Read the daily news to learn English

picture of article

Decision on EU’s €90bn loan for Ukraine ‘due in next 24 hours’ after Zelenskyy says oil pipeline repaired – Europe live

It looks like others journalists are trying, just as I am, to figure out who specifically we are waiting for to move right now. And, erm, I don’t think there’s a clear answer. When asked who holds the leverage in the process, Kallas gives a rather confusing answer, but ultimately says that the EU needs to get rid of Russian energy imports more broadly to not “give them this revenue, whether its via Druzhba or any other means.” Guess we will have to wait how the process unfolds tomorrow, when the EU ambassadors meet again to discuss this issue. The 24 hour clock starts now.

picture of article

Middle East crisis live: Trump says he does not want to extend ceasefire with Iran

Lebanon on Tuesday raised the toll from six weeks of war between Israel and Hezbollah to 2,454 dead as a fragile 10-day ceasefire holds. The government’s disaster risk management unit in a statement also said 7,658 people had been wounded in the conflict, which began on 2 March, days after the broader Middle East war erupted. Authorities and rescuers in Lebanon have been continuing to recover and identify bodies in areas that were subjected to heavy Israeli strikes.

picture of article

Trump says US likely to resume bombing Iran as ceasefire nears end

Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he expects to resume bombing Iran, as a fragile 14-day ceasefire approaches its deadline Wednesday with no deal in sight. “I expect to be bombing because I think that’s a better attitude to go in with,” Trump told CNBC’s Squawk Box. “We’re ready to go. The military is raring to go.” When asked if he would extend the ceasefire, he replied: “I don’t want to do that. We don’t have that much time.” He added that the US was in a strong negotiating position and would ultimately secure what he called a great deal – though on what timeline, and at what cost, remained unclear. The remarks came alongside a Truth Social post in which Trump accused Tehran of having “Violated the Cease Fire numerous times!” – an allegation that appeared to lay the groundwork for justifying resumed strikes. Despite his sharp tongue, Trump at the same time indicated that a fresh round of negotiations was still on the table, with JD Vance and Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, expected to arrive in Islamabad for a second round of talks on Tuesday. The whiplash and confusion between war and peace talk has become the hallmark of Trump’s approach to the war. On Monday alone, he bounced between a potential deal being close and warning that “lots of bombs” would “start going off” if negotiations failed. Earlier in the month, he threatened extinction on “a whole civilization” of Iran, and that its civilians were actively welcoming US strikes on their country’s infrastructure. Pete Hegseth, the Pentagon secretary, last week said the US is “locked and loaded” to finish destroying Iran’s energy grid. After the CNBC interview, Trump turned his Tuesday morning fire homeward. In a Truth Social post, he urged Americans not to let “traitor Democrats” criticize last June’s Operation Midnight Hammer, claiming the mission had “totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear sites and that Space Force cameras were watching all three locations around the clock. Iran showed no sign of softening. Ghalibaf posted on X early Tuesday that “we do not accept negotiations under the shadow of threats”, while accusing Washington of seeking Iranian surrender rather than a genuine settlement. The country’s military commander meanwhile warned of an “immediate and decisive response” to any resumed hostilities. The standoff has shaken global energy markets. Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency, described the situation as “the biggest crisis in history”, warning that the combined impact of the conflict’s effects on oil alongside the ongoing Russian gas crisis was without precedent.

picture of article

Timor-Leste parliament questions president over proposed resort’s links to ‘scam’ empire

