The world’s wetlands are disappearing. This is not a projection but a measurable reality, documented over decades and accelerating in ways that defy logic. The new Global Wetland Outlook 2025, the flagship report of the Convention on Wetlands, brings this into sharp focus: wetlands are still being lost faster than any other ecosystem. The science is not the problem. The problem is that we still haven’t put our money where our mouth is.

The numbers are stark. Restoring 30% of degraded wetlands would cost an estimated $3.8 trillion per year—about 2% of global GDP. But wetlands already contribute far more than that to the global economy: $7.98 trillion annually, even using conservative estimates, or $39.01 trillion when all their services are fully accounted for. The math speaks for itself.

Still, wetlands receive only a small fraction of climate finance for nature-based solutions—less than nine per cent is directed toward freshwater ecosystems. They remain overlooked in budgets, underrepresented in plans, and underfunded in action.

This is not only a gap in numbers. It’s a gap in priorities. Wetlands have long been treated as marginal—too complex, too local, too difficult to fit into short-term development frameworks. Their benefits often span ministries and sectors, making them easy to sideline in systems built for tidy, siloed projects.

The truth is that wetlands provide services we cannot afford to lose. They store carbon at a rate forests envy. They protect coastlines from storm surges. They filter pollutants, recharge groundwater, and sustain fisheries. They grow rice and support livestock. They are the very foundations of water, food, and climate security for billions of people.

The question is no longer why wetlands matter. The question is why we keep failing to finance them.

Part of the answer lies in how we structure our funding systems. Wetlands rarely fit into the templates that dominate climate and development finance. Their value is shared across communities and generations, but the mechanisms that guide investment often reward simplicity over impact. As a result, wetlands are frequently left out—not because they lack value, but because they defy convention.

This is why the finance gap is more than a statistic. It is a story of missed opportunities: to invest in prevention rather than recovery, to support communities already stewarding these ecosystems, to build resilience before disaster strikes.

Change is possible, and it’s already happening in pockets. Institutions like the African Development Bank, the Global Environment Facility, and the World Bank are beginning to shift their lens. Wetlands are not charity cases; they are natural infrastructure. In a world of overengineered solutions, wetlands remain among the most cost-effective—and underfunded—systems we have.

Around the world, countries and regions are showing that progress is possible. In Zambia’s Kafue Flats, over a million dollars a year is now being spent to restore basic wetland functions—supporting water supply, grazing, fisheries, and biodiversity for more than 1.3 million people. In East and Southeast Asia, the Regional Flyway Initiative is mobilizing $3 billion in blended finance to protect over 140 wetlands along the East Asian–Australasian Flyway, with early projects already underway in Cambodia and China. These efforts are complex and costly—but far cheaper than losing the services wetlands provide. They are models that can, and must, be scaled.

The Global Wetland Outlook 2025 offers no easy reassurances. What it offers is clarity: the tools to change course exist, but time and resources are still flowing in the wrong direction.

As one of the few international forums focused entirely on wetlands and freshwater ecosystems, the upcoming COP15 of the Convention on Wetlands in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, is a rare chance to redirect both. It is uniquely placed to elevate wetlands within the global climate and development agenda. What happens in Victoria Falls could shape the financial and policy landscape for wetlands for years to come.

The evidence is there. The numbers are there. The question is whether we will act now—or keep compounding the costs of delay.

Dr Musonda Mumba is Secretary General, Convention on Wetlands

The week the tariff clash begins to take effect saw many nations expressing concern about the economic pain these combat might inflict, reflecting the significant shift in American trade policy under President Trump in 2025.

The ‘’Tit-for-Tat measure  taken by affected  countries against  a major economic impose  in the way of tariffs, sanction or other trade barriers, is often described as a response to the dynamics of “trade conflict’’

The persistent belief—often called the “American tariff illusion”—imposing tariffs on imports may strengthen the U.S. economy, protect domestic jobs, and generate government revenue with minimal downsides. However, this belief overlooks broader and often negative consequences, especially in foreign relations and global economic dynamics.

The US-China trade confrontation has significant unintended negative consequences to be experienced by third-world countries, especially developing and least-developed economies. The low-income and least developed economies (LDEs), especially those dependent on Chinese manufacturing inputs, will face substantial economic challenges due to their integration into global supply chains even if these countries remain neutral on the trade conflict linked to China and the US.

The initial effect of U.S. tariff increases may be a reduction in imports and a narrowing of the trade deficit. However, this effect tends to be short-lived and dissipates over time due to several interconnected factors.

Tariff increase benefits are outweighed by broader economic costs and diplomatic strains. The “tariff illusion” underestimates these complex and often adverse effects on both the U.S. and global economic interaction.

This makeshift tariff benefits mask a tangled web of longer-term consequences. Tariffs raise the price of imported goods, instigate global supply chains to face higher production costs, and this may stifle innovation and competitiveness.

