern African Trade Information and Negotiations Institute (SEATINI)
Third World Network (TWN)
The Transnational Institute (TNI)
350.org
War on Want
WOMIN
World Council of Churches
Young Friends of the Earth Europe

Regional Members

See lists here from Africa (39), Latin America (29), Asia and the Pacific 119), North America and Europe (30).

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

Report of the 2025 Nyéléni Global Forum on Food Sovereignty and Global Solidarity

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article by Ecehan Balta in Internationalist Standpoint

From 6–14 September 2025, the 3rd 

Historical Continuity: From 2007 to 2015 and 2025

The 2007 Nyéléni Forum in Mali marked the global proclamation of food sovereignty. The declaration adopted there emphasized the right of peoples to define their own food and agricultural systems, the collective control over seeds, land, and water, the recognition of women’s roles, and resistance to market-based food aid (Nyéléni Declaration, 2007/2008).

The 2015 forum in Derio, Basque Country, expanded food sovereignty beyond rural production, integrating the experiences of urban consumers, migrant workers, and climate movements. Agroecology was broadened by the practices of cooperatives, short food chains, and climate justice. Strong feminist perspectives also came to the fore.

The 2025 forum in Kandy, Sri Lanka, inherited these foundations but introduced new dimensions: the global debt crisis, debates on energy democracy, the centrality of care work and social reproduction, and the Palestinian question. Food sovereignty was thus redefined not as a sectoral issue limited to agriculture, but as an anticapitalist program for social transformation.

Regional Assemblies: Building a Shared Agenda

The political horizon of Kandy was shaped by two years of preparatory regional meetings.

° Asia and Pacific: The statement “Asia at a Turning Point” highlighted how debt crises and climate disasters were destroying people’s food systems across the region. The choice of Sri Lanka as host was deeply symbolic.

* Africa: Land grabbing, drought, and hunger were framed as a combined crisis. Food sovereignty was articulated as the continuation of postcolonial struggles for independence.

°,Latin America and the Caribbean: Land occupations by the MST, indigenous rights, and agroecological practices were highlighted, while the “rights of Pachamama” entered constitutional debates.

° Europe and Central Asia: Farmers’ uprisings, the exploitation of migrant labor, and climate justice were central themes, alongside debates on cooperatives and solidarity economies.

° Near East and North Africa (NENA): Palestine was placed at the center. The use of food as a weapon of war, the blockade, and the destruction of agriculture under occupation were foregrounded.

° North America: Indigenous struggles for land, the exploitation of migrant workers, and food justice movements became the focus.

These different emphases converged in Kandy, laying the groundwork for a common front of systemic transformation.

Food Sovereignty: Agroecology, Commons and Social Reproduction

Food sovereignty is not merely a policy to eradicate hunger or ensure access to food. It must be distinguished from food security, which focuses on the availability and affordability of food in the market. Food sovereignty, by contrast, places at its center the right of peoples to define their own food systems, safeguard their cultural practices, and sustain their ways of life. Thus, it is not only about combating hunger but also about sovereignty, self-management, and collective control over the means of life.

Within this framework, agroecology emerges as the concrete foundation of food sovereignty. Agroecology preserves biodiversity, sustains local knowledge systems, avoids chemical dependency, and prioritizes solidarity. Small-scale farmers, coastal fishers, nomadic pastoralists, and especially women producers stand at its core. In the forum, agroecology was defined not as a mere technical practice but as a way for peoples to reproduce life against capitalism—a form of ecological, social, and cultural resistance.

One of the strongest conceptual contributions of Nyéléni 2025 was the Food as a Commons perspective. This approach redefines food not as a commodity but as a shared resource managed by collective will. Seed banks, community-supported agriculture, producer and consumer cooperatives, and solidarity finance mechanisms embody this approach. Commoning practices articulate collective control over the production, distribution, and reproduction of food.

Food sovereignty finds its true meaning when combined with the solidarity economy. As debated in the forum, solidarity economy initiatives—cooperatives, short supply chains, local markets, and community-based finance models—enable people to build their own food systems independently of market and state impositions. Food sovereignty is therefore not merely an agricultural model but also the assertion of people’s right to reconstruct their economic relations.

With the strong input of feminist movements, food sovereignty was also framed as a question of social reproduction. The invisible labor of women in kitchens, fields, and markets was recognized as the backbone of food systems. Without women’s unpaid labor, neither production, distribution, nor nutrition could be sustained in its current form. Food sovereignty thus became inseparable from the struggle to dismantle the patriarchal division of labor and achieve women’s emancipation. The forum redefined food sovereignty by integrating agroecology, commons, solidarity economy, and the feminist perspective of social reproduction.

Energy Sovereignty or Energy Democracy?

Another central debate concerned how to name struggles over energy.

The notion of “energy sovereignty” evokes the rhetoric of national sovereignty. While it is sometimes used to strengthen the hand of states against corporations, it also risks justifying authoritarian energy policies and fossil fuel dependency. Today, many governments promote mega-dams, nuclear plants, and fossil projects in the name of “sovereignty.”

“Energy democracy,” by contrast, centers on people’s control over energy production and distribution, direct participation in decision-making, and democratic planning. Energy cooperatives, municipal renewable investments, and community-based models are its concrete tools.

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

What is the relation between movements for food sovereignty and the global movement for a culture of peace?

