Funding Disruptions Are a Systemic Failure – Philanthropy Must Do What’s Right and Support Local Leadership

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Featured, Financial Crisis, Gender, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Inequality, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

SORIA, Spain, Mar 17 2025 (IPS) – The slashing of US aid funding by Donald Trump and Elon Musk, and cuts or planned cuts in international support by several European states, threaten to cut off the oxygen supply to a civil society already in a critical condition. At CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance, activists and grassroots groups have shared with us time and again that shifting and volatile donor priorities are one of the top funding challenges they face, alongside limited resources for strategy and restricted funding.

Tais Siqueira

Local civil society in the global south is most affected by these challenges. Funding disruptions are no temporary matter. They reflect systemic failures and deep power and funding inequalities between the global north and global south. They undermine trust, shift power away from the communities most affected by global challenges and force local organisations into a reactive survival mode rather than enabling them to drive strategic action.

This is a critical moment for philanthropy to step up and put locally led development principles into practice. This means channelling more resources directly to local civil society, advocating for the meaningful participation of a diverse local civil society in policy spaces at all levels, ensuring their financial, legal and security resilience, and reimagining the role of philanthropy as being not just a funder, but an investor, catalyser and collaborator. As a starting point, philanthropic funders should do the following.

1. Commit to immediate, flexible, and sustained financial support

Local civil society is on the frontlines of addressing some of the world’s most pressing issues. Yet it’s often the first to feel the impact of funding disruptions. Philanthropy must act quickly to provide immediate, flexible and emergency grants to help local organisations survive funding gaps, including by increasing flexibility in existing grants to allow for operational reallocation to cover urgent needs, such as security-related expenses, salaries and insurance.

Unrestricted funding is also critical. Local groups need autonomy to allocate resources where they’re most needed, including for financial, legal and digital protection. Philanthropic funders should prioritise high-quality support – funding that is flexible, predictable and for core work – to support local civil society’s agency and autonomy and avoid orientation around donor priorities. Philanthropy must recognise that trust in local leadership is both the right and strategic thing to do.

2. Strengthen local civil society’s governance through collaboration and promote trust and support

Local leadership isn’t just about financial support; it’s about co-creating the systems and structures that enable local groups to thrive. Philanthropy can play a pivotal role in supporting local groups to strengthen their governance, risk management and compliance systems by fostering collaboration and innovation rather than imposing external standards. Support should be tailored, context specific and co-designed.

One key step is providing direct support to local groups to develop systems that prioritise accountability while trusting them to manage resources. This requires funders to move away from overly prescriptive conditions and toward models of support that acknowledge the leadership and agency of local civil society.

Philanthropy must also recognise that compelling narratives and ambitious policies are needed to stimulate trust and support local civil society. Progressive philanthropic funders can encourage others to follow suit.

3. Invest in infrastructure enabling diverse local civil society groups to collectively organise, share resources and strengthen resilience

In an increasingly interconnected world, the ability of local civil society groups to connect, collaborate and share resources is more important than ever. Investments in infrastructure can enable civil society to bravely defend and promote civic freedoms. Investment will facilitate collective influencing and knowledge-sharing networks, ensuring organisations are better prepared for further funding instability.

Philanthropic funders can earmark funds for emergency response, including for legal defence, audits and unforeseen security threats. Security in the digital sphere is also a critical need, and support can be provided for digital communications infrastructure, encrypted platforms and security audits.

Support for protection of civic space and promotion of civil society participation in decision-making will help enable strategic resistance against rollbacks of hard-won rights and gender, racial and social justice gains.

It’s also crucial to recognise that progressive local civil society groups and leaders are key enablers of locally led development and strengthen civil society’s support infrastructure. Investments in these infrastructures ensure that local groups have the necessary space, resources, agency and autonomy to shape and implement solutions that best fit their contexts.

CIVICUS’s Local Leadership Labs initiative addresses the political, technical and behavioural barriers that hinder governments, donors and other stakeholders from fully embracing and resourcing diverse civil society groups as legitimate participants in development. These labs support radically inclusive spaces, where local civil society groups can drive the development of policies and solutions, together with decision-makers and other key players. This cultivates spaces for collaboration, allowing diverse civil society groups and multi-stakeholder initiatives to share knowledge, reflect and strategise together.

