The Future of Food Security Lies Beyond COP29’s Negotiation Tables

Biodiversity, Climate Action, Climate Change, Climate Change Justice, Conferences, COP29, Economy & Trade, Environment, Food and Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition, Food Sustainability, Global, Green Economy, Headlines, Natural Resources, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion



 

ASUNCION, Paraguay, Oct 21 2024 (IPS) – Climate change has thrown our food systems into chaos. Extreme weather events and dramatic climate variations are hammering food production and supply chains across the world. As global leaders gear up for COP29, there’s plenty of buzz about climate action. But can we really expect these slow-moving, bureaucratic negotiations to deliver tangible and swift results to decarbonize and insulate our agri-food systems? Most likely not. But do not despair. While the COP29 talks unfold, crucial climate solutions for transforming food systems are already taking root on the ground.


Jesus Quintana

In the exhilarating, Oscar-winning movie “Everything Everywhere All at Once”, the leading characters are surrounded by overwhelming chaos and complexity. Yet, within this confusion, small actions, and the determination of people behind them, spark powerful change. In stunning similarity, the climate crisis —particularly in food systems— feels like an insurmountable challenge with everything, droughts, floods, storms, hunger and other interlocked crises, striking everywhere, and all at once.

Urgent action is needed. Where do we turn? COP 29 will likely be stuck in slow-paced discussions. Meanwhile, transformative solutions are taking shape on the ground. Across the globe, communities, farmers, sponsors and innovators are quietly building resilience in their food systems, demonstrating that true progress often emerges from the margins, not the center of chaos. Just like in the metaphoric film, finding purpose and action amid disorder is where meaningful change begins.

Grassroots solutions for climate-resilient food systems

While world leaders talk and officials try to turn decisions into workable policies, local communities are already acting. Across the Global South, where the effects of climate change are being felt most acutely, smallholder farmers and grassroots organizations are implementing innovative practices that build resilience to climate shocks.

In regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Latin America, agroecology is gaining traction as a powerful tool for both mitigating and adapting to climate change. This farming approach, which draws on traditional knowledge and emphasizes sustainable, low-emission methods, is helping communities adapt to changing weather patterns while improving food security. Agroecology promotes biodiversity, improves soil health, and reduces dependency on chemical inputs, all of which enhance the resilience of agricultural systems to climate impacts and helps decarbonize them.

The private sector’s role in transforming food systems

Community movements and local governments are playing a vital role, but the private sector is also increasingly driving climate solutions in food systems. Market forces are pushing companies to innovate in ways that reduce agriculture’s climate footprint. The plant-based food revolution is an example of how the private sector is responding to the need for more sustainable diets that lower greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, alternative protein food-tech startups are leading the way towards a sustainable and tasty food future. These unconventional substitutes for traditional livestock farming offer a glimpse of how innovation can drive systemic changes in food production.

In addition to product innovation, there is growing corporate investment in regenerative agriculture—a practice that rebuilds soil health, captures carbon, and improves biodiversity. Large food companies, driven by consumer demand for sustainable products, are making commitments to source ingredients from regenerative farms, contributing to both climate mitigation and long-term food security.

Climate finance outside the COP processes

One of the most significant barriers to transforming food systems in the face of climate change is the lack of adequate financing. While COPs have made important commitments, such as the creation of the Green Climate Fund, the flow of funds has been slow and insufficient to meet the needs of vulnerable communities. In response, philanthropy and private finance are stepping in.

Some patrons and foundations are funding initiatives that help smallholder farmers adapt to climate change, while impact investors are supporting agri-tech innovations that boost productivity in a sustainable way. These efforts, although outside the COP framework, are critical in scaling climate-resilient food systems and achieving global net-zero targets.

Real solutions are happening now

While COP29 will no doubt produce important global agreements, the truth is that many of the solutions to the climate crisis—especially when it comes to food—are already in motion. Farmers, local communities, philanthropies and private companies are building a food system that is more resilient, sustainable, and low-carbon.

