How Rare Rhino, Tiger Conservation Has Locked Out Indigenous Communities

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Civil Society, Conservation, Environment, Food and Agriculture, Headlines, Natural Resources, TerraViva United Nations

Conservation

A scene after the Press Conference by Greater Kaziranga Land and Human Rights protection committee with people holding the Press Conference banner. Credit: Pranab Doyle

Members of the Greater Kaziranga Land and Human
Rights protection committee. Credit: Pranab Doyle

NEW DELHI, Mar 21 2025 (IPS) – While a local community prides itself on caring for a sensitive biodiverse region, and despite centuries-long stewardship of the Kaziranga, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, the authorities rebuff—sometimes aggressively—their attempts to remain involved.

Now the broader community, living close to tiger conservancies, has the threat of a wholesale eviction to contend with too.

“We take pride in the fact that the communities around Kaziranga have sacrificed so much to preserve this special biodiverse region. It is one of the areas where communities have sacrificed to protect one-horned rhinoceroses, tigers, and elephants and share a symbiotic relationship with them,” Pranab Doyle, convenor of Greater Kaziranga Land and Human Rights Committee and founder of All Kaziranga Affected Communities’ Rights Committee, says.

“But the forest department or the modern conservation industry is very antithetical to the way communities look at shared spaces.”

Kaziranga, a national park and a tiger project in Assam, India, is famous for the conservation of the Indian one-horned rhinoceros.

According to an article published in 2019, 102 one-horned rhinoceroses were killed in various parks in India between 2008 and 2018. There are also statistics for the number of poachers killed (40) and arrested (194). A more recent article says that in 2022 no rhinos were killed in the park. Rhinos in Asia and Africa are often poached for their horns, which are used in traditional medicine in some Asian countries.

Despite the success in combating poaching, the community faces conflict due to the wildlife authorities’ strong-arm tactics.

The community says there was a time when wildlife sanctuaries were used for grazing animals, as playgrounds, and for food baskets, and the community shared their crops with the animals living there.

However, because of the power vested in the forestry department, only wildlife or the department’s agenda is given consideration, the community says.

“This has led to a very militarized process in Kaziranga where multiple lines of military establishments are set in the name of protecting wildlife. There are special task forces, forest battalions, commando task forces, and the use of modern techniques of vigilance and armory in the name of poaching,” Doyle says.

Consequently, authorities often resort to victimizing people.

In 2010, a special power was given to the Indian Forest Service, where they were given immunity from prosecution when confronting poachers.

“In the year 2010, the Government conferred the power to use arms by forest officials and immunity to forest staff in the use of firearms under Section 197 (2) of the CrPC, 1973,” according to a press statement released in 2017.

Doyle disputes the official statistics and claims that since 2010, more than 100 people have died because of this law. He says that although there should be executive magistrate inquiries into it legally, there have been none.

According to the Oxpeckers Investigative Environmental Journalism website, investigations have included probes into poaching syndicates.

The strong-arm tactics used by the authorities result in a tense relationship.

“We have been constantly fighting against it, and as a result, the forest department treats us as their enemies. Instead of looking at us as people whose rights have been violated and giving us the opportunity to dialogue, they are treating us as criminals and have put multiple cases on us,” Doyle says. “We cannot go fishing in our own lakes, cultivate our own lands, and collect some basic minor forest products, which are traditionally a part of our culture, thereby annihilating everything that is our identity.”

According to the community, the authorities often cancel public meetings despite prior commitments and retaliate with legal action when pressured through mass agitation.

What is more concerning is the eviction of indigenous communities from around tiger protection reserves by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA).

Doyle claims that they want to evict 64,000 families from 54 tiger reserves in the country. Since 1972, the Indian government has evicted 56,247 families from 751 villages across 50 tiger reserves, according to the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) data from 2019. The move has led to petitions and protests.

He says the law doesn’t give them the authority to pass an order of this magnitude.

“We as communities who live with tigers, elephants, and rhinos and have been living there for generations, strongly demand this order be revoked. It should be immediately taken into cognizance by all the bodies that claim to protect Indigenous rights and make the forest department accountable for it.”

Dr. Ashok Dhawale, President, of the All India Kisan Sabha and Polit Bureau Member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), says the exclusionary forest conservation measures that began during British colonization continued after independence.

“The (colonialist) government took control of the forests, seizing them from our tribal people. Although the forests had always belonged to the tribes, who protected them for generations, independence brought little change.

People expected that the forest lands would be returned to the tribal communities, but what was enacted was the Forest Conservation Act of 1980.

This law focused on conserving forests, not on protecting the rights of the people who had safeguarded them for centuries.