A call to reaffirm commitment to locally led development

Philanthropic funders have unique convening authority, networks and partnerships that can be leveraged to advocate for locally led development. This isn’t just about funding; it’s about using influence to shift narratives and create an enabling environment where local civil society can thrive. Philanthropist must publicly reaffirm their commitment to the Donor Statement on Supporting Locally-Led Development and take real steps to put these principles into action.

The challenges are immense, but so too are the opportunities. By fostering an environment where local civil society has the resources, autonomy and trust to lead, philanthropy can move beyond financial transactions and become a transformative partner.

Tais Siqueira is Coordinator of CIVICUS’s Local Leadership Lab

  Source

Is UN in Danger of Losing its Battle for Gender Equality?

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Credit: Inclusion Hub

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 14 2025 (IPS) – The Trump administration’s decision to abandon DEI—diversity, equity and inclusion— which was aimed at promoting fair treatment in the work place, is having its repercussions at the United Nations.

The US has been exerting pressure on UN agencies to drop DEI largely protecting minority groups, and women in particular, who have been historically underrepresented or subject to discrimination.

At least one UN agency has dropped an entire section on DEI following U.S. interventions. And there are reports that some UN agencies are also scrubbing their websites of all references to DEI.

Faced with threats of either US withdrawal or funding cuts, some of the UN agencies are bending over backwards to appease the Trump administration.

The US has already decided to withdraw from the Human Rights Council and the World Health Organization (WHO), while two other UN agencies are under “renewed scrutiny”—the” UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

The United States has cut $377 million worth of funding to the UNFPA, it was confirmed last week, leading to potentially “devastating impacts”, on women and girls.

The threat against the UN has been reinforced following a move by several Republican lawmakers who have submitted a bill on the U.S. exit from the U.N., claiming that the organization does not align with the Trump administration’s “America First” agenda.

Speaking at a side event during the annual meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), March 13, Jonathan Shrier, Acting U.S. Representative to the Economic and Social Council said: “At the United Nations, the United States continues to advocate for women’s empowerment, while firmly opposing attempts to redefine womanhood in ways that undermine the real and meaningful progress women have made.”

“We are committed to promoting policies that support women and families in a way that recognizes and celebrates the biological and social differences that make us who we are. In New York, we have engaged in tough negotiations in a wide variety of UN resolutions, fighting against gender ideology, and calling votes, if necessary, to advance President Trump’s America First foreign policy.”

According to UN Dispatch March 13, even before the CSW began, “the U.S. sought to throw a wrench in the entire event by objecting to otherwise anodyne references to gender equality in a conference document, under the premise that such language directly contradicts Trump’s executive orders against DEI”. In other words, Trump tried to block references to gender equality in a conference dedicated to gender equality.

And according to an Executive Order from the White House last January, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), “shall coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/

Joseph Chamie, a consulting demographer and a former director of the United Nations Population Division, told IPS the Trump administration’s domestic decision to abandon DEI has serious implications for the United Nations, especially with US threats of withdrawal and funding cuts.

In particular, the US administration’s decision to abandon DEI, he said, aims to not only reshape US-UN relations but also reshape practices and policies of the United Nations and its various agencies and programs. Diversity and meritocracy concerns vary across country populations and differ considerably globally.

Similar to America, however, countries worldwide are struggling with the issue of how best to balance diversity and meritocracy across disparate ethnic, racial, caste, linguistic and religious subgroups in their populations.

“How best to balance diversity and meritocracy remains a major challenge for countries and the United Nations. That challenge has become more difficult for many countries as a result of the prejudicial use of racial, ethnic, linguistic, ancestry and origin categories.”, said Chamie

In a growing number of areas, including politics, employment, careers, education, armed forces, immigration, the judicial system, entertainment and sports, countries are making far-reaching decisions regarding when to strive for diversity and when to stress meritocracy.

Many countries with domestic concerns about DEI are likely to welcome the Trump administration’s attempt to diminish or do away with DEI initiatives at the United Nations, he pointed out.

Given a growing world population of more than 8 billion people, the shifting demographic landscapes of national populations and the fundamental need to ensure human rights for all, the challenge of balancing diversity and meritocracy can be expected to become even more critical and consequential for countries as well as for the United Nations in the years ahead, declared Chamie.