(Article continued from left column)

From the perspective of Nyéléni, the concept worth defending is energy democracy. It is based on participation and equality, respects ecological limits, centers the interests of workers, women, and local communities, and resists recolonization by breaking away from interstate power rivalries. For food, “sovereignty” is the right concept because it refers directly to the source of life; for energy, “democracy and planning” are more accurate, as energy is the infrastructure of life and only democratic planning can ensure a just transition.

For all this to be achievable, of course, energy production, distribution and all relevant sectors must be brought into public ownership.

Sri Lanka: The Debt Crisis and the Paradox of a “Socialist” Government

Sri Lanka was a symbolic host for the forum, as its recent history reflected the stakes of food sovereignty in stark terms. In 2022, the country suffered a massive economic collapse: foreign reserves dried up, food and fuel imports stalled, and millions took to the streets in unprecedented uprisings, forcing the government to resign. In the 2024 elections, the National People’s Power (NPP) coalition came to power. Led by Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the NPP was widely described in the international press as a “socialist government.”

Yet the new administration refused  to cancel the agreements with the IMF. The restructuring program imposed by the IMF brought severe austerity measures that deeply affected daily life. Public spending was cut, agricultural and food subsidies were drastically reduced, and support for fertilizer and seeds was curtailed, pushing many small farmers out of production. Rising import prices further weakened local production, while the liberalization of energy prices increased production costs and limited poor households’ access to electricity and fuel.

As a result, dependence on imports grew. But with scarce foreign reserves, imported food prices fluctuated sharply, rendering basic staples inaccessible to many families. In the forum, Sri Lankan peasant movements emphasized that the IMF program was not only economically destructive but also devastating for food sovereignty, stripping communities of the capacity to sustain their own food systems and locking the country into external dependency.

The crisis extended beyond production into social reproduction. Cuts in public services—healthcare, education, social support—intensified the burden on women, who bore the brunt both through unpaid care work at home and as cheap labor in the market. Feminist delegates stressed how IMF-imposed policies reinforced patriarchal divisions of labor and exacerbated the invisible weight carried by women.

Sri Lanka thus became a powerful lesson at Nyéléni 2025. A government described as “socialist” aligning itself with the IMF underscored that food sovereignty cannot be achieved through agroecology and local practices alone, but requires direct confrontation with the global financial system and its local lackeys. Debt traps restrict governments from implementing pro-people policies, undermine local production, and deny people the possibility of building self-managed food systems. The Sri Lankan experience revealed food sovereignty to be, at its core, also an anti-debt and anti-neoliberal struggle.

Palestinian Solidarity: Food as a Weapon of War

Palestine was the strongest unifying theme of the forum. In Gaza, Israel’s systematic destruction of farmland, restrictions on fishing, control of water resources, and blockades on basic foods revealed how food itself had been turned into a weapon of war.

In Kandy, a march in solidarity with Palestine had been planned. Yet foreign delegates were barred from participating after, in the words of a member of the Sri Lankan organizing committee, “a call from the very top.” Despite this restriction and the tensions it created within the forum, Sri Lankans themselves carried out a strong and meaningful march, making solidarity visible in the streets.

This sharpened the political spirit of the forum. Palestinian solidarity demonstrated that food sovereignty is not merely an agricultural or policy question but part of a global, anti-colonial struggle.

Conclusion: A Shared?? Political Agenda for Systemic Transformation

Nyéléni 2025 powerfully asserted that reclaiming collective control over food and energy systems is essential not only to end hunger but also to build a new social order against the multiple crises of capitalism. One of the forum’s most significant contributions was to articulate food and energy as distinct yet interlinked spheres of struggle, each demanding the self-determination of peoples.

Yet despite this radical discourse, frequent references to United Nations frameworks—on sustainability, human rights, and climate—sparked a major debate. On the one hand, the UN, reduced almost to the level of an international NGO, was seen as incapable of producing genuine transformation. On the other, relying even at the level of advocacy on UN documents raised questions about the coherence of the forum’s political determination.

This tension had historical roots. The first Nyéléni forum and subsequent struggles paved the way for the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants (UNDROP, 2018). Similarly, the long struggle of Indigenous peoples contributed to the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007). These achievements fostered a sense of confidence—that popular forums could indeed influence global instruments. Yet Nyéléni 2025 also made visible the risk that such confidence may be misleading. For, while UNDROP and UNDRIP were products of people’s struggles, in practice states often ignored them, or they became tools for boosting the legitimacy of discredited capitalist fora without effecting real change.

Hence one of the critical questions raised was: Can a forum that claims an anticapitalist path legitimately reference institutions that are themselves pillars of capitalism and imperialism? For us, the answer lay in building alternatives from below with a prospect of systemic (socialist) change, rooted in mass self-organisation of the workers and the poor. Otherwise, this carries the risk of dulling the radical edge of food sovereignty and embedding it within the very system it seeks to overcome.

Nyéléni 2025 did not resolve all these contradictions but made them explicit. And perhaps this was its most important contribution: rather than concealing internal tensions, the forum laid them bare. The challenge moving forward is to determine whether the “global legitimacy” produced by the UN serves people’s struggles, or whether it ultimately undermines their independence.