Global leaders must take notice. Yes, we need ambitious targets and international commitments. But we also need to support and scale the grassroots movements and private-sector innovations that are already leading the way. Real food security in a climate-challenged world will not be achieved through top-down solutions alone—it will come from empowering those on the frontlines.

As COP29 approaches, let’s not lose sight of what is happening beyond the negotiation tables. The future of food security depends on action today, led by those who can’t afford to wait.

Jesus Quintana is Senior Advisor on Sustainable Food Systems and former Director General, CIAT

IPS UN Bureau

 

Civil Society Fights Against Budget Cuts Amid Calls for “Aid” Reform

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Change, Conferences, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Financial Crisis, Global, Headlines, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Sarah Strack is Forus Director

“Woman crosses a local business in the streets of Kathmandu, Nepal” (Both Nomads)

NEW YORK, Oct 16 2024 (IPS) – Multiple conflicts, the climate emergency and other crises are destabilising many parts of the world and intensifying the strain on the resources needed to finance the global sustainable development agenda. Amid these challenges, data from 2023, shows that Official Development Assistance (ODA) reached a record-breaking US$223.7 billion, up from US$211 billion the previous year, according to Eurodad.


However, if one looks beyond the mere figures, worrying trends are emerging. Major donors like Germany and France are reducing their development budget and several countries are already announcing cuts for 2025.

This trend has prompted debate over the direction and quality of global aid, especially at a time when ODA is more crucial than ever in addressing global crises.

In France, with the campaign #StopàlabaisseAPD (#StoptheODACuts), NGOs are mobilising against further reductions in the 2025 budget, warning that such cuts could undermine international solidarity efforts and hit hardest those who are already left behind.

Coordination SUD, a coalition of 180 French NGOs, is raising the alarm over the potential impact of these cuts, which follow a 13% reduction in 2024, and which is seeing ODA funds slashed again by over 20% in 2025, as per the finance bill presented this Thursday

The first victims of this measure will be the most vulnerable populations. “ODA enables local and international NGOs to work daily with and alongside the most fragile communities,” reminds Olivier Bruyeron, President of Coordination SUD.

“Official development assistance has been used as a political football over recent years,” says Bond, the national platform of NGOs in the UK.

As a national civil society platform, they work to ensure UK aid reaches the communities “that need it most”.

“ODA is being used as a geopolitical tool with national interests in focus, when it should be a mechanism for redistributive justice,” said Alex Farley of Bond in a recent global event during the Summit of the Future hosted by the global civil society network Forus.

This debate is part of a larger global conversation on the future of ODA.

While the traditional 0.7% Gross National Income (GNI) target remains a key benchmark for donor countries, experts argue that ODA must evolve to better address the real needs of recipient communities, particularly in the Global South. As Oyebisi Oluseyi of the Nigerian Network of NGOs (NNNGO) points out, “While this target remains important, it’s no longer enough.”

Critics are calling for a redefinition of ODA that shifts powers toward recipient countries and communities. Zia ur Rehman, Coordinator of the Asia Development Alliance – a regional platform of NGOs, emphasizes the need for local actors to have more say in how funds are used.

Providing a perspective from the Pacific Islands, Emeline Siale from the civil society regional coalition PIANGO, echoes the need for local actors to play a leading role in ODA decision-making, “not merely as participants but as leaders”.

“Community participation itself is a healing process, and it’s become a central topic in many civil society discussions,” Siale explains.

As key international summits on development financing approach, the future of ODA—and its ability to meet the needs of the most vulnerable—hangs in the balance.

“The upcoming Fourth United Nations International Conference on Financing for Development presents a key opportunity for the development community to align with development effectiveness principles, rather than allowing them to be further diluted. Now, more than ever, civil society must play its role, shifting power and pushing for a new global governance of international aid that is more representative, democratic, inclusive, and transparent,” says civil society leader in Burkina Faso Mavalow Christelle Kalhoule and President of Forus, a global civil society network representing over 24,000 NGOs across the globe.