According to PassBlue, the US delegation has been telling some UN entities they must excise language on DEI, from their work. The US remarks have been repeated in one form or another to the boards of UN Women, UNICEF and World Food Program. (The latter two are run by Americans.)

Dr. Purnima Mane, President and CEO of Pathfinder International and former Deputy Executive Director (Programme) and UN Assistant-Secretary-General (ASG) at the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), told IPS it is indeed unfortunate that the US government’s decision to move away from diversity, equity and inclusion is creating ripple effects among other entities especially those who benefit from US support and contributions.

Early evidence, she pointed out, suggests that some UN agencies are beginning to display increased caution regarding DEI, especially its positioning and language. Ironically this caution is occurring around the 69th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (16-21 March 2025).

“The initial reactions of caution around DEI which we are witnessing from all organizations and entities which the US works with or is a part of (whether it is the UN, the non-profit organizations, major donors, other governments) are inevitable”.

The US, she said, has played a key role in the formation, development and evolution of the UN and of course continues to provide key support to it.

“It is therefore not surprising that the UN to which the US contributes in many significant ways, is sensitive to the evolution in US views but this should not result in the UN shirking away from the main principles on which it was created.”

DEI, she noted, is an acronym that has come to mean different things to different people and countries but its core philosophy and principles are at the root of the UN and can and need to be protected even if the language of DEI is altered.

“Within the UN there needs to be a healthy, constructive debate and discussion among Member States on how resistance to DEI could threaten the philosophy and principles for which the UN stands and to which the governments collectively signed on, thereby questioning the very existence of the UN.”

“Surely, all Member States feel empowered to voice their views and find ways to ensure that the basic principles of the UN remain steadfast. Putting your own country first does not automatically imply that one must not focus on a common, agreed-to agenda based on respect for all,” declared Dr Mane.

Ian Richards, a former President of the Coordinating Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations and an economist at the Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) told IPS: “I don’t think it is correct to say the UN is abandoning DEI”.

The Secretary-General, he said, “is fortunately a big champion and continues to support landmark initiatives on sex, race, disability, regional origin, age and gender identity”.

To varying extents these set hiring quotas, mandatory training and reporting requirements.

A conference will be organized on DEI this summer in Lisbon, hosted by the Government of Portugal, to identify further ways to strengthen measures. Unlike other organizations the Secretary-General has also maintained the right of staff to choose their pronouns in email communications.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

UN Chief Launches New Initiative as World Faces Growing Challenges

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, at a Press Encounter on the UN80 Initiative

Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 12 2025 (IPS) – Our world is facing challenges on every front. Since the United Nations reflects that world in all its aspects, we feel it in all our work.

These are times of intense uncertainty and unpredictability.

And yet certain truths have [never] been more clear: The United Nations has never been more needed. Our values have never been more relevant. And the needs have never been greater.

At the same time, we know the more the UN does together to address big challenges around the world, the less the burden on individual countries to do it alone.

The United Nations stands out as the essential one-of-a-kind meeting ground to advance peace, sustainable development and human rights.

But resources are shrinking across the board – and they have been for a long time. For example, for at least the past seven years, the United Nations has faced a liquidity crisis because not all Member States pay in full, and many also do not pay on time.

From day one of my mandate, we embarked on an ambitious reform agenda to strengthen how we work and deliver.

To be more effective and cost-effective. To simplify procedures and decentralize decisions. To enhance transparency and accountability. To shift capacities to areas such as data and digital.

And, significantly, the Pact for the Future and UN 2.0 are exactly about updating the UN for the 21st century.

These efforts are not ends in themselves. They are about better serving people whose very lives depend on us.

They are about hardworking taxpayers around the world who underwrite everything we do. And they are about ensuring the right conditions for everyone serving under the UN flag as they undertake their critical work.

For all these reasons, it is essential that an organizational system as complex and crucial as the United Nations – subjects itself to rigorous and regular scrutiny to assess its fitness for purpose in carrying out its goals efficiently.

And this 80th anniversary year of the United Nations is a prime moment to expand all our efforts, recognizing the need for even greater urgency and ambition.

