How to Put the ‘Sexy’ Back into Agriculture – Thoughts From CGIAR Science Week

Posted on by admin

Africa, Biodiversity, Climate Change, Conferences, Cooperatives, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition, Food Sustainability, Food Systems, Global, Headlines, Population, Poverty & SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Trade & Investment

Food Systems

Dr Ismahane Elouafi, Executive Managing Director of CGIAR. Credit: Busani Bafana

Dr Ismahane Elouafi, Executive Managing Director of CGIAR. Credit: Busani Bafana

NAIROBI, Apr 11 2025 (IPS) – This week presented a beacon of hope for young people so that the “girl from the South and the boy, of course” could stay in the developing world, Dr Ismahane Elouafi, Executive Managing Director of CGIAR, said during a press conference on the final day of the CGIAR Science Week.

Science and innovation could whet their appetites, especially as research and innovation can change the perception that it is a drudgery-filled occupation to one where there is room for ambition – and it made business sense.

“In the face of slow productivity and rising risks, the case is clear. Investing in agricultural research is one of the smartest and most future-proof decisions that anyone can make,” she said.

Elouafi, along with the other panellists Dr Eliud Kiplimo Kireger, the Director General of KALRO and Eluid Rugut, a youth agri-champion at the Ban Ki-moon Centre, alluded to the broad value chain of agriculture, which will make it attractive to young people.

Dr Eliud Kiplimo Kireger, the Director General of KALRO. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

Dr Eliud Kiplimo Kireger, the Director General of KALRO. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

Kireger commented that people say, “Agriculture is not sexy, and so we need to make it sexy,” and encourage young people into science. Apart from encouraging young kids into science, there was a space in it for young people who don’t want to see returns on their investments in years but in months.

Rugut’s personal experience backs the claim up; he told the press conference that he first had to convince his father to give him a little land – and this wasn’t an easy task. Rugut, who represents both the youth and a smallholder, said it was only once his father saw the benefits of the new technologies that he was prepared to give his son the benefit of the doubt.

“It was very hard to convince my dad to give us land, but over time, these technologies that I was trying to bring to the farm – like drip irrigation, water pumps and drought-tolerant seeds,” Rugut said, but in the end, “I was able to convince him. Also, my mom was able to convince him.”

Kireger said the week-long conference had shown the power of collaboration, especially because research was expensive and the need was great. However, digitisation had meant that a lot of the research was no longer stuck in the labs and was now in the hands of farmers.

and Eluid Rugut, a youth agri-champion at the Ban Ki-Moon Centre. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

Eluid Rugut, a youth agri-champion at the Ban Ki-Moon Centre. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

He encouraged farmers (and the journalists at the conference) to take a look at the Google Play store, where there are KALRO apps.

“So, if you go to Google Play Store, you will find many KALRO apps which you can download onto your phone. So, if you’re a coffee farmer, for example, you can download a guide on your phone.”

This digitisation is key to scaling research and making it accessible.

Elouafi, too, said investment in agribusiness was crucial to transforming the sector There was a need for public-private partnerships so farmers were no longer only involved in production but down the value chain too.

“So strategic investment in agricultural research isn’t just necessary; it is economically smart. We have seen a USD 10 return on every dollar spent on research and development in the agriculture sector.”

She provided several examples. Participating in the value chain could transform USD 300 of wheat into USD 3000 through pasta production. Likewise with quinoa, millet and sorghum, which cost USD 4 in the market, with production, can fetch USD 50 to USD 100 per kilogram in the market.

This opportunity is where policies and subsidies come in, to put this potential into the hands of the farmers. “This is a gap we need to bridge,” Elouafi said.

Elouafi reported significant progress this week, particularly in addressing food insecurity. The achievements included the launch of the CGIAR research portfolio, the International Potato Centre (CIP) and KALRO biotech agreement, the IWMI water security strategy for East Africa, and the publication of CGIAR’s flagship report, Insight to Impact: A decision-maker’s guide to navigating food system science.

“Science week  has demonstrated the strength of partnerships. How together we can generate powerful tools, innovation, technologies, knowledge, institutions, policies – all of it – to deliver real-world impact for the communities that we serve.