Timor-Leste’s opposition has questioned how foreign investors in a proposed cryptocurrency resort obtained prime beachfront real estate in the country’s capital, and has called on the president to explain why he issued a diplomatic passport to a Chinese businessman involved in the project. Speaking in parliament in Dili on Monday, Fretilin opposition party MP Florentino Ximenes da Costa “Sinarai” raised concerns about the proposed AB Digital Technology Resort, which was the subject of a months-long investigation by the Guardian and Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP). The report uncovered alleged links between three individuals involved with the resort project and Prince Group, a multibillion-dollar Cambodian conglomerate accused by US authorities of running “industrial-scale” scams. A spokesperson for the Prince Group denied all claims of criminality and said the US allegations were “nothing more than a cash grab”. Current shareholders in the resort project denied any involvement with organised crime or any other wrongdoing, and said the alleged Prince Group associates had been immediately dismissed from the resort after US sanctions were announced in October. The Timorese opposition figure urged the president, José Ramos-Horta, in parliament to explain why he granted diplomatic credentials to Chinese tech entrepreneur Lin Xiaofan, who presented himself as the face of the resort project in Timor-Leste and last July was appointed as special adviser to the president on economic and commercial affairs. Ximenes da Costa told lawmakers that Ramos-Horta and the foreign affairs minister, Bendito dos Santos Freitas, “need to take responsibility and explain” why the passport had been issued. Timor-Leste’s foreign ministry declined to comment. Lin has denied all involvement with organised crime and the Prince Group. There is no suggestion he is under sanction or is a member of Prince Group, and he is not accused of any criminality. In interviews with the Guardian in February, Ramos-Horta defended his decision to grant Lin a diplomatic passport, saying he hoped the businessman could attract investment into one of the world’s newest and most impoverished nations. The issuance of the diplomatic passport, which is expected to grant holders certain customs and visa privileges, was “highly unusual”, a Timorese source previously told the Guardian. Ximenes da Costa also urged Timor-Leste’s law enforcement agencies to investigate which local actors may have been involved in facilitating the resort, and how the company obtained prime land next to the airport for the project. “We all know that it is not easy to get a large piece of land on the beachfront, and a major decision has to be made, which would involve some government institutions,” told parliament. “Therefore, we believe AB Digital Technology Resort Lda is working together with some VIPs in Timor-Leste.” An investigation was necessary, Ximenes da Costa said, to ensure Timor-Leste is “free from transnational criminal operations, and free from corrupt politicians and high ranking people who are destroying the economy and image of this country in the eyes of the international community”. Following Guardian Australia’s report, Ramos-Horta acknowledged that Timor-Leste remains vulnerable to the dangers of transnational crime, but said he had not seen any proof that such groups had yet infiltrated the country. “Together with the government and our entire society, we remain alert to the dangers of organized crime,” he wrote in a statement on the president’s website. “But I cannot accept information that comes merely from media reports or from certain individuals in Timor-Leste – people who may wish evil upon the country or seek to tarnish the name of Timor-Leste.”

picture of article

With the US-Iran ceasefire about to expire, could Trump put boots on the ground?