That is why I have informed yesterday UN Member States that I am officially launching what we call the UN80 Initiative.

I have appointed a dedicated internal Task Force led by Under-Secretary-General Guy Ryder – and composed of principals representing the entire UN system.

The objective will be to present to Member States proposals in three areas:

First, rapidly identifying efficiencies and improvements in the way we work.

Second, thoroughly reviewing the implementation of all mandates given to us by Member States, which have significantly increased in recent years.

Third, a strategic review of deeper, more structural changes and programme realignment in the UN System.

Under the leadership of the President of the General Assembly, I will consult closely and regularly with all Member States on the progress made, seeking guidance on the way forward and presenting concrete decisions for discussion and decision-making when appropriate.

My objective is to move as soon as possible in areas where I have the authority – and to urge Member States to consider the many decisions that rest with them.

This goes far beyond the technical. Budgets at the United Nations are not just numbers on a balance sheet – they are a matter of life and death for millions around the world.

We must ensure value for money while advancing shared values.

The need is great and the goal is clear: an even stronger and more effective United Nations that delivers for people and is tuned to the 21st century.

And I thank you.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

The G20: How it Works, Why it Matters and What Would be Lost if it Failed

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Economy & Trade, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Prof Daniel D. Bradlow is Professor/Senior Research Fellow, Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria.

The G20 Johannesburg Summit will be the twentieth meeting of the Group of Twenty (G20), a meeting of heads of state and government scheduled to take place from 22 to 23 November 2025. It will be the first G20 summit held in Johannesburg, South Africa and on the African continent.

PRETORIA, South Africa, Mar 11 2025 (IPS) – South Africa took over the presidency of the G20 at the end of 2024. Since then the world has become a more complex, unpredictable and dangerous place.

The most powerful state in the world, the US, seems intent on undermining the existing order that it created and on demonstrating its power over weaker nations. Other influential countries are turning inward.

These developments raise concerns about how well mechanisms for global cooperation, such as the G20, can continue to operate, particularly those that work on the basis of consensual decision making.

What’s the G20’s purpose?

The G20 is a forum in which the largest economies in the world meet regularly to discuss, and attempt to address, the most urgent international economic and political challenges. The group, which includes both rich and developing countries, accounts for about 67% of the world’s population, 85% of global GDP, and 75% of global trade.

The G20, in fact, is a misnomer. The actual number of G20 participants in any given year far exceeds the 19 states and 2 international entities (the European Union and the African Union) that are its permanent members.

Each year they are joined by a number of invited “guests”. While there are some countries, for example Spain and the Netherlands, that are considered “permanent” G20 guests, the full list of guests is determined by the chair of the G20 for that year.

This year, South Africa has invited 13 countries, including Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates. They are joined by 24 invited international organisations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the United Nations and eight African regional organisations, among others.

The G20 should be understood as a process rather than a set of discrete events. Its apex is the annual leaders’ summit at which the participating heads of state and government seek to agree on a communiqué setting out their agreements on key issues. These agreements are non-binding and each of the participating states usually will implement most but not all the agreed points.

The communiqué is the outcome of a two track process: a finance track, consisting of representatives of the finance ministries and central banks in the participating counties, and a “sherpa” track that deals with more political issues. In total these two tracks will involve over 100 meetings of technical level.

Most of the work in each track is done by working groups. The finance track has seven working groups dealing with issues ranging from the global economy and international financial governance to financial inclusion and the financing of infrastructure. The sherpa track has 15 working groups dealing with issues ranging from development and agriculture to health, the digital economy, and education.

The agenda for the working group meetings is based on issues notes prepared by the G20 presidency. The issues notes will discuss both unfinished business from prior years and any new issues that the president adds to the G20 agenda.

The working group chairs report on the outcomes of these meetings to the ministerial meetings in their track. These reports will first be discussed in meetings of the deputies to the ministers. The deputies will seek to narrow areas of disagreement and sharpen the issues for discussion so that when they are presented at the ministerial meeting the chances of reaching agreement are maximised.

The agreements reached at each of these ministerial meetings, assuming all participants agree, will be expressed in a carefully negotiated and drafted communiqué. If the participants cannot agree, the minister chairing the meeting will provide a chair’s summary of the meeting.