The increase in tariffs often triggers retaliation risks where affected trade partners respond by imposing their own tariffs, leading to a cycle of escalating trade barriers. This tit-for-tat dynamic can rapidly intensify tensions between countries and evolve into full-blown trade wars among major economic powers.

The avenging dynamics in trade refer to a retaliatory strategy where one country responds to another country’s tariff imposition or sanction by imposing similar acrion in return. This approach is rooted in game theory, specifically the tit-for-tat strategy, where a player mirrors the previous move of the opponent to either cooperate or retaliate,

Initially tariffs are usually imposed to protect domestic industries or address perceived unfair trade practices among tread partners. However, in the interconnected economic systems where gains in one sector can be wiped out by losses elsewhere can cause political backlash between tread partners.

In 2018, the U.S. imposed tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods, citing unfair trade practices and intellectual property concerns. China on the other hand retaliated with tariffs on $110 billion of U.S. exports, targeting key sectors like agriculture and energy. Thus tariffs harms industries on both sides.

This shows a complex behaviour of markets that adapt new directions where policymakers didn’t anticipate. Thus, trade wars have broader political and strategic implications, straining diplomatic relations and undermining trust in international trade agreements.

As this disrupt supply chains, multinational companies scrambled to reroute production and sourcing, leading to delays and increased costs on material. Tariffs imposed on imported goods have largely been passed on to consumers, resulting in noticeable price increases on a wide range of products, including electronics and food.

Smartphones, laptops, video game consoles, and other devices are expected to see significant price hikes. For example, tariffs on Chinese imports have led to estimated price increases of up to 26% in some electronics categories. A laptop costing ETB 52000 before tariffs could rise by about 36% where the new cost will be ETB 70720 in retail price after tariffs are factored.

The tit-for-tat dynamics of tariff shall slow global trade growth, with ripple effects felt in emerging markets and trade-dependent economies. Though tariffs may initially seem like a straightforward tool to protect domestic industries or address trade imbalances, their broader effects often prove to be more complicated and problematic.

Global trade conflicts triggered by major economic powers through tariffs, imposed sanctions or other protectionist measures—often have severe spill over effects on smaller, trade-dependent economies. They suffer from increased costs, disrupted supply chains, and reduced market access. Trade uncertainty may also trigger capital outflows or exchange rate fluctuations, worsening inflation or debt burdens.

It is true that economic interdependence boosts growth: Smaller and developing economies benefit from being integrated into global trade and supply chains, which can accelerate their output and development opportunities. However, this integration also means that shocks in one part of the world can quickly propagate and affect these economies adversely.

The irony is that the more interconnected the world becomes, the more vulnerable the smaller threads in the global tread fabrics. This is the profound puzzle of globalization: the same interconnectedness that fuels growth for smaller economies also magnifies their fragility when conflicts arise.

Tight integration means shocks spread faster. The trade conflicts triggered by major economic powers through tariffs, imposed sanctions or other protectionist measures—often have severe spill over effects on smaller, trade-dependent economies

A tariff on Chinese components can halt factory lines in Mexico, Ethiopia and Cambodia’s garment sectors. Sanctions on Russian gas may starve small European economies. US-China trade war, affects countries dependent on Chinese fabrics. They shall face collateral damage despite neutrality.

Least-developed countries (LDCs), despite minimal involvement in the hostilities, face overwhelming challenges such as disrupted supply chains, increased costs, and reduced export markets. The recovery requires tiresome struggle.

The ripple effects on global commercial relation is unavoidable. Tariffs imposed by the US and China increase production costs for intermediate goods, which then cascade through different trade web to make products more expensive in third world countries

As the saying goes, when there is such a clash or jungle fight among elephants of the game, the tremble is fiercely felt by those with least footing. The conflict disproportionately affect the most vulnerable small or weaker economies. That’s the paradox of globalization or interconnectedness.

Thank be yours for reading this little piece

At the crack of dawn on a cold Thursday, Jane Mwangi arranged fresh tomatoes, onions, kales and coriander on her wooden roadside stall in Nairobi.

As she stretched her hand to pick a bunch of kale from a gunny bag, she was distracted by the buzzing of her phone.

She did not answer. She only smiled and returned the handset into her pocket. It was not a call. Rather, it was a notification that a customer had sent her money.

“I used to lose money or spend it without thinking. Now I know exactly what comes in each day,” she said, her thumb scrolling through her transaction log.

A customer who had selected onions and coriander at the stall while Mwangi was scrolling through her phone, asked for her mobile phone number. She quickly instructed him to, “wire through Pochi,” as she told him the number.

Pochi la Biashara is Safaricom’s mobile money platform tailored for small traders, which Mwangi uses to collect payments directly from customers, with no need for change or a cash box.

The customer makes a transaction and leaves. Her earnings land safely in her business wallet, separate from her personal mobile money account.