“To address this historical injustice—explicitly acknowledged in the act’s preamble—the Forest Rights Act was passed by Parliament in 2006 after immense struggles across the country. This landmark legislation sought to ensure that Adivasis (tribals) were granted ownership of the lands they have tilled and nurtured for generations.”

But since then, India has introduced laws and amendments that undermine the rights of tribal and forest communities.  The Jan Vishwas—People’s Promise, (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, aims to decriminalize and rationalize offenses to promote trust-based governance and facilitate ease of living and doing business. However, it also significantly enhances the powers of forest officers, raising concerns about its impact on the rights and livelihoods of these vulnerable communities.

Another major amendment, the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), 1980, now known as Van Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan Adhiniyam, enforced from December 1, 2023, has emphasized national security in the guise of implementing projects of national importance leading to heavy militarization in the respective areas, Dhawale says.

Madhuri Krishnaswami from Jagrit Adivasi Dalit Sangathan (Awakened Tribal Dalit Community), Madhya Pradesh, says that all these legislative changes are designed to undermine the Forest Rights Act 2006.

Krishnaswami says that capital-driven business expansion harms the climate, yet ecologically sensitive communities are unfairly burdened with the blame.

Doyle adds that the relationship of indigenous communities with the land is deeply rooted.

“The survival and health of the land and environment depend on people acting as stewards to care for them—a fact proven throughout history. Instead of empowering communities to preserve and improve their environment, the state is evicting them under the pretext of climate degradation. This approach must be entirely rethought and redesigned to prioritize and support the very people who hold the solutions to combating climate change.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Civil Society: The Last Line of Defence in a World of Cascading Crises

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Change, Crime & Justice, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Featured, Gender, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Inequality, LGBTQ, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Bryan Dozier/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay / LONDON, Mar 20 2025 (IPS) – In a world of overlapping crises, from brutal conflicts and democratic regression to climate breakdown and astronomic levels of economic inequality, one vital force stands as a shield and solution: civil society. This is the sobering but ultimately hopeful message of CIVICUS’s 14th annual State of Civil Society Report, which provides a wide-ranging civil society perspective on the state of the world as it stands in early 2025.

The report paints an unflinching portrait of today’s reality: one where civilians are being slaughtered in Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine and elsewhere, with perpetrators increasingly confident they’ll face no consequences. A global realignment appears underway, with the Trump administration dismantling longstanding international alliances and seemingly determined to reward acts of aggression. Any semblance of a rules-based international order is crumbling as transactional diplomacy and the dangerous principle that might makes right become normalised.

Climate change continues to accelerate. 2024 was the hottest year on record, yet fossil fuel companies keep banking record profits, even as they scale back renewable energy plans in favour of further extraction. The world’s economies are reaching new levels of dysfunction, marked by soaring inequality and worsening precarity, while billionaires accumulate unprecedented wealth. Tech and media tycoons are no longer content just to influence policy; increasingly they want to control politics, raising the risk of state capture by oligarchs. Democracy is under siege, with right-wing populism, nationalism and autocratic rule surging. Democratic dissent is being crushed.

These compounding crises create a perfect storm that threatens the foundations of human rights and democratic freedoms. But in this precarious moment, precisely when civil society is needed most, it faces an accelerating funding crisis. Major donor agencies have cut back support and aligned funding with narrow national interests, while many states have passed laws to restrict international funding for civil society. The malicious and reckless USAID funding freeze has come as a particularly heavy blow, placing many civil society groups at existential risk.

At times like these it’s worth thinking about what the world would look like without civil society. Human rights violations would flourish unchecked. Democracy would erode even faster, leaving people with no meaningful agency to shape decisions affecting their lives. Climate change would accelerate past every tipping point. Women would lose bodily autonomy. LGBTQI+ people would be forced back into the closet. Excluded minorities would routinely face violence with no recourse. Whole communities would live in fear.

As events during 2024 and early 2025 have shown, even under extraordinary pressure, civil society continues to prove its immense value. In conflict zones, grassroots groups are filling critical gaps in humanitarian response, documenting violations and advocating for civilian protection. In numerous countries, civil society has successfully mobilised to prevent democratic backsliding, ensure fair elections and challenge authoritarian power grabs.

Through strategic litigation, civil society has established groundbreaking legal precedents forcing governments to take more ambitious climate action. Struggles for gender equality and LGBTQI+ rights keep being won through persistent advocacy, despite intensifying backlash. Across diverse contexts, civil society has employed a wide range of ever-evolving and creative tactics – from mass mobilisation to legal action – and proved it can and will hold the line even as civic space restrictions intensify and funding is slashed.