It is the doomsday scenario that Donald Trump repeatedly swore he would never countenance: putting boots on the ground in a deployment that could embroil the US in a Middle East “forever war”. Now, with a two-week ceasefire in the war with Iran coming to an end and prospects for renewed negotiations hanging by a thread, the chances of the president breaking that pledge and ordering some kind of ground incursion seem to be rising. Despite increasing hopes for an end to the conflict over the past two weeks, the Trump administration has deployed more forces to the region in the period, in a signal of readiness for possible escalation. By the time the Boxer Amphibious Ready Group and its Marine corps task force arrive at the end of the month, more than 10,000 additional troops will have been sent since hostilities were paused on 8 April after the ceasefire agreement. “If we pay more attention to what President Trump does rather than what he says, then a ground invasion is quite likely,” said Ali Vaez, the Iran project director at the International Crisis Group. “We have not seen him deploying significant military assets to any theatre and ending up not using it. He has often used the US military might if he has deployed it, and in this case, he has sent literally thousands of US troops to the region, and therefore, I think the odds of him pursuing the ground invasion are much higher than otherwise. There is a clear risk of mission creep here.” The regime in Tehran may have reached a similar conclusion. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the Iranian parliament speaker, who has emerged as the chief Iranian negotiator in the fledgling peace talks, said on Monday that the Islamic regime was getting ready to deploy “new cards on the battlefield” if fighting resumed. Analysts say Iran’s military planners have spent years assiduously preparing for a land invasion. And judging by the rhetoric of some of its senior figures, they are relishing the prospect. Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister, who led two rounds of negotiations for Iran with the US before they were torpedoed by military action, was aggressively defiant when NBC asked him whether Iran feared a US ground invasion. “No, we are waiting for them, because we are confident that we can confront them, and that would be a big disaster for them,” he said. Ashkan Hashemipour, an Iran analyst at the University of Oxford, said of Araghchi’s remarks: “I don’t think it’s just rhetorical. It’s because Iran, right now, seems to be doing pretty well in a war that’s essentially fought in the skies and in the sea. If it’s fought on the ground, he knows that they’ll be even stronger.” Fuelling Iranian confidence is the fact that the Islamic republic has seen – and fought off – a previous ground invasion. The 1980-88 war with Iraq was the proving ground for the current generation of Iranian military leaders. Triggered when Saddam Hussein ordered Iraqi forces to invade Iran after the 1979 Islamic revolution, the conflict turned into a bloody war of attrition. It ended in stalemate after ideologically driven Iranian forces repelled Iraq’s better-equipped army, which had been supplied by the west as well as the Soviet Union. Nader Hashemi, a professor of Middle East and Islamic politics at Georgetown University, said: “That war was a foundational experience for the Iranian hardliners and conservatives. They viewed it not simply as a war between Iran and Iraq, but as a major attempt by the United States and the west to undermine the Islamic revolution. “There are clear lines and connections that the Islamic republic draws from that experience to this current war. From their perspective, what’s happening now proves them absolutely correct. The greatest power in the world, the United States, and its biggest ally in the Middle East are trying to topple the Islamic republic, and now they want to invade and occupy it.” Militarily and technologically outmatched by the US, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) would be likely to depend on asymmetric tactics that would lean heavily on guerrilla warfare in the event of a US land invasion. To give maximum flexibility, the IRGC has been divided into 31 provincial units roughly in line with the country’s 31 provinces, thereby overriding the need for a centralised command that could be eliminated or disrupted by US or Israeli strikes. Saeid Golkar, a politics professor at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, said the plan was devised after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. “The idea is to try and break Iran into a mosaic, with each mosaic defending itself,” said Golkar, an expert on the IRGC and the Basij, Iran’s volunteer militia force. A vital role would also be played by Iran’s larger – if politically less powerful – conventional armed forces, known as the Artesh. Under changes introduced in 2009, the Artesh was broken down into rapid action units based on 12 regional headquarters across the country – again with the purpose of freeing local commanders from central command. The Artesh’s main role, said Hashemipour, would be to compel US forces to fight two wars – “one conventional, one unconventional” – simultaneously. The IRGC-led unconventional war is believed to rest in part on support from the Basij, a youth volunteer force that became renowned for “human wave” attacks on Iraqi forces in the 1980-88 war, driven by a fervent revolutionary desire to attain Shia “martyrdom”. The key Basij unit would be the Imam Hussein infantry battalion, named after the grandson of the prophet Muhammad, who died at the battle of Karbala in 680. But Golkar played down the militia’s military significance, describing it as an “instrument of domestic repression” and doubting many members’ willingness to fight, citing the decline of religious devoutness in Iran and widespread unhappiness with the regime. With Trump’s focus on reopening the strait of Hormuz, boots on the ground could – at least initially – fall short of an incursion on to the mainland, and be limited instead to occupying one or more of several islands in the Gulf off Iran’s southern coast. But such deployments would leave US troops vulnerable to missile and drone attacks. The Iranian regime is also likely to respond by pressuring its proxy Houthi allies in Yemen to close the Bab al-Mandab shipping lane between the Red Sea and Indian Ocean, which would cause global energy prices to rocket. Vaez said: “The reality is there is no military solution to reopen the strait, because even in a scenario that [Trump] occupies the entire southern shore of Iran and all the Gulf islands that Iran has, Iran will still be able to fire drones from much farther inland to disrupt traffic on the strait.” That could pave the way for the denouement of a land war that Iran has spent 47 years preparing for after decades of shadow conflict with Washington, waged mostly through proxies in locations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The same guerrilla warfare tactics used in these countries, including roadside bombs made from improvised explosive devices – an approach perfected in Iraq by the former IRGC Quds force commander Qassem Suleimani – is likely to greet any US invasion force. But Golkar notes one vital difference: the absence of a meddling outside power. “In Iraq and Afghanistan, it was Iran and the IRGC that was in the middle of these two countries, trying to create a quagmire for the Americans,” he said. “Because there are no external countries that could support an insurgency in Iran, we will not see the same scenario as in Iraq.” That could leave the outcome hinging on the attitudes of a disaffected Iranian population and US willingness to absorb casualties. Vaez said: “Any kind of ground invasion would probably entail significant casualties on the US side, which is something that the Iranians actually would like to see.” He added that Trump may already have forfeited public support from regime opponents by threatening to erase Iran’s civilisation and change its borders. “We can’t generalise the public sentiment, but it is important to take into account at what point in this conflict a ground invasion could happen. It is after President Trump has threatened to take Iran back to the stone ages. “[Iranian] public opinion is turning against this war and putting boots on the ground is more likely to benefit the regime than to benefit its opponents because regime change could not be done with [only] several thousand US special forces and ground troops. “If there are American boots on Iranian soil, the IRGC would would consider them sitting ducks, and would definitely try to significantly bump up the casualty numbers, because they also know that the dual [scenario] of high energy prices and high casualties would bring down Trump’s presidency.”