As the main slogan of the forum declared:

Systemic Transformation: Now or Never.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

China announces plans for SCO Development Bank; says to launch process soon

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article from Economic Times – India

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi announced on Monday that member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) have decided to establish a Development Bank aimed at strengthening regional economic cooperation, reported Reuters.

Speaking in Tianjin, where the SCO countries held the deleberations, the minister said the organisation will soon launch the process to create the financial institution, which is expected to play a crucial role in funding infrastructure and development projects across the bloc.


Leaders and officials, including Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin, attend a photo ceremony at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China August 31, 2025.

“The SCO Development Bank will give a strong boost to infrastructure development and inject fresh momentum into the economies of member countries,” Yi noted as a part of the Tianjin Declaration.

The announcement came as Chinese President Xi Jinping, in his inaugural address to the 25th SCO Summit, urged member states to accelerate work on the bank, pointing to the growing appeal of the 10-nation grouping, according to a PTI report.
(Article continued in the right column)

Question for this article:

What is the contribution of BRICS to sustainable development?

(Article continued from the left column)

Xi noted that the SCO has evolved into the world’s largest regional organisation, encompassing 26 countries in various forms of partnership, cooperating in over 50 areas, and generating a combined economic output of nearly $30 trillion.

China has long championed the establishment of an SCO Development Bank, drawing parallels with other multilateral institutions such as the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Both headquartered in China, these banks were initially seen as rivals to the IMF, World Bank and Asian Development Bank (ADB), but they now actively collaborate with them through co-financing mechanisms.

What else was in the Tianjin Declaration?

Alongside the decision to launch the process for the SCO Development Bank, the Tianjin Declaration also unveiled several key developments aimed at deepening cooperation within the bloc.

Reuters reported that the SCO dialogue partners and observers have been merged into a new category of SCO partner countries, formally expanding the organisation’s “family” to 27 members. Chinese Foreing Minister Wang Yi also noted that Pakistan and Armenia have officially established diplomatic relations under the SCO framework.

The declaration further stressed the bloc’s collective stance on global governance, strongly opposing the militarisation of the information and communication technology sphere. According to the news agency, this year’s delcaration further committed member states to strengthen cooperation in drug control and to hold the upcoming SCO Plus Dialogue on security issues in Uzbekistan.

Additionally, the document stressed that expanding exchanges and cooperation with the United Nations and its specialised structures remains a priority in the organisation’s international relations.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

Zhijiang, China To Host 6th International Peace Culture Festival: Here’s What You Need To Know

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article from Travel and Tour World

The 6th Zhijiang (China) International Peace Culture Festival will be held from September 4 to 5, 2025, in Zhijiang, a city renowned for its Dong ethnic culture and deep historical significance. The festival will celebrate peace while simultaneously strengthening cultural tourism and reinforcing global peace dialogue. This annual event, which has become a central fixture in Zhijiang’s tourism calendar, highlights the city’s efforts to share its rich history and unique peace culture with the world.


Photo from Vientiane Times

Zhijiang, located in Hunan Province, has been recognized globally as a City of Peace. It is strategically capitalizing on its distinct cultural heritage and its growing position as a key hub for international exchanges. Over the years, Zhijiang has cultivated its “small town diplomacy” model, using its peace culture as a bridge for fostering international relationships and driving tourism growth. The Huaihua International Land Port further positions the city as a vital point of connection between China and the world, enhancing its cultural and economic impact.

Festival’s Role in Tourism and International Relations

The International Peace Culture Festival has grown in importance since its inception in 2003, attracting over eighty national dignitaries, more than three hundred Flying Tigers veterans and their families, as well as countless peace advocates. The festival serves as a platform for fostering global conversations around peace, tourism, and cultural exchanges. Over the years, it has seen ninety-two trade and economic agreements signed, further bolstering the local economy and tourism industry. These agreements have contributed to Zhijiang’s position as a key tourism and peace destination, with sister-city relationships established with Grandcamp Maisy in France, Pinehurst in the USA, and Kirovsk in Russia.

Zhijiang’s designation as the 307th International City of Peace in 2021 was a significant milestone in its journey as a global tourism destination. The Peace Culture is deeply embedded in Zhijiang’s landscape, with iconic buildings like Taihe Tower, Peace Bridge, and Peace Avenue reflecting the city’s commitment to peace. These landmarks are not only symbols of the city’s values but also serve as major tourism attractions, drawing visitors who are eager to learn about Dong ethnic culture and its connection to peace.

(article continued in right column)

Questions related to this article:
 
How can tourism promote a culture of peace?

(article continued from left column)

Dong Ethnic Culture and Tourism Impact

A central aspect of the festival is the celebration of Dong ethnic culture, which is one of the oldest living cultures in China. Known for its unique architecture, music, and customs, the Dong people’s heritage is an essential part of the tourism experience in Zhijiang. The festival features traditional Dong performances, music, and dance, providing visitors with an immersive experience of the region’s rich cultural heritage. This focus on culture not only attracts tourists but also helps preserve and promote the traditions of the Dong people.

In addition to cultural performances, the festival hosts the JOY Heyball Masters, a sports event that will bring even more international attention to the city. The blending of cultural, sports, and peace-related activities creates a diverse tourism offering, appealing to travelers with varied interests, from cultural enthusiasts to sports fans.