IPS UN Bureau

 

IPBES Calls for Holistic Solutions, Transformative Change in Tackling Biodiversity Loss

Biodiversity, Climate Change, Conferences, Conservation, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Food Sustainability, Global, Headlines, Health, Natural Resources, TerraViva United Nations

Biodiversity

Biodiversity is key to food security and nutrition. IPBES has warned that loss of biodiversity is accelerating around the world, with 1 million animal and plant species threatened with extinction. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

Biodiversity is key to food security and nutrition. IPBES has warned that loss of biodiversity is accelerating around the world, with 1 million animal and plant species threatened with extinction. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

BULAWAYO, Oct 11 2024 (IPS) – A holistic approach and transformative change of systems are needed to tackle biodiversity loss and to put the world on a sustainable path, an assessment by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has recommended.


The world is facing an interconnected crisis of unprecedented biodiversity loss, food insecurity, and environmental degradation that can no longer be tackled through fragmented and piecemeal solutions, a forthcoming assessment by IPBES will show, calling for holistic approaches instead. 

IPBES is set to launch two scientific assessments, the  Nexus Assessment and Transformative Change Assessment, in December 2024, which recommend holistic solutions to tackling the connected and converging crises of biodiversity, water, food, health, and climate change because’ “siloed” approaches are proving unsuccessful.’

In addition, the assessment calls for urgent “transformative change” by intergovernmental bodies, private sector organizations and civil society to respond to the nature and climate crises.

IPBES is an intergovernmental organization established to improve the interface between science and policy on issues of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

The historic IPBES Global Assessment Report of 2019 found that meeting global sustainability targets for 2030 and beyond requires a fundamental, system-wide reorganization, including new paradigms.

IPBES Head of Communications, Rob Spaull, said the assessments represent the best science evidence for critical action to tackle biodiversity loss available to policymakers.

“This is the most ambitious science report we have done because these five issues by themselves are complex and this assessment  pulls them together,” Spaull said in a pre-report launch media briefing this week.

The Nexus Assessment identifies important trade-offs and opportunities within the multi-dimensional polycrisis: To what extent do efforts to address one crisis add to others? And which policy options and actions would produce the greatest benefits across the board? The report will offer an unprecedented range of responses to move decisions and actions beyond single-issue silos. The report was produced over three years by 101 experts in 42 countries.

“Global crises in biodiversity, water, food, health and climate change often intensify each other when addressed separately and should therefore be tackled together,” said Paula Harrison, co-chair of the IPBES Nexus Assessment report, in a statement.

“The Nexus Assessment is among the most ambitious work ever undertaken by the IPBES community, offering an unprecedented range of response options to move decisions and actions beyond single issue silos.”

The Transformative Change Assessment looks at the underlying causes of biodiversity loss, determinants of transformative change and options for achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity. The report also assesses the determinants of transformative change, the biggest obstacles it faces and how it occurs. It also identifies achievable options to foster, accelerate and maintain transformative change towards a sustainable world and the steps to achieve global visions for transformative change.

A statement by IPBES notes that the Transformative Change Report will provide decision-makers, including policymakers, with “the best available evidence, analysis and options for actions leading to transformative change and build an understanding of the implications of the underlying causes of biodiversity loss for achieving the Paris Climate Agreement, global biodiversity targets under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the Sustainable Development Goals and other major international development objectives.”

The 11th session of the IPBES Plenary, the first ever to take place in Africa from December 10 to 16, will discuss and approve the reports. IPBES represents nearly 150 governments and seeks to strengthen the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Spaull said the assessments underline the need to find holistic solutions to addressing biodiversity loss.

“The assessments are looking at how when you try and fix one part of the system you have unintended consequences in other parts of the system; for instance, in many countries there is a big push to plant trees to mitigate climate change and for carbon sequestration and with (unintended) consequences for biodiversity. For example, planting one kind of tree may be damaging to the ecology or water supply and also have an impact on health, so it means there is a need to find a balance.”

He said the reports also highlight responding to issues simultaneously, which is also the emphasis on meeting the SDGs, which have to be addressed systematically rather than in silos.

“For example, there has been a big increase in the volume of food production in past decades and an increase in caloric output that has helped global health but on the other hand, this has resulted in biodiversity loss because the massive food production has been done through intensive agriculture methods that deplete water and have massive gas emissions,” said Spaull.