The message is clear: civil society represents a vital source of resistance, resilience and hope. Without it, many more people would be living much worse lives.

But if civil society is to keep doing this vital work, it may need to reinvent itself. The funding crisis demands innovation, because even before the USAID catastrophe, the donor-reliant model had reached its limits. It has long been criticised for reproducing economic and political power imbalances while constraining civil society’s ability to confront entrenched power. More diverse and sustainable resourcing models are urgently needed, from community-based funding approaches to ethical enterprise activities that generate unrestricted income.

To thrive in this changing and volatile context, civil society will have to embrace a movement mindset characterised by distributed leadership, nimble decision-making and the ability to mobilise broad constituencies rapidly. Some of the most successful civil society actions in recent years have shown these qualities, from youth-led climate movements to horizontally organised feminist campaigns that connect people across class, race and geographic barriers.

Civil society must prioritise authentic community connections, particularly with those most excluded from power. This means going beyond traditional consultations to develop genuine relationships with communities, including those outside urban centres or disadvantaged by digital divides. The strength of the relationships civil society can nurture should be one key measure of success.

Equally crucial is the development of compelling narratives, and infrastructure to help share them, that speak to people’s legitimate anxieties while offering inclusive, rights-based alternatives to the widely spread and seductive but dangerous appeals of populism and authoritarianism. These narratives must connect universal values to local contexts and concerns.

In this current cascade of global crises, civil society can no longer hope for a return to business as usual. A more movement-oriented, community-driven and financially independent civil society will be better equipped to withstand threats and more effectively realise its collective mission of building a more just, equal, democratic and sustainable world.

The 2025 State of Civil Society Report offers both a warning and a call to action for all concerned about the shape of today’s world. Civil society represents humanity’s best hope for navigating the treacherous waters ahead. In these dark times, civil society remains a beacon of light. It must continue to shine.

Inés M. Pousadela is Senior Research Specialist and Andrew Firmin is Editor-in-Chief at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation. They are co-directors and writers for CIVICUS Lens and co-authors of the State of Civil Society Report.

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

  Source

Why “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace” Advocates Cling to Genocide Denial

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Middle East & North Africa, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Mar 20 2025 (IPS) – Israel’s renewed assault on Gaza comes several months after both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch issued reports concluding without equivocation that Israel was engaged in genocide. But very few members of Congress dare to acknowledge that reality, while their silence and denials scream out complicity.

In a New York Times interview last weekend, the Senate’s Democratic leader Chuck Schumer put deep moral evasion on display. Among the “slogans” that are used when criticizing Israel, he said, “The one that bothers me the most is genocide. Genocide is described as a country or some group tries to wipe out a whole race of people, a whole nationality of people. So, if Israel was not provoked and just invaded Gaza and shot at random Palestinians, Gazans, that would be genocide. That’s not what happened.”

Schumer is wrong.

The international Genocide Convention defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” — with such actions as killing, “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” and “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.”

Such actions by Israel have been accompanied by clear evidence of genocidal intent — underscored by hundreds of statements by Israeli leaders and policy shapers. Scarcely three months into the Israeli war on Gaza, scholars Raz Segal and Penny Green pointed out, a database compiled by the Law for Palestine human rights organization “meticulously documents and collates 500 statements that embody the Israeli state’s intention to commit genocide and incitement to genocide since October 7, 2023.”

Those statements “by people with command authority — state leaders, war cabinet ministers and senior army officers — and by other politicians, army officers, journalists and public figures reveal the widespread commitment in Israel to the genocidal destruction of Gaza.”

Since March 2, the United Nations reports, “Israeli authorities have halted the entry of all lifesaving supplies, including food, medicine, fuel and cooking gas, for 2.1 million people.” Now, Israel’s horrendous crusade to destroy Palestinian people in Gaza — using starvation as a weapon of war and inflicting massive bombardment on civilians — has resumed after a two-month ceasefire.

On Tuesday, children were among the more than 400 people killed by Israeli airstrikes, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proclaimed that “this is only the beginning.”

It’s almost impossible to find a Republican in Congress willing to criticize the pivotal U.S. backing for Israel’s methodical killing of civilians. It’s much easier to find GOP lawmakers who sound bloodthirsty.

A growing number of congressional Democrats — still way too few — have expressed opposition. In mid-November, 17 Senate Democrats and two independents voted against offensive arms sales to Israel. But in reality, precious few Democratic legislators really pushed to impede such weapons shipments until after last November’s election. Deference to President Biden was the norm as he actively enabled the genocide to continue.