Zhijiang’s Commitment to Youth Engagement and Sustainable Tourism

Zhijiang is also dedicated to fostering youth engagement and education through various programs such as the Flying Tigers Friendship School and Youth Leadership Program. These initiatives, along with others like the “Chinese Bridge” Flying Tigers Summer Camp and Youth Exchange Camp, offer opportunities for young people to connect with others globally, while learning about peace, culture, and diplomacy. By nurturing the younger generation’s interest in peace and cultural exchange, Zhijiang is laying the foundation for a future of sustainable tourism that prioritizes education, understanding, and respect for cultural differences.

Moreover, the city’s focus on sustainable tourism is evident through programs that support eco-tourism and cultural preservation. As the world’s focus shifts to sustainability, Zhijiang’s efforts to integrate sustainable practices into its tourism offerings will help protect the region’s natural and cultural heritage for future generations. This includes eco-friendly travel programs in the Black Sea region and initiatives that promote the restoration of historical towns like Safranbolu.

A Bright Future for Tourism in Zhijiang

The 6th Zhijiang (China) International Peace Culture Festival is not only a celebration of peace but also a testament to the city’s growing role as a hub for cultural tourism. With its rich heritage, beautiful landscapes, and focus on peace culture, Zhijiang is set to continue attracting tourists from around the world. The festival offers an immersive experience that blends history, culture, art, and sports, providing a well-rounded tourism experience that appeals to a diverse audience.

As Zhijiang continues to grow as a tourism destination, it will undoubtedly play an increasingly important role in promoting global peace and fostering international relations. With its focus on youth education, cultural preservation, and sustainable tourism, Zhijiang is poised to continue contributing to global peace-building efforts, making it a must-visit destination for those interested in history, culture, and international cooperation. The 2025 festival promises to be an unforgettable event, showcasing the best of Chinese culture and peace tourism.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

Joseph S. Nye Jr.: A Personal Remembrance of the Father of “Soft Power”

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article from the Center for China and Globalization (abridged)

Joseph S. Nye Jr., an influential figure in international relations who shaped decades of American foreign policy and introduced the world to the enduring concept of “soft power,” died on Tuesday (May 6) in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at the age of 88. A former dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School and senior official in the U.S. government, Nye’s passing marks a profound loss for scholars, diplomats, and policymakers across the globe.
In the wake of his death, Henry Huiyao Wang, founder and president of the Center for China and Globalization (CCG), reflected (as follows) on his 15-year-long relationship with Professor Nye, whose ideas and writings had deeply influenced U.S.–China dialogue over the years. . .

I was deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Professor Joseph S. Nye Jr., the originator of the concept of “soft power” and former dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, on May 6 at the age of 88. His wife had preceded him in death not long before. I had the privilege of knowing Professor Nye for many years and engaging in numerous conversations and exchanges with him. He once remarked, “One has to imagine not just power over other countries, but power with other countries. These issues, the transnational issues, cannot be solved by exerting power over other countries. You have to have power with other countries.” His death is a profound loss to the fields of international strategy and international relations.

I first met Professor Nye in 2010, when I was a senior fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, where he had served as a professor and dean. During his tenure as dean, he actively promoted many China–U.S. exchange programs, and even after stepping down, he remained deeply engaged in these efforts. He delivered lectures to us with undiminished enthusiasm, and though already in his seventies, he was always full of energy and vitality.

We connected immediately and shared many engaging conversations, maintaining a close and meaningful dialogue over the years. After the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the Center for China and Globalization (CCG) launched the CCG Global Dialogues series to overcome barriers imposed by the pandemic and sustain international exchange. In April 2021, I invited Professor Nye to participate in a discussion titled “Power Shifts in the Twenty-First Century.” He readily accepted and spoke with me for over an hour.

That same year, he contributed a forward-looking essay, “China and the United States: Looking Forward 40 Years,” to the book Consensus or Conflict? China and Globalization in the 21st Century, which I edited.

In our conversations, Professor Nye described what he called a pattern of “ups and downs roughly every twenty years” in U.S.–China relations. Looking back historically, he noted that the first 20 years after 1945 were “pretty tough,” with U.S. and Chinese soldiers having fought each other on the Korean Peninsula in the 1950s. This was followed by a period of easing tensions, marked by President Nixon’s visit to Beijing, which ushered in 20 years of improving relations. During the Clinton administration, there was a concerted effort to integrate a rising China into the international order through initiatives such as accession to the World Trade Organisation. That phase lasted nearly two decades. However, with the emergence of Donald Trump around 2015–2016, a new downturn began. We are now midway through this latest 20-year cycle, with 2025 marking the midpoint. Nye suggested that by 2035, relations could begin to improve once again. He elaborated on this perspective in his essay “Power Shifts in the Twenty-First Century.” Whether this 20-year cycle will hold remains to be seen. . . .

Fifteen years have passed in the blink of an eye. Professor Nye left a lasting impression on me with his intellect, broad perspective, foresight, and remarkable humility. Even in retirement, he remained deeply engaged with developments in the United States and around the world, frequently publishing incisive commentary on international affairs. He continued to travel extensively, attending major conferences and chairing key sessions, including at the Munich Security Conference, and often appeared in media interviews. He also held prominent roles in multinational organisations and NGOs such as the Aspen Strategy Group and the Trilateral Commission, consistently working to foster dialogue and mutual understanding across borders. . . .