Furthermore, IPBES has influenced and shaped national and international biodiversity policy through providing policymakers with clear, scientifically based recommendations and helping governments make informed decisions about conservation, sustainable development, and environmental protection.

Through its assessments, IPBES highlights the interconnectedness of biodiversity, human health, economic stability, and environmental sustainability, making it a critical player in the global response to the biodiversity crisis.

Spaull noted that IPBES work has been instrumental in informing progress assessments on biodiversity-related SDGs.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Nepal’s Deadly Flash Floods: What Went Wrong?

Asia-Pacific, Climate Change, Conferences, COP29, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Headlines, Natural Resources, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

COP29

Kathmandu under water because of heavy rainfall, which claimed more than 225 lives in last week of September. Photo: Barsha Shah/IPS

Kathmandu under water because of heavy rainfall, which claimed more than 225 lives in last week of September. Photo: Barsha Shah/IPS

KATHMANDU, Oct 3 2024 (IPS) – Nepal is trying to recover from recent flash floods and landslides caused by heavy rainfall over the last weekend of September, which claimed at least 226 lives. The mid- and eastern parts of the country, including the capital, Kathmandu, experienced the heaviest monsoon rains in two decades from September 26-28, leaving many parts of Kathmandu underwater. Experts say this is one of the deadliest and worst flash floods that impacted thousands of people in decades.


The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority (NDRRMA)—facing intense backlash for its inability to act effectively to minimize losses—reported by Tuesday (October 1) that at least 25 people were still stranded or missing, while more than 150 were injured.

On September 28, the country’s 25 weather stations in 14 districts recorded new precipitation records within 24-hours. Kathmandu airport stations recorded 239.7 millimeters of rain. Before that, on July 23, 2002, it had recorded 177 mm of rainfall. Flash floods caused by extreme rainfall within a short period washed away entire neighborhoods, roads, and bridges in Kathmandu and surrounding areas.

The heavy rains caused rivers in Kathmandu, including the Bagmati, which runs through the city, to swell more than 2 meters above the safe level. Senior journalist Yubaraj Ghimire—whose house was also submerged—wrote, “The disastrous hours of terror further confirmed the state’s incompetence in times of need.”

Outside of Kathmandu villages like Roshi in Kavre district are impacted by flood and landslides. Photo: Barsha Shah/IPS

Outside of Kathmandu villages like Roshi in Kavre district are impacted by flood and landslides. Photo: Barsha Shah/IPS

Early warnings were there, but lives were lost!

Frustration is growing, not only because of its failure in conducting effective rescue operations but also for not acting on the information that was available beforehand about the forthcoming disaster.

The Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM) issued a special weather bulletin at least five days prior, alerting the public to impending heavy rainfall that could result in flooding and landslides.

In the bulletin, the DHM labeled districts with red, orange, yellow, and green, urging “Take Action,” “Be Prepared,” “Be Updated,” and “No Warning,” respectively.

Again, on September 25, the DHM issued another “special weather bulletin,” this time labeling most parts of the country in red, or the “Take Action” category.

As predicted, heavy rain started pouring—rivers began flowing with water levels higher than the safe limit.

“The information was there, but it doesn’t seem like it was taken seriously to be prepared,” Dr. Ngamindra Dahal, who works on climate change-induced disaster risk reduction, said. “To minimize consequences, we need to take action according to the information we have, but that was not the case in most parts.”

Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli acknowledged that the government was not prepared for a disaster of this scale. In a press conference on Tuesday, Oli said, “Our preparedness was not for this kind of circumstance. We were not expecting this scale of rains, landslides, and human and infrastructure losses.”

But the weather agency, DHM, had been warning and urging appropriate action through multiple notices. Government agencies admit they were not able to communicate disaster-related information effectively.

Why was NDRRMA not able to act quickly?

This time, the weather information was accurate in most parts, but avoidable incidents still claimed lives.

“I was traveling, and what I can say is that even though there was information beforehand, it was not transformed into action,” Dahal added. “I do think NDRRMA and other stakeholders could have done better to reduce casualties.”