These documents will then inform the communiqué that will be released at the end of the G20 summit. This final communiqué represents the formal joint decision of the participating heads of state and government.

The G20 process is supplemented by the work of 13 engagement groups representing, for example, business, labour, youth, think tanks, women and civil society in the G20 countries. These groups look for ways to influence the outcomes of the G20 process.

What is the G20 troika and how does it operate?

The G20 does not have a permanent secretariat. Instead, the G20 president is responsible for organising and chairing the more than 100 meetings that take place during the year. The G20 has decided that this burden should be supported by a “troika”, consisting of the past, present and future presidents of the G20. This year the troika consists of Brazil, the past chair; South Africa, the current chair; and the US, the future chair.

The role of the troika varies depending on the identity of the current chair and how assertive it wishes to be in driving the G20 process. It will also be influenced by how active the other two members of the troika wish to be.

The troika helps ensure some continuity from one G20 year to another. This is important because there is a significant carryover of issues on the G20 agenda from one year to the next. The troika therefore creates the potential for the G20 president to focus on the issues of most interest to it over a three-year period rather than just for one year.

How successful has the G20 process been?

The G20 is essentially a self-appointed group which has designated itself as the “premier forum for international economic cooperation”.

The G20 was first brought together during the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s. At that time, it was limited to a forum in which ministers of finance and central bank governors could meet to discuss the most important international economic and financial issues, such as the Asian financial crisis.

The G20 was elevated to the level of heads of state and government at the time of the 2008 global financial crisis.

The G20 tends to work well as a cooperative forum when the world is confronting an economic crisis. Thus, the G20 was a critical forum in which countries could discuss and agree on coordinating actions to deal with the global financial crisis in 2008-9.

It has performed less well when confronted with other types of crises. For example, it was found wanting in dealing with the COVID pandemic.

It has also proven to be less effective, although not necessarily totally ineffective, when there is no crisis. So, for example, the G20 has been useful in helping address relatively technical issues such as developing international standards on particular financial regulatory issues or improving the functioning of multilateral development banks.

On other more political issues, for example climate, food security, and funding the UN’s sustainable development goals, it has been less effective.

There’s one less obvious, but nevertheless important, benefit. The G20 offers officials from participating countries the chance to interact with their counterparts from other G20 countries. As a result, they come to know and understand each other better, which helps foster cooperation between states on issues of common interest.

It also ensures that when appropriate, these officials know whom to contact in other countries and this may help mitigate the risk of misunderstanding and conflict.

These crisis management and other benefits would be lost if the G20 were to stop functioning. And there is currently no alternative to the G20 in the sense of a forum where the leading states in the world, which may differ on many important issues, can meet on a relatively informal basis to discuss issues of mutual interest.

Importantly, the withdrawal of one G20 state, even the most powerful, should not prevent the remaining participants from using the G20 to promote international cooperation on key global challenges.

In this way it can help manage the risk of conflict in a complex global environment.

Source: The Conversation AFRICA

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

COP16 Agrees to Raise Funds to Protect Biodiversity

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Conferences, COP16, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, TerraViva United Nations

COP16

COP16 President Susana Muhamad. Parties to the UN Biodiversity adopted decisions to implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Photo credit: IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin/Mike Muzurakis.

COP16 President Susana Muhamad. Parties to the UN Biodiversity adopted decisions to implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Credit: IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin/Mike Muzurakis.

BLOOMINGTON, U.S.A & ROME, Feb 28 2025 (IPS) – The second round of the UN Biodiversity Conference, COP16, concluded in the early hours of Friday, February 28 in Rome, with an agreement to raise the funds needed to protect biodiversity.

COP16 was suspended in Cali, Colombia, in 2024 without any major financial support decision to support biodiversity conservation. But in the second round of the conference in Rome, Italy, governments agreed on a financial strategy to address the action targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), which was adopted in 2022 with the aim of closing the biodiversity finance gap.

In a final document, all parties to the biodiversity convention agreed to mobilize resources to close the global biodiversity finance gap and achieve the target of mobilizing at least 200 billion dollars a year by 2030, including international flows of USD 20 billion per year by 2025. Which will be rising to USD 30 billion by 2030.