What stood out to me over the years of knowing Professor Nye was that he personally replied to every email I sent. In all our conversations, he was consistently modest and unassuming, and that moved me deeply.

Professor Nye’s life can be seen as a vivid reflection of the “American Century.” Born in 1937, he came of age after World War II, as the United States entered a period of global ascendancy—an era in which it accounted for more than half of the world’s economic output and abounded with opportunity. The son of immigrant ancestors, Nye was raised in rural New Jersey. His father was a partner at a bond firm; his mother worked as a secretary. He received his early education in local public schools and, through diligence and academic distinction, earned admission to Princeton University. He later pursued graduate studies at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, and then at Harvard University, where he studied under renowned scholars such as Henry Kissinger.
(article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

Does China promote a culture of peace?

(Article continued from the left column)

Both Nye and Graham Allison, the founding dean of the Harvard Kennedy School, studied abroad in the UK and returned to the U.S. with a broad international outlook. Nye went on to teach at Harvard for decades, where he developed influential concepts including “soft power,” “smart power,” and “neoliberalism.” His insights into the nature of power in international relations shaped generations of policymakers, scholars, and students around the world. In 2011, Foreign Policy magazine included him on its list of Top 100 Global Thinkers.

When I first met Professor Nye at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, U.S.–China relations were still in a relatively positive phase. At the time, American foreign policy—shaped by the aftermath of 9/11—was primarily focused on counterterrorism and the Middle East. China had recently marked the tenth anniversary of its accession to the World Trade Organisation, and during the 2008 global financial crisis, it worked closely with the United States to stabilise the global economy and promote recovery.

With the perceptiveness of a leading scholar in international politics, Professor Nye had been observing China’s rise for over a decade. In a 1998 article, he argued that the term “rise of China” was a misnomer and that “re-emergence” would be more accurate. In the years that followed, he published numerous articles analysing China’s soft power. He wrote about the appeal of traditional Chinese culture, the international reach of Chinese film and television, the symbolic significance of the 2008 Summer Olympics, and the sharp increase in both international students studying in China and inbound foreign tourism. He also noted that China’s GDP had more than tripled since the pre-reform era. Combined with its foreign aid efforts and market openness, these factors, in his view, had substantially enhanced China’s global attractiveness.

In 2009, Professor Nye published an article exploring the dynamics of U.S.–China soft power relations. He argued that “there is little evidence that the increase in China soft power is aimed at counterweighing US soft power,” and that “the perception that the Chinese model of combining market economy with one-party rule (Beijing Consensus) will challenge the Western model (involving open markets, democracy, and rule of law), and values are dubious.” He further proposed that “the soft power interaction between the United States and China thus need not be seen as a competition, but rather as a more complex combination of competitive and cooperative forces.”

Nye frequently emphasised that “Soft power is not a zero-sum game in which one country’s gain is necessarily another country’s loss. If China and the United States, for example, both become more attractive in each other’s eyes, the prospects of damaging conflicts will be reduced. If the rise of China’s soft power reduces the chance of conflict, it can be part of a positive sum relationship.”

Many of his reflections on Chinese soft power, including this one, are collected in the book Soft Power and Great-Power Competition, which also features transcripts of my conversations with him. The volume provides readers with a deeper understanding of this vital and evolving topic.

In 2025, Donald Trump returned to the U.S. presidency. Shortly after taking office, he withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change and the World Health Organisation, and swiftly launched a series of global tariff and trade wars. As a result, U.S.–China relations deteriorated to a new low. Professor Nye expressed deep concern over these developments, believing that such actions would do great damage to U.S. soft power and would not, as promised, “make America great again,” but greatly weaken it. In one of his final published commentaries, he warned: “The prospect of a wholly disengaged, self-focused United States has troubling implications for world order.”

In his autobiography A Life in the American Century, Professor Nye emphasised that although the 21st century will not be an American century in the same way the 20th was, the American Century is not over. Rather, the United States must adapt to a changing global environment by adjusting both its domestic and foreign policies. Nye repeatedly returned to two key principles that he believed should guide American leadership in this new era: the need to share power in a world of growing diffusion, and the recognition that power is increasingly exercised through “positive-sum outcomes” rather than zero-sum competition. Although globalisation has encountered headwinds, he maintained that global interdependence remains a structural reality—and that isolationism is not a viable strategy. The only path forward, he wrote, is through engagement and cooperation.

In Do Morals Matter?, he wrote that a nation must not only think in terms of “power over” others, but also recognise the importance of “power with” others. In an era shaped by the information revolution and globalisation, world politics is evolving in ways that no country, however powerful, can succeed by acting alone. When confronting global challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, power becomes a positive-sum game. Empowering others, Nye argued, can help a country accomplish its own goals.

He believed both American and Chinese leaders must internalise this logic of cooperation. Nye urged that mutual empowerment—not rivalry—should define great power relations. Nye argued that if both nations could increase their appeal in each other’s eyes, the likelihood of destructive conflict would be significantly diminished. . . .

At the end of his autobiography, Nye assesses the relationship between China and the United States, stating that “the greatest danger we face is not that China will surpass us, but that the diffusion of power will produce entropy, or the inability to get anything done.” What concerns him even more is the domestic issues in the U.S., but he remains optimistic: “For all our flaws, the US is an innovative society that, in the past, has been able to recreate and reinvent itself. Maybe Gen Z can do it again. I hope so…The best I can do is leave them my love and a faint ray of guarded optimism.” . . .