This week, renewal of Israel’s systematic massacres of Palestinian civilians has hardly sparked a congressional outcry. Silence or platitudes have been the usual.

For “pro-Israel, pro-peace” J Street, the largest and most influential liberal Zionist organization in the United States, evasions have remained along with expressions of anguish. On Tuesday the group’s founder and president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, issued a statement decrying “the decision by Netanyahu to reignite this horrific war” and calling for use of “all possible leverage to pressure each side to restore the ceasefire.”

But, as always, J Street did not call for the U.S. government to stop providing the weapons that make the horrific war possible.

That’s where genocide denial comes in.

For J Street, as for members of Congress who’ve kept voting to enable the carnage with the massive U.S.-to-Israel weapons pipeline, support for that pipeline requires pretending that genocide isn’t really happening.

While writing an article for The Nation (“Has J Street Gone Along With Genocide?”), I combed through 132 news releases from J Street between early October 2023 and the start of the now-broken ceasefire in late January of this year. I found that on the subject of whether Israel was committing genocide, J Street “aligned itself completely with the position of the U.S. and Israeli governments.”

J Street still maintains the position that it took last May, when the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to halt its military offensive in Rafah. “J Street continues to reject the allegation of genocide in this case,” a news release said.

It would be untenable to publicly acknowledge the reality of Israeli genocide while continuing to support shipping more weaponry for the genocide. That’s why those who claim to be “pro-peace” while supporting more weapons for war must deny the reality of genocide in Gaza.

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. The paperback edition of his latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, includes an afterword about the Gaza war.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

New Survey: US Funding Freeze Triggers Global Crisis in Human Rights and Democracy

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Gender, Global, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Distribution of rice for vulnerable communities in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, by USAID, PICRYL.

THE HAGUE, Netherlands, Mar 19 2025 (IPS) – A new survey carried out by the EU System for an Enabling Environment (EU SEE) network exposes the impact of the US funding freeze on civil society organisations (CSOs) in over 50 countries. With 67% of surveyed organisations directly impacted and 40% of them losing between 25-50% of their budgets, the abrupt halt in funding is disrupting critical human rights, democracy, gender equality and health programs, leaving vulnerable communities without essential support.

Explore the survey in this link

Key Findings:

– The decision by the US to reduce foreign aid funding has become an opportunity to further limit civic space. CSOs are increasingly facing public attacks fuelled by misinformation and negative narratives, along with restrictive regulatory frameworks and heightened scrutiny, according to the new data.

– 67% of surveyed CSOs by EU SEE are directly affected, with 40% of them losing 25-50% of their budgets, forcing them to reduce programs, cut staff or close operations.

– Human rights, democracy and gender equality programs face the most severe disruptions with a real risk of setting the world decades behind.

– Many organisations lack alternative funding sources and risk shutting down permanently.

“Across the world, the immense contributions of civil society to democracy, the rule of law, good governance, policy making and in advancing the rights of excluded voices continue to be undermined by actions that constrain their enabling environment. The time is now for joint action with civil society to push back on these restrictions by advocating for open spaces and progressive laws that promote and protect rights for all,” says David Kode, Global Programme Manager EU SEE.

What Needs to Happen?

The EU SEE network urges governments, donors and policymakers to take immediate action in the following ways:

– Emergency financial support to stabilize affected CSOs
– Stronger donor coordination to ensure sustained support for democracy, human rights, and media freedom programmes.
– Flexible and sustainable funding mechanisms that allow CSOs to adapt.
– Support civil society organisations to develop stronger advocacy & communication strategies to counter narrative backlash.

“If we don’t act now, vital programs which are the direct result of civil society’s impact, supporting democracy, human rights, and communities will disappear,” warns Sarah Strack, Forus Director.

A message echoed by Gina Romero, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, in an interview with CIVICUS: “These measures are a stake in the heart of the right to freedom of association, especially because of the way the decision is made: radical, surprising, with no possibility of gradual action, with little transparency and zero participation of the affected actors.” CIVICUS has also conducted a survey on the impact of the changing global funding landscape for civil society among its members around the world.

The US funding freeze, along with the insecurities and “unknowns” it is triggering, is already having far-reaching consequences, and its long-term effects could be even more devastating. The data is clear: civil society is at risk, and the time to act is now.

Read the full report here: https://eusee.hivos.org/document/the-impact-of-the-us-funding-freeze-on-civil-society/

Tanja Brok, is EU SEE Communications Lead

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Musk is Wrong. Empathy is Not a Weakness

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

BANGKOK, Thailand, Mar 19 2025 (IPS) – “The fundamental weakness is empathy,” Musk recently told radio podcast host Joe Rogan. “There is a bug, which is the empathy response.”