“In the era of fake news and misinformation, our work, our impact, our partnership, and our commitment to the communities we serve are real, and our impact is real, and we need to have a much louder voice. We cannot let it up because the gap will be filled by misinformation.”

IPS UN Bureau Report,

 

A Make-or-Break Moment for Global Development Finance—& the Role Philanthropy Must Play

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Change, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

FFD4 Home Seville Platform for Action, 30 June-3 July 2025. Credit: United Nations

WASHINGTON DC, Apr 9 2025 (IPS) – This June, world leaders will gather in Seville for the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4), a milestone opportunity to reimagine how the global economy delivers for people and the planet. But the real question isn’t whether this historic convening will happen. It’s whether it will matter.

Global systems are straining under the weight of overlapping crises: a ballooning debt burden across the Global South, massive financing gaps to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and climate catastrophes that demand urgent and equitable funding.

And yet, even as needs escalate, traditional sources of foreign aid are in retreat. The U.S. and other major donors are pulling back, creating gaping holes in public budgets and threatening the survival of civil society organizations that provide essential services and accountability functions.

Michael Jarvis

We are facing a post-aid world. But that doesn’t mean we must accept a post-development world. In fact, the FfD4 conference, set for June 30 to July 3 in Seville, presents a rare and time-sensitive opportunity to reconfigure development finance – balancing funds that will come from taxes and raising sustainable debt with those to come as official development assistance or via philanthropic contributions.

And if governments are willing to be bold, they won’t be alone. Philanthropy can be a catalytic force backing systemic reforms. Funders can lead by example with commitments under the Sevilla Platform for Action that will bring together voluntary initiatives to deliver measurable progress to boost a renewed financing framework.

The current draft of the conference outcome document includes some encouraging steps: nods to progressive taxation, recognition of the need for fairer sovereign debt mechanisms, and reform of international finance institutions.

But as the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) notes, many proposals still fall short of transformative change. Key concepts like human rights, gender equality, and participation appear inconsistently and more as rhetoric than as guiding principles.

We can do more to center Global South voices in negotiations and this is one way in which philanthropy can step up – helping expand the participation of diverse voices to be at the table, ensuring the perspectives of those most affected by financing decisions are heard.

Funders can also support the technical and diplomatic engagement of Global South governments in negotiations, so their priorities are fully represented.

Beyond participation, there’s a pressing need to fill thematic gaps—particularly in underfunded areas such as debt justice, fair taxation, and protection of civic space. Philanthropic commitments that align publicly with the FfD4 goals can build credibility and create positive pressure for ambitious reforms.

Just as importantly, funders must be willing to invest beyond the conference itself, providing long-term support to translate declarations into tangible outcomes on the ground.

Consider the issue of sovereign debt. Today, over 50 countries are in crisis, with many spending more on debt service than on healthcare or education. Without systemic reform, these countries will remain trapped in cycles of austerity and underdevelopment.

Philanthropy can fund advocacy, support debtor country coalitions and research to unlock debt relief, but also invest in revising frameworks, including building in greater transparency and oversight, to ensure that when countries borrow in the future debt is more sustainable.

Tax reform is another area where funders can have a significant impact. In the face of reduced foreign assistance, countries will need to rely more on their own revenue mobilization, but in ways that don’t exacerbate inequality.

From reinforcing constructive engagement in shaping the new UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation to supporting watchdog organizations that expose illicit financial flows, philanthropy can help shift the narrative and the policy framework toward a fairer tax system and restore faith in tax as our “social superpower” that supports so many of the services that citizens rely upon.

Climate finance, too, demands a bolder philanthropic role. For example, we need to invest not just in raising new finance for climate mitigation and adaptation, but in ensuring those funds get to where they need to go.

Philanthropy can support government and civil society capacity to ensure that every climate dollar counts. None of this is about replacing governments. It’s about augmenting their ability to act in the public interest and holding them accountable when they do not.

Funders, such as the members of the Trust, Accountability and Inclusion Collaborative, have already demonstrated what’s possible when philanthropy aligns with governance reform. They’re not just writing checks, they are investing in a more trust-based, accountable and inclusive development finance system. That model must become the norm and for those funders interested to learn more there are peers ready to offer advice or join forces.