picture of article

What went wrong in Israel? A genocide scholar examines ‘what Zionism became’

Former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, when asked to explain the apparent about-face that led him to advocate the unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, quoted a beloved Israeli pop ballad. “What you can see from there, you can’t see from here,” he said, referring to the shift in perspective he had supposedly undergone since coming to power. Although the 2005 Gaza disengagement was perhaps less a change of heart than one of strategy, as his senior adviser later admitted, the lyric became a byword of Israeli politics, an oft-cited reminder that perspective is everything. Israeli-born Holocaust historian Omer Bartov invoked the same line when he was asked how he had come to view Israel’s ferocious assault on Gaza as a genocide. Living in the US, where he has spent more than three decades, he said, had given him the necessary distance to see the annihilation of Gaza for what it was. “I think it’s very hard to be dispassionate when you’re there,” he said. Bartov did more than simply apply the word genocide to Israel’s actions: he shouted it from the establishment-media rooftops, making the case in a lengthy July 2025 essay in the New York Times titled: I’m a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It. (He had addressed some of the arguments in a Guardian essay the year prior.) Bartov’s declaration cost him several close relationships, he told me, even though subsequent events have not only validated his analysis but further demonstrated the lack of concern for Palestinian suffering that has become prevalent in Israeli society. His new book, Israel: What Went Wrong?, is an attempt to explain that indifference. The book, which was published on Tuesday, is a detailed account of how Israel was transformed from a hopeful nation that in its founding document promised “complete equality of social and political rights to all its citizens irrespective of religion, race or sex” into one intent on what he bluntly terms “settler colonialism and ethno-nationalism”. The Brown University professor, who teaches a popular course on the Holocaust and the Nakba, is hardly a disinterested observer. Both his parents were devoted Zionists who fought in the 1948 war, and Bartov himself spent four years in the IDF, serving in the West Bank, northern Sinai and Gaza, ultimately commanding an infantry company. He went on to earn a doctorate in history at Oxford, becoming a highly regarded genocide scholar. Bartov has spent decades researching the second world war, antisemitism, Nazi indoctrination and historical amnesia, and has published 10 books about the Holocaust. So he speaks with considerable authority when he deplores the way the memory of the Shoah has been instrumentalized for political purposes, becoming “a vast fig leaf”, as he puts it in the book: “its lamentable effect to combine self-victimization and self-pity with self-righteousness, hubris and the euphoria of power”. Bartov’s goal is not, of course, to minimize the horrors of the Nazi extermination campaign but to demonstrate the ways in which this trauma has been exploited to shape the Israeli psyche and political ideology. Though Zionism predates the Holocaust by decades, it was the murder of 6 million Jews that turned it from a pipe dream into a viable political project – one that has always combined two key strands, Bartov said. “One is a settler-colonial, ethno-national movement, and the other is the liberation and emancipation and rescue of a persecuted minority.” If the Jews had had a state of their own, the case went, they would have escaped this unspeakable horror, he said, “and this was not an entirely vacuous argument”. The problem arose, from his perspective, after Israel declared its independence in 1948. “When the state decides that it’s not going to be a normal state, it’s not going to have a constitution, it’s not going to define its borders, it’s not going to try and have a normal relationship with its own Palestinian citizens, it’s not going to at least try and make a gesture of compensation and reconciliation with the people that it evicted – when it does that, then its nature changes,” he said. Speaking on a video call from his home in Providence, Bartov is reserved and unassuming, his white hair and scholarly demeanor offering a sober counterpoint to his fitted black T-shirt and stylish gray hoodie. Bartov’s insistence that Zionism, as originally conceived, was essentially a movement of liberation helps explain his refusal to identify as an anti-Zionist. “I don’t even know what that means,” he said, emphasizing that he believes that Jews have a right to self-determination as long as they don’t “trample over other people’s rights”. Accordingly, he does declare himself “completely, vehemently opposed to the kind of Zionism that exists today in Israel”. Bartov is well aware that for Palestinians and their supporters, his critique won’t go nearly far enough. Writing in the Journal of Genocide Studies, human rights law professor Sonia Boulos accused Bartov and others of “deploying the term genocide in a manner that seeks to blunt its force”, in part by analyzing it apart from the broader colonization of Palestine since 1948. In the eyes of such observers, “what went wrong” is no great mystery: western imperial powers unleashed a settler-colonial