Henry Huiyao Wang
Founder & President of the Center for China and Globalization (CCG)
May 8, 2025, Beijing

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

BRICS Summit signs historic commitment in Rio for more inclusive and sustainable governance

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article by Maiva D’Auria from BRICS Brasil

 Foto: Alexandre Brum/BRICS Brasil

On Saturday, 6 July, the leaders of the 11 largest emerging economies signed the Joint Declaration of the 17th BRICS Summit  in Rio de Janeiro.

Entitled “Strengthening Global South Cooperation for More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance”, the document seals the group’s commitment to strengthening multilateralism, defending international law, and striving for a more equitable global order.

It reflects months of intense coordination, with over 200 meetings held and 200 new cooperation mechanisms created or reinforced in areas such as eradicating hunger, tackling climate change, and developing emerging technologies.

“We want to reaffirm our commitment to the BRICS spirit of mutual respect and understanding, sovereign equality, solidarity, democracy, openness, inclusion, collaboration and consensus. Building upon the past 17 BRICS Summits, we are now extending our commitment to strengthening cooperation within the expanded BRICS, based on three pillars of cooperation: politics and security, economy and finance, and cultural and people-to-people cooperation. We are also enhancing our strategic partnership to benefit our peoples by promoting peace, a fairer and more representative international order, a revitalized and reformed multilateral system, sustainable development, and inclusive growth,” states one of the 126 commitments made by the leaders.

At the Summit, BRICS member countries reaffirmed their commitment to multilateralism and to defending international law, including the purposes and principles enshrined in the UN Charter. The document also calls for the increased participation of developing countries, particularly those in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, in global decision-making processes and structures.

In light of today’s multipolar realities, the countries agreed that it is essential for developing countries to strengthen their efforts to promote dialogue and consultations in pursuit of more just and equitable global governance, and of mutually beneficial relations among nations. “We recognize that multipolarity can create opportunities for developing countries and emerging markets (DCEMs) to realize their constructive potential and benefit from inclusive and equitable economic globalization and cooperation that is universally advantageous. We want to emphasize the importance of the Global South as a driver of positive change, especially amid significant international challenges—including escalating geopolitical tensions, economic slowdown, accelerated technological transformation, protectionist measures and migration challenges.”

Finance

In the financial realm, the 11 countries emphasized the need to increase IMF quotas and World Bank shareholding of emerging and developing countries.

“We want to reiterate that IMF quota realignment should not come at the expense of developing countries, but rather reflect the relative positions of countries in the global economy and increase DCEM quotas”

(Article continued in the right column)

(Click here for the article in Portuguese).

Question for this article:

What is the contribution of BRICS to sustainable development?

(Article continued from the left column)

Health

When it comes to health, the countries acknowledged the interconnected nature of global health challenges and their cross-border implications. They reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening global health governance by enhancing international cooperation and solidarity.

“We are committed to actively supporting efforts to strengthen the global health architecture by promoting equality, inclusion, transparency, and responsiveness. This ensures that no country is left behind in achieving the health-related Sustainable Development Goals,” BRICS’ joint understanding argues.

Another milestone is the launch of the Partnership for the Elimination of Socially Determined Diseases, which promotes health equity and demonstrates the BRICS’ commitment to addressing the root causes of health disparities, such as poverty and social exclusion.

Artificial Intelligence

For the first time, artificial intelligence (AI) governance plays a prominent role in the BRICS agenda, offering a shared Global South perspective on this innovative technology and bringing economic and developmental aspects to the forefront of the discussion. In their joint declaration, the countries recognize that AI presents a unique opportunity to drive progress toward a more prosperous future. However, to achieve this, global AI governance must mitigate potential risks and meet the needs of all countries, including those in the Global South. “A collective global effort is needed to establish AI governance that upholds our shared values, addresses risks, builds trust, and ensures broad and inclusive international collaboration and access.”

Climate change

In preparation for COP30—also under Brazilian leadership in November—the countries recognized the Tropical Forest Forever Fund (TFFF) as an innovative mechanism to mobilize long-term financing for tropical forest conservation, encouraging ambitious donations from potential partners.

“Our Climate Framework Declaration charts a roadmap for the next five years to transform our capacity to raise resources for fighting climate change. With the collective scale of the BRICS, we will combat the climate crisis while make our economies stronger and fairer,” the document states.

Promoting Peace, Security, and International Stability

One of the pillars of the declaration is its commitment to addressing ongoing conflicts in various parts of the world, and the current polarization and fragmentation of the international order. The leaders express concern over the current trend of sharply rising global military expenditures at the expense of adequate financing for the development of emerging countries. They advocate for a multilateral approach that respects diverse national perspectives and positions on crucial global issues, including sustainable development, hunger and poverty eradication, and global climate action. They also express deep concern over attempts to link security with the climate agenda.

In addition to the traditional leaders’ declaration, three other documents reflecting the priorities of the Brazilian presidency were approved: the BRICS Leaders’ Framework Declaration on Climate Finance, the BRICS Leaders’ Declaration on Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence, and the BRICS Partnership for the Elimination of Socially Determined Diseases. “These initiatives reflect our joint efforts to promote inclusive and sustainable solutions to pressing global issues.”