In an era when multilateralism is under strain and trust in public institutions is eroding, the role of independent, values-driven actors is more important than ever. The FfD4 conference is a moment to demonstrate that the international development community can still serve people and the planet if enough of us are willing to push in that direction.

Philanthropy has the agility, the resources, and the networks to lead that push. It must not be a silent partner at this time. The stakes are too high.

Michael Jarvis is the Executive Director of the Trust, Accountability, and Inclusion (TAI) Collaborative, a network of philanthropic funders advancing systemic reforms to build more inclusive and accountable governance globally.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Behind the Feeding of the 5,000 (or Should That Be 10,000) at CGIAR Science Week

Posted on by admin

Africa, Biodiversity, Civil Society, Climate Change, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition, Food Sustainability, Global, Headlines, Humanitarian Emergencies, Poverty & SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Youth

Food and Agriculture

Ismahane Elouafi Executive Managing Director, CGIAR and Nairobi Chef Kiran Jethwa in discussion during the Good Food for All lunch at CGIAR Science Week 2025. Credit: CGIAR

Ismahane Elouafi
Executive Managing Director, CGIAR and Nairobi Chef Kiran Jethwa in discussion during the Good Food for All lunch at CGIAR Science Week 2025. Credit: CGIAR

NAIROBI, Apr 8 2025 (IPS) – Good Food for All is the motto of The Chef’s Manifesto, a project that brings together more than 1,500 chefs from around the world to explore how to ensure the food they prepare is planet-friendly and sustainable.

It was Nairobi Chef Kiran Jethwa who prepared a menu filled with locally sourced food for the thousands of  delegates on the first day at the GCIAR Science Week in Nairobi.

The menu included High Iron Red Kidney Bean and Biofortified Sweet Potato,  Swahili Curry with Toasted Ginger and Dhania, Tilapia Pilau with Omena (Native Small Fish), Slow Braised Kenyan Kinyeji Chicken Stew with Cassava, Arrow Root with Seared Terere (Amaranth and Millet and Jaegerry Halwa with Raisins and Roasted Cashews.

Delegates snaked towards the tent under beautiful trees on this most exotic United Nations campus situated near Kienyeji forest in Nairobi.

At the Chef's Manifesto lunch on the first day of CGIAR science week. Credit: IPS

At the Chef’s Manifesto lunch on the first day of CGIAR science week. Credit: IPS

Food is central to the debates here, where delegates debate how science can make a difference in the world where hunger is rampant (according to the United Nations, 3.1 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet) and climate change and conflict, among other issues, complicate food production.

As Prof. Lindiwe Majele Sibanda, who chaired the Council of the Wise session in the opening plenary, told the audience, the crisis we are in calls for bold action.

“We’re in a crisis because of climate change. We’re in a crisis because of environmental and health degradation… We are in crisis because of gender inequality, no jobs for our youth, and nutrition insecurity,” she said, and during this week “we are looking for solutions” to this in science.

Summing up the argument of former Prime Minister Dr. Ibrahim Assane Mayaki as AU Special Envoy for Food Systems, Sibanda coined a quote for social media.

“We are in a crisis and Dr. Mayaki says… We need more leaders who are scientists, because scientists solve problems.”

To applause, he agreed.

A healthy plate of sustainably sourced food. Credit: IPS

A healthy plate of sustainably sourced food. Credit: IPS

Former President of Mauritius, Dr. Ameenah Firdaus Gurib-Fakim, asked where the empowerment of women in agriculture was. “Food is produced mostly by women.”

And, she asked, how is it possible to get youth into agriculture?

Agriculture needs to break the stereotype of agriculture as a woman with a hoe breaking hard earth.

“We need the youth to realize that agriculture is a 1 trillion dollar business,” Gurib-Fakim said, emphasizing that it was time to change the narrative.

Sibanda agreed. “Can we have an education that is fit for purpose? Can we have women empowerment and youth as drivers of the food systems, research, and innovation?”

Former Prime Minister of the Republic of Guinea and expert in agricultural finance, Mohamed Beavogui, said it was time for “bold, practical, and inclusive solutions” for ensuring that what was produced on the land ended up on the plate.

Looking for a quotable quote, Sibanda summed it up as “LLP from the lab to the land to the plate, that’s a systems approach,” elaborating that CGIAR aims to reform the food, land, and water systems for food security globally.