project that aimed from its inception to “eliminate, uproot, murder the Palestinians”, as he put it in summarizing the narrative. He rejects this characterization as overly simplistic and insufficiently attuned to the aspirations of Europe’s Jewish refugees, but nonetheless allows: “It is what [Zionism] became.” Precisely how it did so – and how things might have been otherwise – is the focus of the book. Much of What Went Wrong? focuses on what Bartov frames as the original sin of Israel’s founding, the resistance to granting meaningful legal weight to the lofty words contained in the nation’s declaration of independence, coupled with the founders’ subsequent failure to adopt a national constitution and bill of rights. Had Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, pushed for either approach, Bartov argues, the nascent state might well have grown into the kind of liberal democracy it has, however speciously, long proclaimed itself to be. *** Despite his condemnation of present-day Israeli society, Bartov does see a narrow path toward the nation’s peaceful coexistence with its neighbors. A section of the book is devoted to the confederation plan championed by a group of Israeli and Palestinian intellectuals called A Land for All – a version of which was originally considered by the United Nations in 1947. Under this scheme, sovereign and independent Palestinian and Jewish states would exist side by side, divided roughly along pre-1967 borders. Citizens of both entities would be allowed to live and travel freely throughout the combined territory, but would vote only in their own national elections – not unlike the way an Italian, for example, can live and work anywhere in the EU while voting in Italy. Bartov acknowledged that the idea seems far-fetched as corpses are still being dug from the rubble of Gaza and Israel is prosecuting yet another bloody war. But what he sees as the nation’s preference for military confrontation over diplomacy depends entirely on American support, he pointed out, and that patronage is now being tested as never before. As a result of the Gaza genocide, a clear majority of Democratic voters now have a negative view of Israel. More recently, the ill-conceived US-Israeli aggression against Iran has significantly eroded GOP support. “Maga is becoming anti-Israel,” Bartov said, due to “Netanyahu completely leading Trump by the nose into a completely idiotic war”. Despite some alarming strains of ethnic bias underlying the perception of wealthy and powerful Jewish interests manipulating the US government, pointing out antisemitism has lost effectiveness, in part because the influence of pro-Israel donors on US politics – and Israel’s campaign to convince the US to wage war on Iran – is undeniable. Additionally, the charge of antisemitism has grown hollow, Bartov said, due to its flagrant “weaponization” as “a tool to shut people up” as the state wreaks destruction on its neighbors. “Having claimed to be the definitive answer to antisemitism,” he writes in What Went Wrong?, “Israel is now the best excuse for antisemites everywhere, a nation whose addiction to violence and oppression, reliance on great powers and financial clout, and constant harping on the horrors of the Holocaust as an excuse for untethered violence against Palestinians are making even some of its erstwhile supporters shrink from it in discomfort, or horror and disgust.” As a result, America’s indulgence of its longstanding Middle East ally may at last be reaching its limits. Should the United States withhold military support – as is advocated by growing numbers of Democratic policymakers – “Israel will have to go through a process of coming to terms with itself,” Bartov predicted. Under such circumstances, the country would have no choice but to pursue diplomacy. Ironically, that might be the so-called Jewish state’s best hope for a peaceful and prosperous future. Bartov last visited Israel, where his son and grandchildren still live, in December of 2024. It wasn’t a pleasant trip. “It was hard even just to sit in a cafe,” he recalled. “People were sitting around, having fun, living a normal life, while there was genocide happening down the road. And I just couldn’t take that, because when you’re there, you’re complicit. You can’t help it. It doesn’t matter what you think.” His outspokenness has come with a price. Many of his best friends are in Israel – “at least they were my best friends until recently”, he said. “I don’t know now. So there’s also a personal sorrow here. Because I’m now into my 70s and it’s nice to have some old friends, but I may have pissed off many of them.” Bartov’s new book is coming out in “nine or 10” languages, he said, but Hebrew is not among them. Though he offered to translate it himself, he says even left-leaning Israeli publishers took a pass. “I think they felt offended because I don’t have a particularly good opinion of the so-called Israeli left, and I write about it,” he said. “They feel that I’m this Israeli living in America in an air-conditioned room, as they say, sipping espresso, while they’re suffering.” They may have a point. Then again, if the Israeli public isn’t able to read Bartov, how else can they hope to see from there what he has come to see so clearly from here? Israel: What Went Wrong? by Omer Bartov is published in the US by Farrar, Straus and Giroux and in the UK by Fern Press