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

Oxfam reaction to Spain, Brazil and South Africa launching a new coalition to tax the super-rich

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article from Oxfam

In response to Spain, Brazil and South Africa’s new global coalition to tax the super-rich, launched today at the Fourth Financing for Development Conference in Seville, Oxfam Tax Justice Policy Lead Susana Ruiz said: 

“We welcome the leadership of Brazil, Spain and South Africa in calling for taxes on the super-rich. People around the world are pushing for more countries to reject the corrupting political influence of oligarchies. Taxation of the super-rich is a vital tool to secure sustainable development and fight inequalities. The wealth of the richest 1% has surged $33.9 trillion since 2015, enough to end annual poverty 22 times, yet billionaires only pay around 0.3% in real taxes.  


“This extreme inequality is being driven by a financial system that puts the interests of a wealthy few above everyone else. This concentration of wealth is blocking progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals and keeping over three billion people living in poverty: over half of poor countries are spending more on debt repayments than on healthcare or education. 

“In a tense geopolitical environment, Spain, Brazil and South Africa have taken an important step in forging an alliance here at the UN conference in Seville to show political will for taxation of the super-rich. Now other countries must follow their lead and join forces. This year, the FFD in Seville, COP30 in Brazil and G20 in South Africa are key opportunities for international cooperation to tax the super-rich and invest in a sustainable future that puts human rights and equality at its core.”

(Article continued on the right column)

Question for this article:

Opposing tax havens and corruption: part of the culture of peace?

(Article continued from the left column)

Notes to editors

Download the Oxfam report “From Private Profit to Public Power: Financing Development, Not Oligarchy ” which was launched ahead of the Fourth Financing for Development Conference with new analysis on economic inequality.

Greenpeace and Oxfam International commissioned a study this month on public opinion on taxing the super-rich. The research was conducted by first party data company Dynata  in May-June 2025, in Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Kenya, Italy, India, Mexico, the Philippines, South Africa, Spain, the UK and the US. The survey had approximately 1200 respondents per country, with a margin of error of +-2.83%. Together, these countries represent close to half the world’s population. See the results here.

Oxfam will be hosting a major high-level event together with Club de Madrid, at 7pm on July 1, 2025, in Seville, joined by high-level government representatives on the media briefing note. Journalists are invited to attend and will be prioritized for questions. Please register here.

Moreover, an official side event on inequality and tax reform will take place at 2.30pm on July 1, 2025, at the FIBES Exhibition Centre room 20 joined by high-level government representatives from Brazil, Spain and South Africa, international organizations and global experts. See note here.

Contact information

Cass Hebron in Seville | cass.hebron@oxfam.org | +32485913688 

For real-time updates, follow us on X  and Bluesky, and join our WhatsApp channel  tailored specifically for journalists and media professionals.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

300 Participants from 60 Countries Attend Annual Forum of China and Globalization

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

Excerpts from an article from the Center for China and Globalization

The 11th Annual China and Globalization Forum, jointly convened by the Center for China and Globalization (CCG) and the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries (CPAFFC), and co-organised by the Academy of Contemporary China and World Studies (ACCWS) and the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF), concluded successfully in Beijing after a three-day agenda from May 22 to 24.


Video of conference

The forum brought together over 300 participants from nearly 60 countries across five continents, including former policy-makers, ambassadors, policy experts, scholars, international organisation representatives, and media professionals.

The opening session took place on the morning of May 22 at the Grand Millennium Beijing and was moderated by Mabel Lu Miao, Co-founder and Secretary General of CCG. . . .

Following the opening, the first roundtable session titled “Renewing Global Governance and Multilateralism in Uncertain Times” was co-chaired by Henry Huiyao Wang and Mabel Lu Miao. . . .

In the afternoon, the forum continued with three thematic roundtables. The first, titled “US-China Trade War Narratives in an Era of Great Power Competition,” was held in partnership with the Asia Society. The session was co-chaired by:

– Henry Huiyao Wang

– Jing QIAN, Co-founder and Managing Director, Center for China Analysis (CCA) at Asia Society Policy Institute . . .

The second roundtable in the afternoon, themed “Reshaping Frameworks for Global Governance: The Role of China and the Global South,” was held in partnership with the Doha Forum. The session was chaired by Mabel Lu Miao and featured special remarks from Henry Huiyao Wang and Maha Al Kuwari, General Manager, Doha Forum. . . .

(article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

Does China promote a culture of peace?

(Article continued from the left column)

The last roundtable of the day was themed “Maintaining International Regulatory Cooperation in A Multipolar World.” Held in partnership with the Centre on Regulation in Europe (CERRE), the session was chaired by Zach Meyers, CERRE Director of Research. . . .

On May 23, the Ambassadors’ Roundtable focused on the theme “Multilateralism in a Multipolar World” and was co-chaired by Henry Huiyao Wang, James Chau, and Tammy Tam, Editor-in-Chief, South China Morning Post. . . .

This was followed by a policy dialogue roundtable themed “EU-China at 50: The State of the Bilateral Relationship in a Changing World.” It was co-organised with the European Policy Centre (EPC) and chaired by Henry Huiyao Wang and Declan Kelleher. . . .