“Please Tweet that,” she asked the audience, referring to X by its pre-Elon Musk name.

Finally, Sibanda asked former Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan why we are still hungry, poor, and not preserving our biodiversity.

He didn’t believe that it was necessary to elect presidents that are scientists; he commented that in Africa leaders probably spend more time thinking about how to “hold onto leadership than thinking about their people.”

But getting the right mix into the cabinet was crucial—it was more about finding the right people and putting them in roles where they can make a difference.

Sibanda sums it up: “The president has to surround himself with the right people… to be game changers in the country.

Sibanda noted the session produced lots of “tweetable tweets.”

Summing up the panel’s view on policymaking, she said it was as messy and inexact—like “sausage making”—but needed to be “contextualized, evidence-based,” and those affected need to be consulted.

The “billboard” message, however, was that youth are the future and science should be at the forefront of agriculture.

IPS UN Bureau Report,

  Source

CGIAR Science Week Seeks Solutions for a Food-Secure, Climate Resilient Future

Posted on by admin

Africa, Biodiversity, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Conservation, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition, Food Sustainability, Gender, Humanitarian Emergencies, Natural Resources, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Trade & Investment, Youth

Food and Agriculture

Sweetpotato crossing block, Uganda. Reuben Ssali, a plant breeder Associate with the International Potato Center. Credit: CGIAR

Sweetpotato crossing block, Uganda. Reuben Ssali, a plant breeder Associate with the International Potato Center. Credit: CGIAR

NAIROBI, Apr 7 2025 (IPS) – CGIAR and the Kenyan Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) are bringing together the world’s leading scientists and decision-makers in agriculture, climate, and health for the first CGIAR Science Week. This gathering will be a key moment to advance research and innovation, inspire action, and establish critical partnerships that can secure investment in sustainable food systems for people and the planet.

IPS’ team of journalists, Busani Bafana, Joyce Chimbi, and Naureen Hossain, will bring you news and interviews throughout the week as the conference unfolds. This will include the launch of the CGIAR Research Portfolio 2025-2030 today (April 7, 2025).

IPS UN Bureau Report,

  Source

‘Energy Transfer’s Lawsuit Against Greenpeace Is an Attempt to Drain Our Resources and Silence Dissent’

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Crime & Justice, Education, Education Cannot Wait. Future of Education is here, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Apr 4 2025 (IPS) –  

CIVICUS speaks with Daniel Simons, Senior Legal Counsel Strategic Defence for Greenpeace International, about the lawsuit brought by an oil and gas company against Greenpeace and its broader implications for civil society. Greenpeace is a global network of environmental organisations campaigning on issues such as climate change, disarmament, forests, organic farming and peace.

Daniel Simons

In March, a North Dakota jury ruled that Greenpeace in the USA and Greenpeace International should pay damages of over US$660 million to Energy Transfer, which filed lawsuits alleging that Greenpeace instigated resistance against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 and 2017 and caused operational disruptions and financial losses. The protests were led by Indigenous communities, particularly the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and focused on water protection and tribal rights. Energy Transfer claims the pipeline was properly regulated and provides economic benefits. Civil society has condemned the legal action as a SLAPP – a strategic lawsuit against public participation – designed to silence criticism. Greenpeace is appealing.

What prompted Energy Transfer to take legal action against Greenpeace?

The route of the Dakota Access Pipeline crosses underneath the Missouri River a short distance from the reservation of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. In April 2016, tribal members set up prayer encampments to express their opposition to the construction. They worried that sites of cultural importance would be damaged, and that the pipeline might contaminate the river, the Tribe’s water source.

Energy Transfer took a number of provocative actions. It sued the Tribe’s chairperson and other participants in the Indigenous resistance, and not long after, bulldozed an area less than 24 hours after the Tribe had filed a declaration in court stating there were burial grounds and resources of cultural significance in the area. These events coincided with a huge growth in attention for and attendance at the camp.

Energy Transfer alleges that the Greenpeace defendants were somehow the masterminds, coming in and secretly organising everything that happened during the Standing Rock protests, and that this included trespassing, property damage and creating public nuisance. The company also accuses the Greenpeace defendants of defamation, complaining about nine statements in particular. Additionally, Energy Transfer claims Greenpeace’s actions delayed the refinancing of the pipeline’s construction loan, causing financial harm to the company.