picture of article

Kremlin forcing big firms to join ‘witch-hunt’ against internet rebels, claims report

Major Russian companies have been conscripted into a “witch-hunt” against users trying to circumvent online controls, researchers have said, as the Kremlin continues trying to cut its citizens off from the global internet. Banks and web platforms are collecting data on users of virtual private networks (VPN) tools, which obscure an individual’s real location and allow them to access sites blocked in Russia, according to an investigation by RKS global, an advocacy group for internet freedoms. Tens of millions of Russians use VPNs to access the global internet. This number grew dramatically at the outset of their country’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, after the Kremlin introduced sweeping bans of platforms like Facebook and Instagram. Authorities are now taking far greater measures to track these users, who may be at risk of criminal penalties, the researchers said. The investigation analysed 30 popular Russian apps, including those run by T-Bank, Sberbank, the search engine site Yandex and the social media platform VKontakte. It found that 22 of these apps actively detected whether a user was on a VPN – or had one installed on their phone – and most of them retained that data in their servers, where it could be accessed by security services. “The level of intrusion into the device can be very high,” said RKS global. “Any Android app released by Russian companies for the Russian market may now be spying.” Mazay Banzaev, founder of Amnezia, an open-source VPN company, said: “It’s one thing if Russian IT companies were to ‘catch’ users the moment they visit a site with a VPN enabled. It is quite another when even a closed application continues scanning the phone for VPN usage.” For millions of Russians, this means that their options to interact with the rest of the world are narrowing – and growing increasingly fraught with risk. It is not formally illegal in Russia to use a VPN, and businesses and state agencies still rely on them. But activities around VPN use are increasingly criminalised. This year, Russian courts have begun to treat VPN use as an aggravating circumstance in prosecutions. Over the past year, the authorities have embarked on a gradual effort to throttle the global internet. This began with blackouts of mobile networks across large swathes of the country last year. These spread to Moscow and St Petersburg and Russians started to buy paper maps and pagers to get around and communicate. Beginning in March, authorities began to block Telegram, a messaging app essential to communication and daily life in Russia. The goal appears to be to push most Russians on to a government-controlled “superapp”, called Max, which is believed to have broad surveillance capabilities. This has been aggressively promoted, leaving many with no option but to install it. A full-scale web shutdown, like the one employed by Iran, is far more difficult for Russia to achieve because its internet is set up differently. Instead, the Kremlin has taken a piecemeal and indirect approach to cutting off the population – for example in saying that widespread mobile restrictions in the provinces were necessary to counter Ukrainian drones. This new regime of data gathering and app-mediated surveillance marked a transition from passive to active censorship and meant that little of Russians’ private lives would be out of reach of authorities, said RKS Global. “Digital censorship in Russia is reaching a new level.” VKontakte, T-Bank, Sberbank and Yandex were approached for comment.