As Musk has established himself as at least the second most powerful person in an administration seeking a wholesale remaking of institutions, rules and norms, what he said matters, because it encapsulates a political plan. What the Project 2025 report set out in over 900 turgid pages, Musk’s remark captures in a simple pithy mantra for the social media age.

Credit: U.S. Air Force / Trevor Cokley

And as (let us acknowledge it) the Trump revolution is currently popular with at least large parts of the US electorate, and some overseas too, what Musk said summarises also the worldview of a social-cultural moment and movement on the march.

Core to the argument against empathy is the claim that ethical and practical considerations run counter to each other. The guardrails of rules and norms about caring for others, it argues, don’t only hold us back, they tie our hands behind our back.

Morality is for losers, it suggests, and who wants to lose? Only when we cut ourselves free of the burden of looking after and looking out for others, it posits, can we soar. The practical applications of this worldview are all encompassing.

They include the ripping up of international cooperation, the gutting of life-saving programmes for people in poverty abroad and at home, and the violating of due process for protestors, prisoners, migrants, minorities and anyone (who can be made to be) unpopular. That’s not how it ends, that’s how it starts.

A collapse of empathy would be an existential threat to the world. Hannah Arendt, reflecting on her witness to, and escape from, the rise of fascism in the 1930s, concluded “the death of empathy is one of the earliest and most telling signs of a culture about to fall into barbarism.” The stakes are too high for us to fail.

So how can we respond to the argument against empathy?

One way would be to stick only to ethics, arguing, simply, “it is our duty to sacrifice for others, and failing to do so is just wrong!” This has driven what has come to be known as the charity narrative.

This approach seems like a flawed strategy because by refusing to engage in the practicality conversation, it concedes it to the cynics and nihilists, accepting the framing of morality as a kind of self-immolation that brings only noble suffering and that cares only about stances, not consequences.

Another way would be to give up on ethics, and make only the most selfish arguments for doing good, like “we should not show ourselves to be unreliable because that would get us knocked off the top perch by our rivals when we must be Number One!” This too seems like a flawed strategy because it reinforces variations of dog-eat-dog as the only frames for success.

What both of those approaches get wrong is that they accept the frame that ethics and practicality are separate. Older wisdoms have long understood them as inseparable. What can in current debates seem like a rivalrous relationship between “what is good?” and “what is smart?”, or “what is moral?” and “what is wise?”, we often find when we look more deeply is not.

That often, the way in which societies developed moral principles was that they are ways to abstract what people have learnt from experience works. When, for example, people say in the African principle of Ubuntu “I am because you are”, that is not just a moral or theological point, it is literally true.

It is what public health teaches us: that I am healthy because my neighbour is healthy. (Even Musk was forced to concede to public pressure on this with his partial admission that “with USAID, one of the things we cancelled, accidentally, was Ebola prevention, and I think we all want Ebola prevention.”

Fearful of the reaction to his initial cancellation of Ebola prevention, he even claimed, falsely, to have fixed that “mistake” straight away, but what matters here is that the case against Ebola prevention collapsed so fast because interdependence was so quickly understood.)

So too, history has continuously shown that I am only secure when my neighbour is secure, and that I thrive when my neighbour thrives. Perhaps, for oligarchs, a ruthless, rule-less, world can work. (Perhaps not, however, when the fall-out comes between the “two bros”.)

But for the 99.9% of us, as John Donne wrote, “no man is an island”. We are interdependent and inseparable. Alone we are weak but together we are strong. Or, as the brilliant bleak joke of old ascribed to Benjamin Franklin put it, “we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall hang separately.”

The mutual interest argument, which highlights to people “we each have a stake in the well-being of all, looking out for others is not losing,” does not take us away from values, it reinforces them.

“There is an interrelated structure of reality. We are all tied in an inescapable network of mutuality. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be.” That was Revd Martin Luther King in the Letter from Birmingham Jail, and yet he was making an argument that you could say is the argument of mutual interest.

Empathy is not pity. It is rooted in mutuality. As as an ethical frame, it looks at a person in need, perhaps a person that some others don’t fully see, and says straight away “I ought to connect, as that could have been me.” Interdependence, as a practical frame, reflects on the situation of that person, and comes through that reflection to understand that “I need to connect, as that could next time be me.”

Morality and wisdom guide us in the same direction; and as the fastest way there is empathy, that makes empathy not humanity’s weakness but our superpower.

Ben Phillips is the author of How to Fight Inequality.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

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