What was Greenpeace’s actual involvement in the protests and its relationship with Indigenous communities?

Greenpeace – including Greenpeace Inc and Greenpeace Fund, both based in the USA, and Greenpeace International, a Dutch foundation – played only a limited role in the protests. Greenpeace Inc had some connections to the Indigenous communities at Standing Rock; as I understand it, the relationship was respectful but not extensive.

Greenpeace Inc supported the protests by funding five trainers from an independent Indigenous network to provide training on non-violent direct action for two weeks, conducting supply drives for the camps, providing short-term staff mainly to help with preparing the camp for winter and donating some lock boxes that protesters could use to form a human chain, although no evidence suggests they were ever used. It also published articles and co-signed two letters to banks containing the nine statements Energy Transfer now claims are defamatory. These statements had already been widely reported by media and United Nations bodies before Greenpeace’s involvement.

According to an Indigenous activist who testified in court, Greenpeace Inc was present but followed the lead of people on the ground. Its involvement was so minimal that most tribal nations at Standing Rock wouldn’t even have been aware of it. The activist described claims that Greenpeace controlled the resistance as ‘paternalistic’ and emphasised that many Indigenous leaders had the ability to run a complex movement and engage with media themselves.

Greenpeace International’s only relevant action was signing an open letter led by the Dutch civil society organisation BankTrack, alongside 500 other organisations. Meanwhile, Greenpeace Fund had no involvement in the Standing Rock resistance, yet Energy Transfer argues that sharing resources such as office space and contact details with Greenpeace Inc makes it liable.

How is Greenpeace defending itself and what impact has the lawsuit had on its operations?

We argue that Energy Transfer has greatly exaggerated our role in the protests and is attempting to recover costs that are all unrelated to our actions. There is just no evidence of any link between the Greenpeace defendants’ activities and the damages the company claims. And there is certainly no link to any act of violence or property damage.

Greenpeace International has also taken legal action in the Netherlands, using the new European Union anti-SLAPP directive for the first time to challenge what we view as an attempt to drain our resources and silence dissent. Defending ourselves has required significant financial and personnel resources. While Greenpeace has the capacity to fight back, there are concerns that such lawsuits could deter smaller or less experienced organisations from challenging the powerful US oil and gas industry – which appears to be one of the goals of this case.

What are the next steps in the legal proceedings and how do you see this case resolving?

While the jury has reached a verdict that decided the Greenpeace defendants must pay US$666 million for defamation and the other claims, the judge still needs to enter a final judgment. There are obvious issues with jury verdict and we are in the process of challenging those. Greenpeace Inc and Greenpeace Fund have already announced they will appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Greenpeace International is pursuing its case against Energy Transfer in the District Court of Amsterdam, with the first procedural hearing scheduled for 2 July.

The battle is far from over. Greenpeace is determined to defeat these claims and hold Energy Transfer accountable for filing repeated SLAPP suits. This fight extends beyond Greenpeace – it concerns the protection of freedom of expression. An attack on one is an attack on all, and we hope civil society will stand with us.

GET IN TOUCH
Bluesky
Twitter

SEE ALSO
Italy: ‘Authoritarian tendencies manifest themselves in efforts to control information and stifle dissent’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Ilaria Masinara 22.Jun.2024
Europe: ‘Members states must introduce national anti-SLAPP legislation to protect public watchdogs’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Francesca Borg Constanzi 21.Mar.2024
How SLAPPs undermine democracy: a case study of the USA CIVICUS 02.Jul.2018

  Source

Civil Society’s Reform Vision Gains Urgency as the USA Abandons UN Institutions

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Change, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, International Justice, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images

LONDON, Apr 2 2025 (IPS) – Today’s multiple and connected crises – including conflicts, climate breakdown and democratic regression – are overwhelming the capabilities of the international institutions designed to address problems states can’t or won’t solve. Now US withdrawal from global bodies threatens to worsen a crisis in international cooperation.

The second Trump administration quickly announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization (WHO), terminated its cooperation with the UN Human Rights Council, walked out of negotiations on a global tax treaty and imposed sanctions on International Criminal Court officials.