The afternoon was dedicated to the Middle East Forum, held in partnership with the Amersi Foundation, which comprised two sessions:

Panel 1: The Emerging New Middle East Order – moderated by Henry Huiyao Wang and Mohamed Amersi, Founder and Chairman, The Amersi Foundation

Panel 2: Key Challenges – covering three topics: Iran nuclear talks, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and state fragility.

The sessions were moderated by Henry Huiyao Wang, Mabel Lu Miao, Zoon Ahmed, Research Fellow, CCG, and Mohamed Amersi, Founder and Chairman, The Amersi Foundation. . . .

In parallel, a closed-door roundtable under the EU-China Think Tank Exchanges project was held, moderated by SHEN Wei, Qiushi Distinguished Chair Professor at Zhejiang University and Nonresident Senior Fellow at CCG, and Victor de Decker, Research Fellow for the Europe Program at the Egmont Institute. . . .

On May 24, CCG and the Alliance of Global Talent Organizations (AGTO) arranged a field visit for over 30 international participants from nearly 20 countries.

Participants visited the CCG Beijing Academy, Beijing’s sub-centre in Tongzhou, including the “Two Zones” [National Integrated Demonstration Zone for Greater Openness in the Services Sector and the China (Beijing) Pilot Free Trade Zone] exhibition hall, and AGTO Beijing Office.

The group also visited historical landmarks in the Grand Canal Cultural Tourism Zone and the Han Meilin Art Museum. These activities provided international guests with insights into Beijing’s cultural heritage and openness, while also exploring opportunities for future cooperation.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

78% of Russian students consider climate change to be a problem

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

Special to CPNN

In a study conducted as part of the annual international youth festival “VuzEkoFest”, 78% of students expressed concern about climate change and noted that global warming is a problem. The festival is organized by the Autonomous Non-Governmental Organization Territory of Sustainable Development with the information support of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Russian Federation.

1,669 Russian university students took part in the survey. The study was conducted from March 12 to April 25. 40% of respondents noted that they are worried about climate change processes, however, 35% of respondents believe that everything is solvable and the right approach to risk management, mitigation and adaptation to climate change will allow future generations to get out of a difficult situation.

The respondents noted the following climate change adaptation measures that they have recently observed in their region. The most common of these is monitoring compliance with fire safety regulations (26.6%), in second place is clearing riverbeds and shorelines (12.4%) and in third place is the improvement of forest roads and reservoirs (11.6%). 

“As part of the “VuzEkoFest-2025″, it was important for us to address issues of adaptation to climate change, including at the level of the regions where universities operate. It is worthwhile not only to know the existing concepts of the triple planetary crisis (environmental pollution, climate change and loss of biodiversity), planetary borders and others, but also to understand what is happening in your country, in the regions and what the cost of damage may be in the event of extreme weather events, what solutions can be proposed the scientific community and business in the context of adaptation. The festival helped to increase the interest of young people in the topic and strengthen the desire to share their ideas and scientific developments,” said Anastasia Okorochkova, Director of the Autonomous Non–Profit Organization Territory of Sustainable Development.

“The study clearly highlights the measures to adapt to climate change that have been implemented in the regions. Their analysis shows that they are aimed at solving those problems to which it is already impossible not to react. But it is equally important to provide solutions to the problems that may arise on the horizon of 20-50 years, taking into account possible climate changes. This applies to industry, cities, transport and energy infrastructure, agriculture and forestry.

(article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

Despite the vested interests of companies and governments, Can we make progress toward sustainable development?

(Article continued from the left column)

And, of course, the scale of the problems arising from the increasing climate change raises the question of how to accumulate financial resources – public and private – to solve them,” noticed Sergey Sementsov, Scientific Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at the VEB Institute.

According to respondents, it is possible to solve problems related to climate change with the help of international organizations (21.3%), federal (17.9%) and regional (13.8%) authorities. Many also noted that responsibility lies with each individual (20.7%). At the same time, some of the respondents believe that business is responsible for eliminating the consequences of climate change, including for finding solutions (8.4%).

In order to reduce their carbon footprint, students monitor electricity consumption (19.6%), reduce plastic consumption (17.9%), use water efficiently (17.6%), use public transport, bike or carsharing (17.4%) and participate in tree planting campaigns (7.6%).

​​”The climate changes taking place on the planet are becoming more and more obvious, even at the household level, so it is not surprising that young people, on whose shoulders the main burden of the consequences of climate change will fall, see this as a problem. An important prerequisite for solving this problem is environmental education and scientific refutation of established myths,” commented Alexander Chernokulsky, PhD, Deputy Director of the Obukhov Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Climate change is our reality and our future. Therefore, it is very valuable that the most important global topic is not perceived by students as something apocalyptic or abstract. In general, I believe that there is a big flaw in the wording “combating climate change”. It is necessary to deal not with climate change, but with negative decisions, processes and consequences of human activity that have a detrimental impact on the environment. And in this sense, a future specialist in any field can bring tangible benefits – to develop any product based on the principles of a closed-loop economy. I really believe in the generation of the “Territory of Sustainable Development” – young people already understand the scale of the problem today, and their inclusion and motivation will certainly benefit the climate, the region, the country, and humanity as a whole,” reported Svetlana Bik, author of the telegram channel 100% Green, head of the INFRAGRIN platform.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.