In the closing press briefing in the early hours of Friday, COP16 President Susana Muhamad said the Rome conference came to a successful end. “It was a remarkable achievement of being able to approve all the decisions, especially the most contentious, difficult decisions.” She said, “And not in a way that made the parties feel that they were compromising their main objectives.”

The agreement includes the commitment to establish permanent arrangements for the financial mechanism in accordance with Articles 21 and 39 of the Convention while working on improving existing financial instruments. It also includes a roadmap of the activities and decision-making milestones until 2030.

COP16 president Muhamad also said that the agreement between governments in Rome will help bring the agendas of biodiversity and climate change together. In November, Belem in the Amazon rainforest region of Brazil will be hosting the UN climate conference, COP30.

“The importance of these resolutions that have been approved in Cali and also here of the cooperation between the different conventions,” she said.

The biodiversity COP also adopted a Strategy for Resource Mobilization to mobilize the funds needed for implementation of the KMGBF. Which includes public finance from national and subnational governments, private and philanthropic resources, multilateral development banks, blended finance, and other approaches.

The Cali Fund

The Rome gathering of parties also agreed to establish a dedicated fund for fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Research (DSI), known as the Cali Fund.

The fund was launched on 26 February 2025—at least 50 percent of its resources will be allocated to indigenous peoples and local communities, recognizing their role as custodians of biodiversity. Large companies and other major entities benefiting commercially from the use of DSI are expected to contribute a portion of their profits or revenues in sectors and subsectors highly dependent on the use of DSI.

Pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, plant and animal breeding, agricultural biotechnology, industrial biotechnology, laboratory equipment associated with the sequencing and use of digital sequence information on genetic resources, and information, scientific and technical services related to digital sequence information on genetic resources, including artificial intelligence. Academic, public databases, public research institutions and companies operating in the concerned sectors but not relying on DSI are exempt from contributions to the Cali Fund.

The fund is part of a multilateral mechanism on the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources adopted at COP15 in December 2022 alongside the KMGBF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

The Impact of US Funding Freeze on Civil Society Around the World

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Gina Romero is UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of assembly and of association

Gina Romero

BOGOTA, Colombia, Feb 27 2025 (IPS) – The U.S. administration has the prerogative to review and adjust public expenditure policies, including foreign aid. However, this power must be exercised responsibly, adhering to national and international legal frameworks, including the principles of human rights law.

The recent decisions by the Trump administration to freeze federal grants and loans, including foreign aid, have raised serious concerns about the implications for local, national and international associations.

These measures, which followed executive orders aimed at “reevaluating” U.S. foreign assistance and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, risk undermining the freedoms that are vital to democratic societies.

In a letter sent to the USG, 35 UN experts indicate that the freeze on funding and stop work orders has been described as a drastic measure that could have a far-reaching impact on the ability of individuals and organizations to advocate for and protect human rights.

The decision to stop work on federal projects, including critical programs funded through foreign aid, is having an immediate effect on vulnerable communities and human rights defenders worldwide. The ripple effects are particularly severe for marginalized groups who depend on these resources for essential services like healthcare, education, access to food and housing.

These measures also disproportionately affect organizations working on gender equality, LGBTIQ issues, reproductive rights, and poverty alleviation, which are already underfunded and face significant challenges in the global South.

The implications of these measures affect different type of associations, including small and medium-sized businesses, not-for-profit entities, civil society organizations, universities, faith-based groups, and even scientific research institutions that rely on U.S. funding to carry out their work.

The speed and scale of the funding freeze have left these entities unable to fulfil their missions. Some have already been forced to lay off staff, suspend vital programs, and even close their doors, leading to the shrinking of civic space in countries where they have long been key players in advocating for democracy, human rights, and sustainable development.

The Need for Proportionality, Transparency, and Legal Compliance

While the goal of effective public expenditure is commendable, its success depends on a transparent and inclusive process that is in line with legal standards, including international human rights law. These measures, which were implemented with little consultation or clear communication, have not adhered to the principle of proportionality, which is enshrined in both domestic and international law.

The absence of transparent guidelines, accountability mechanisms, respect for due process, and avenues for appeal is troubling, especially when the measures have such wide-reaching consequences.