But the agency responsible for disaster risk reduction and management—NDRRMA—claims that it was due to their collaborative effort with other stakeholders that human casualties were lower.

“That information did help, and it is because of us that things are not worse than this,” Dr. Dijan Bhattrai, spokesperson for NDRRMA, said.

“In the case of Kathmandu, our urban setting is not capable of handling this kind of disaster, and in other parts of the country, it was a combination of intense rain and fragmented geological conditions due to the 2015 earthquake.”

Stakeholders have publicly acknowledged the role of river encroachment and unplanned settlement in Kathmandu, and this problem is well-known. However, for this recent disaster, people are angry because they noticed a clear gap between the information and the preparedness effort.

“It’s true we were not well-equipped to deal with this kind of situation in terms of resources and trained manpower,” Bhattrai claimed. “We did our part, doing what we could within our capacity.”

Is it exacerbated by climate change?

In recent years, scientists have said that climate change is altering the amount and timing of rainfall across Asia. However, the impact of floods has increased due to the built environment, including unplanned construction, especially on floodplains, which leaves insufficient areas for water retention and drainage.

A recent report published in Nature Communications states that Asia’s exposure to extreme rain and flood risk will grow by 2030.

“Definitely, there is much to do in terms of effective disaster communication and actionable preparedness, but it is also a fact that these kinds of events are becoming more frequent because of climate change,” Bhattrai said. “We are planning to lay our case at the upcoming UN climate conference (COP29) to secure more resources to deal with future disasters.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Activists Call on World to ‘Imagine’ Peace, End Nuclear Arms

Active Citizens, Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Conferences, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Nuclear Disarmament, Peace, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Peace

The panel for the session on “Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Imagining a World without Nuclear Weapons.” Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS

The panel for the session on “Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Imagining a World without Nuclear Weapons.” Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS

PARIS, Sep 27 2024 (IPS) – In any discussion of world peace and the future of humanity, the issue of nuclear arms must be addressed, and now.


That was the message from a range of delegates at the “Imaginer la Paix / Imagine Peace” conference, held in Paris September 22 to 24, and organized by the Sant’Egidio Community, a Christian organization founded in Rome in 1968 and now based in 70 countries.

Describing its tenets as “Prayer, service to the Poor and work for Peace,” the community has hosted 38 international, multi-faith peace meetings, bringing together activists from around the world. This is the first time the conference has been held in Paris, with hundreds traveling to France, itself a nuclear-weapon state.

Occurring against the backdrop of brutal, on-going conflicts in different regions and a new race by some countries to “upgrade” their arsenal, the gathering had a sense of urgency, with growing fears that nuclear weapons might be used by warlords. Participants highlighted current and past atrocities and called upon world leaders to learn from the past.

“After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have been blessed with many who have said ‘no’—’no’ a million times, creating movements and treaties, (and) awareness… that the only reasonable insight to learn from the conception and use of nuclear weapons is to say ‘no’,” said Andrea Bartoli, president of the Sant’Egidio Foundation for Peace and Dialogue, based in New York.

Participating in a conference forum Monday titled “Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Imagining a World Without Nuclear Weapons,”  Bartoli and other speakers drew stark pictures of what living in a world with nuclear weapons entails, and they highlighted developments since World War II.

“After the two bombs were used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, humans built more than 70,000 nuclear weapons and performed more than 2,000 tests. Still today we have more than 12,500, each of them with power greatly superior to the two used in August 1945,” Bartoli said.

Despite awareness of the catastrophic potential of these weapons and despite a UN treaty prohibiting their use, some governments argue that possessing nuclear arms is a deterrent—an argument that is deceptive, according to the forum speakers.

Anna Ikeda, program coordinator tor disarmament at the UN Office of Soka Gakkai International. Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS

Anna Ikeda, program coordinator for disarmament at the UN Office of Soka Gakkai International. Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS

Jean-Marie Collin, director of ICAN (the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a movement launched in the early 2000s in Australia and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017), said that leaders who cite deterrence “accept the possibility of violating” international human rights.