picture of article

Wildlife and humans thriving in Unesco-protected sites

Wildlife and humans are thriving within sites recognised by Unesco, research has found, allowing for the recovery of threatened species and habitats around the world. While wildlife populations have crashed globally by nearly three-quarters since 1970, those within Unesco-protected areas have remained largely stable. “It’s good news, it shows that these sites are extremely resilient in the face of a changing world,” said Tales Carvalho Resende, one of the co-authors of the report People and Nature in Unesco Sites, published on Tuesday. But the sites are also under severe threat: more than 300,000 sq km of tree cover, an area larger than the Republic of the Congo, has been lost within Unesco-designated sites since 2000, mostly owing to agricultural expansion and logging. About 90% of Unesco sites globally are also judged to be under “high levels” of environmental stress, chiefly extreme heat. One in four designated sites could reach critical climate tipping points by 2050, according to Unesco. These include the disappearance of glaciers, collapse of coral reefs and forests drying out, turning from carbon sinks into carbon sources. “Now climate change is really the key driver that is threatening the sites,” said Carvalho. “They need to adapt to face the challenges that are coming. It’s really worth investing in this.” Many of the world’s “charismatic megafauna”, whose populations have plummeted in recent decades under an onslaught of poaching, the encroachment of agriculture and other stresses, have found havens in Unesco-designated sites, where they often receive far greater protection than in non-designated areas. About a third of the world’s remaining elephants, tigers and pandas are in Unesco sites, as are about one in 10 of the remaining great apes, giraffes, lions, rhinos and dugongs. Some of the most endangered species are also found only within Unesco reserves. All of the 10 vaquita, a species of porpoise, thought to be the last of their kind, the 60 or so remaining Javan rhinoceros, and about 85% of the remaining population of Sumatran orangutans, thought to number about 15,000 individuals, are found within designated sites. Unesco sites are also home to about a 10th of the world’s population, who are benefiting from the biodiversity, generating about a 10th of global GDP, according to the report, which is the first global assessment examining all of the 2,260 protected areas. Carvalho gave the example of Virunga national park, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where populations of the very endangered mountain gorilla have been protected with the support of local communities. Of the three forms of Unesco designation, the highest is world heritage sites, which are cultural monuments, achievements or natural areas judged to be of global significance, and governments are bound to protect them under the United Nation organisation’s founding treaty, the World Heritage Convention of 1972. More recently, Unesco has introduced biosphere reserves, which are examples of sustainable development in action, and global geoparks, which have particularly important geology. Governments are expected to manage these areas too, but they lack the full legal force of the original. All three together cover more than 13m sq km, an area of land greater than that of China and India combined, and more than 60% of the world’s species are found within the sites, about 40% of which are found nowhere else on earth. They are also home to about 900 million people, speaking more than 1,000 languages. About a quarter of the sites overlap with the territories of Indigenous peoples, and many are managed by Indigenous and local communities. The report also found that Unesco sites store an estimated 240 gigatons of carbon, equivalent to nearly two decades of emissions from fossil fuel burning. Khaled El-Enany, director general of Unesco, said: “Inside these [Unesco designated] territories, communities thrive, humanity’s heritage endures, and biodiversity is holding on while it collapses elsewhere. This report reveals what we stand to lose if [these sites] are not prioritised.”