Although the USA has sometimes been an obstructive force, including by repeatedly blocking Security Council resolutions on Israel, global institutions lose legitimacy when powerful states opt out. While all states are formally equal in the UN, the reality is that the USA’s decisions to participate or quit matter more than most because it’s a superpower whose actions have global implications. It’s also the biggest funder of UN institutions, even if it has a poor record in paying on time.

As it stands, the USA’s WHO withdrawal will take effect in January 2026, although the decision could face a legal challenge and Trump could rescind his decision if the WHO makes changes to his liking, since deal-making powered by threats and brinkmanship is how he does business. But if withdrawal happens, the WHO will be hard hit. The US government is the WHO’s biggest contributor, providing around 18 per cent of funding. That’s a huge gap to fill, and it’s likely the organisation will have to cut back its work. Progress towards a global pandemic treaty, under negotiation since 2021, may be hindered.

It’s possible philanthropic sources will step up their support, and other states may help fill the gap. The challenge comes if authoritarian states take advantage of the situation by increasing their contributions and expect greater influence in return. China, for example, may be poised to do so.

That’s what happened when the first Trump administration pulled out of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). China filled the vacuum by increasing its contributions to become UNESCO’s biggest annual funder. Presumably not coincidentally, a Chinese official became its deputy head, while China was able to block Taiwan’s attempts to join. It was out of concern about this growing influence that the Biden administration took the USA back into UNESCO in 2023; that decision could now be reversed, as Trump has claimed UNESCO is biased against the USA and ordered a review.

The Human Rights Council may be less immediately affected because the USA isn’t currently a member, its term having ended at the close of 2024. It rejoined in 2021 after Trump pulled out in 2018, and had already made the unusual decision not to seek a second term, likely because this would have provoked a backlash over its support for Israel. Apart from its relationship with Israel, however, during its term under the Biden administration the USA was largely recognised as playing a positive role in the Council’s business. If it refuses to cooperate, it deprives US citizens of a vital avenue of redress.

The USA’s actions may also inspire other states with extremist leaders to follow suit. Argentina’s President Milei, a keen Trump admirer, has imitated him by announcing his country’s departure from the WHO. Political leaders in Hungary and Italy have discussed doing the same. Israel followed the USA in declaring it wouldn’t engage with the Human Rights Council. For its own reasons, in February authoritarian Nicaragua also announced its withdrawal from the Council following a report critical of its appalling human rights record.

It could be argued that institutions like the Human Rights Council and UNESCO, having survived one Trump withdrawal, can endure a second. But these shocks come at a different time, when the UN system is already more fragile and damaged. Now the very idea of multilateralism and a rules-based international order is under attack, with transactional politics and hard-nosed national power calculations on the rise. Backroom deals resulting from power games are replacing processes with a degree of transparency aimed at achieving consensus. The space for civil society engagement and opportunities for leverage are in danger of shrinking accordingly.

Real reform needed

Revitalising the UN may seem a tall order when it’s under attack, but as CIVICUS’s 2025 State of Civil Society Report outlines, civil society has ideas about how to save the UN by putting people at its heart. The UNMute Civil Society initiative, backed by over 300 organisations and numerous states, makes five calls to improve civil society’s involvement: using digital technologies to broaden participation, bridging digital divides by focusing on connectivity for the most excluded, changing procedures and practices to ensure effective and meaningful participation, creating an annual civil society action day as an opportunity to assess progress on civil society participation and appointing a UN civil society envoy.

Each of these ideas is practical and could open up space for greater reforms. A UN civil society envoy could, for example, promote best practices in civil society participation across the UN and ensure a diverse range of civil society is involved in the UN’s work.

Civil society is also calling for competitive Human Rights Council elections, with a civil society role in scrutinising candidates, and limits on Security Council veto powers. And as time approaches to pick a new UN Secretary-General, civil society is mobilising the 1 for 8 billion campaign, pushing for an open, transparent, inclusive and merit-based selection process. The office has always been held by a man, and the call is for the UN to make history by appointing a feminist woman leader.

These would all offer small steps towards making the UN system more open, democratic and accountable. There’s nothing impossible or unimaginable about these ideas, and times of crisis create opportunities to experiment. States that want to reverse the tide of attacks on international cooperation and revitalise the UN should work with civil society to take them forward.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org.

  Source