International human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is a signatory, guarantees the right to freedom of association. This right not only protects the ability to form associations but also to carry out the activities for which those associations were established.

The freedom to access resources is a critical component of this right, as it enables organizations to seek, receive, and use resources from a variety of sources, both domestic and international. When funding is denied, it effectively denies organizations the means to operate, undermining their ability to fulfil their missions.

The freeze on U.S. funding, without due process or clear guidelines, is in direct conflict with these principles. The lack of clarity on how decisions are made or how organizations can challenge them undermines the rights of associations.

Furthermore, the failure to involve stakeholders—including U.S. civil society organizations—in the decision-making process is a violation of the principles of democratic governance and transparency.

The Global Impact of U.S. Funding Decisions

The far-reaching consequences of the funding freeze are most acutely felt in countries where U.S. aid supports critical initiatives in areas such as healthcare, education, peacebuilding, and human rights protection.

For example, programs addressing sexual and reproductive health are at immediate risk of cessation. Similarly, efforts to combat gender-based violence, support displaced communities, and provide education to marginalized groups are being disrupted.

In addition to these humanitarian concerns, the freeze also threatens to derail long-standing initiatives aimed at promoting democracy, good governance, and the rule of law. U.S. foreign aid has long been a pillar of support for civil society organizations that monitor elections, promote anti-corruption efforts, and advocate for human rights protections, among others.

The suspension of funding to these programs undermines not only the work of these organizations but also the broader goal of promoting democratic values worldwide.

The U.S. government’s decision to cut funding to programs that address discrimination—particularly those related to DEI initiatives—has sparked additional controversy. These measures have the potential to undermine efforts to protect individuals from workplace discrimination and ensure equal access to opportunities.

By targeting DEI programs, the administration is signalling a shift away from policies designed to address structural inequalities, which could have long-term negative effects on social justice worlwide.

The Stigmatization of Civil Society Organizations

Another concerning consequence of these decisions is the stigmatization of associations managing and receiving U.S. funding. The administration’s rhetoric has painted many civil society organizations as threats to national security.

This kind of stigmatization is dangerous because its fosters hostility toward groups that are engaged in legitimate advocacy for development, human rights and democratic governance.

Also, it places these organizations—and their staff—at risk of harassment, intimidation, and even physical violence, particularly in countries where civil society organizations are already under threat. Stigmatization is the entry door for repression and violence.

This pattern of vilification has serious consequences. As I noted in my more recent report to the UN General Assembly, negative narratives about civil society organizations and other associations deepen the stigmatization of activists and organizations, leading to increased repression, physical attacks, and online harassment.

These dynamics create an environment in which activists and civil society organizations are seen not as contributors to public good but as enemies.

The Path Forward: Upholding Human Rights and Civil Society

The decision to freeze funding may have been motivated by a desire to ensure more effective public spending, but it risks doing lasting damage to civil society. The lack of transparency, failure to follow due process, and disregard for international human rights law make these measures problematic.

To ensure that the U.S. upholds its commitment to human rights and the freedom of association, it is imperative that the U.S. government must urgently comply with the recent court orders, pay invoices, reconsider the impact of its freeze on foreign aid and federal grants and to compensate for the damage done. Besides, future decisions regarding foreign aid and public funding be made with greater clarity, accountability, and respect for the rule of law.

The U.S. must also recognize that associations in general and civil society organizations in particular are critical to the realization of human rights. These organizations play an essential role in advocating for the protection of fundamental freedoms, including the rights to health, education, and social justice.

Freezing funding and issuing stop work orders without clear and transparent procedures not only undermines these organizations but also threatens to dismantle vital systems of support for marginalized communities.

It is crucial that the U.S. government ensures that future funding decisions are made with respect for international human rights standards, that organizations are able to access the resources they need to carry out their work, and that the right to freedom of association is upheld.

In conclusion, the freeze on U.S. funding represents a significant threat to the functioning of civil society organizations and to the protection of human rights globally. While the government’s decision to review public expenditure is within its rights, the approach taken thus far raises serious concerns about transparency, proportionality, and adherence to international human rights law.

To avoid further harm, the U.S. must prioritize the protection of civil society, uphold the right to freedom of association, and ensure that any policy changes are made in a manner that respects the fundamental freedoms on which democracy depends.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source