She then sat on a plastic chair and with a few taps on her smartphone, she moved part of her earnings into her M-Shwari savings account, where it earns interest.

“When business is low or stock runs out, I borrow a short-term credit from mobile loan apps to restock my stall or pay school fees for my children,” she said.

Mwangi’s digital financial journey mirrors findings from a report released this month that mobile technology is helping to narrow gender gap in financial inclusion and giving women on the continent control over their money.

According to the World Bank’s Global Findex report, mobile money account ownership among women in low- and middle-income countries has nearly doubled in just over a decade from 37% in 2011 to 73% in 2024.

Mobile money platforms, the report said, are becoming lifelines for millions of women including those who have never set foot into a brick-and-mortar bank.

“More people than ever have the financial tools to invest in their futures and build economic resilience, including women and others previously left behind. This is real progress,” said Gates Foundation Chair, Bill Gates, who is also one of the supporters of the Global Findex.

GSMA state of industry report on mobile money 2025, also affirms the growth in registered mobile money accounts, that recorded double digit growth to reach over half a billion monthly active users and 2 billion total registered accounts last year, driven by new accounts in Africa.

According to the report, Sub-Saharan Africa remains at the epicentre of mobile money, accounting for over 1.1 billion registered accounts.

“As mobile money continues to drive financial inclusion, it is also unlocking new opportunities for people to save, earn, and spend – solidifying its place as a true fintech success story,” said GSMA Director General, Vivek Badrinath, in the report.

The gender gap in account ownership is now just four percentage points globally and five percentage points in developing countries—down from much wider gaps a decade ago.

And as more women open digital bank accounts via mobile phones, they are closing the gap in formal saving against men who still lead by seven percentage points.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, 35% of adults saved formally using mobile or bank accounts, with countries like Senegal leading with 67% of adults saving formally in 2024, a sharp rise from 46% in 2021.

According to the Findex report, formal saving among women nearly doubled between 2021 and 2024, rising to 36 percent, driven largely by platforms like M-Shwari, Airtel Money, and MTN MoMo.

“The case for investing in inclusive financial systems, digital public infrastructure, and connectivity is clear—it’s a proven path to unlocking opportunity for everyone,” said Banga.

Telcos have been revamping their offerings in mobile money as they seek to bolster transactions and the financial inclusion agenda.

Since 2023, Airtel Kenya, has been running a campaign dubbed, ‘Rudishiwa’ that introduced 50% reimbursement of transaction fees on bank to Airtel Money wallet transactions, citing reaction to customer feedback on growing demand for innovative mobile money offerings.

The Campaign targeted transactions on payment of utility bills, paying for air tickets and government services, a clear demonstration of rising use cases of mobile money.

“Digital payments are even more critical today as we continue to digitise cash and empower Kenyans to safely use mobile money for their day-to-day requirements. Moreover, Kenyans are constantly on the lookout for value for money solutions that will enable them save more,” said Airtel Money Managing Director Anne Kinuthia-Otieno, in a statement.

MTN Momo in Uganda launched this July, a campaign dubbed Power to be More, in a push for more subscriber participation in the digital economy and a strategic positioning of the platform as a one-stop digital financial ecosystem.

It seeks to convert mobile phones into a digital bank, an online market place, a financial advisor, and an insurance provider.

“This evolution is about enabling Ugandans to pay for goods and services, settle school fees, save, borrow and invest from a mobile phone,” said MTN Momo Uganda Chief Products Officer, Jemima Kariuki in a statement.

Use of digital merchant payments, payments made by retail customers to businesses in stores or online, grew to 42 percent of all adults in 2024, up from 35 percent in 2021, the Findex report shows with the share of adults making such payments more than doubling in some economies, including Cameroon, with widespread adoption in Kenya.

The rise of affordable handsets and agent networks, authors of the report said is also helping to bridge the financial access divide, with digital payments now cited as the most widely used formal financial service across Africa.

In 2024, 61% of adults in developing economies made or received a digital payment, up from 34% in 2014, according to the World Bank report.

But challenges remain.

While all these developments are unfolding, women are still less likely to own mobile phones, compared to men with a gap of 9 percentage points in low- and middle-income economies.

For instance, smartphone ownership among women lags in countries with some of the highest populations on the continent like Ethiopia (45%).

There was, however, an improvement in Nigeria, which saw its gender gap decrease from 46% to 41% in 2024, following a rise in account ownership levels for both men and women.

In countries like South Africa and Zimbabwe, more women than men own a smartphone, with an ownership rate that is racing towards 90% for women.

Smartphone ownership among women is recorded in Lesotho at 80% — which is at near parity in Ghana, 87%, and in Gabon, Botswana, Libya and Algeria, all above 80%.

World Bank Group President Ajay Banga said digital finance has the potential to fix access gaps and improve lives and transform entire economies.

“Digital finance can convert this potential into reality, but several ingredients need to be in place,” said Banga.