“Nuclear weapons are designed to destroy cities and kill and maim entire populations, which means that all presidents and heads of government who implement a defense policy based on nuclear deterrence and who are therefore responsible for giving this order, are aware of this,” Collin told the forum.

ICAN campaigned for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons that was adopted at the United Nations in 2017, entering into force in 2021. The adoption came nearly five decades after the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970.

The terms of the NPT consider five countries to be nuclear weapons states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China. Four other countries also possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel.

According to a 2024 ICAN report, these nine states jointly spent €85 billion (USD 94,6 billion) on their atomic weapon arsenals last year, an expenditure ICAN has called “obscene” and “unacceptable.” France, whose president Emmanuel Macron spoke about peace in broad, general terms at the opening of the conference, spent around €5,3 billion (about USD 5,9 billion) in 2023 on its nuclear weapons, said the report.

The policy of “deterrence” and “reciprocity,”  which essentially means “we’ll get rid of our weapons if you get rid of yours,”  has been slammed by ICAN and fellow disarmament activists.

“With the constant flow of information, we often tend to lose sight of the reality of figures,” Collin said at the peace conference. “I hope this one will hold your attention: it is estimated that more than 38,000 children were killed in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Children!”

All those killed—an estimated 210,000 people by the end of 1945—died in horrific ways, as survivors and others have testified. Delegates said that this knowledge should be the real “deterrent.”

At the forum, Anna Ikeda, program coordinator for disarmament at the UN Office of Soka Gakkai International, a global Buddhist movement, described testimony from a Hiroshima a-bomb survivor, Reiko Yamada, as one she would never forget.

“She (Yamada) stated, ‘A good friend of mine in the neighbourhood was waiting for her mother to return home with her four brothers and sisters. Later, she told me that on the second day after the bombing, a moving black lump crawled into the house. They first thought it was a black dog, but they soon realized it was their mother; she collapsed and died when she finally got to her children. They cremated her body in the yard,” Ikeda told the audience with emotion.

“Who deserves to die such a death? Nobody!” she continued. “Yet our world continues to spend billions of dollars to upkeep our nuclear arsenals, and our leaders at times imply readiness to use them. It is utterly unacceptable.”

Ikeda said that survivors, known as the “hibakusha” in Japan, have a fundamental answer to why nuclear weapons must be abolished—it is that “no one else should ever suffer what we did.”

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

‘We Need Competitive Elections so Only Truly Committed States Are Elected to the UN Human Rights Council’

Civil Society, Conferences, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Sep 26 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the upcoming election of new members of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council with Madeleine Sinclair, New York Office Director and Legal Counsel at the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR).


The Human Rights Council plays a crucial role in addressing global human rights issues and serves as a platform for activists and victims of violations. Its 47 members represent different regional groups. In October, 19 states will stand for 18 seats, with the Asia-Pacific region the only group with more candidates than seats. Many of the candidates have poor human rights records, and one – Saudi Arabia – stands out for its extremely serious rights violations. Civil society calls on UN member states to reject Saudi Arabia’s candidacy and uphold human rights standards when selecting members of the UN’s top human rights body.

Madeleine Sinclair

Why is the election of UN Human Rights Council members important?

As happens every year, the Human Rights Council will soon renew one third of its membership through a secret ballot election. On 9 October, all 193 members of the UN General Assembly will vote for the 18 members who will sit on the UN’s main human rights body from 2025 to 2027.

Elections should provide an opportunity to elect candidates with a strong human rights record. According to the Council’s membership criteria, candidate states should demonstrate a genuine commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights through domestic and international action. They should also demonstrate a willingness to address emerging challenges and crises to ensure the Council’s effectiveness.

How competitive will this year’s election be?

Unfortunately, this election will be nowhere near as competitive as it should be, with only 19 countries standing for 18 seats. These seats are divided among the UN’s five official regional groups, each of which presents its own slate of candidates. But only the Asia-Pacific slate is competitive, with six candidates vying for five seats, while the other four slates are closed, meaning they have as many candidates as seats available. Africa has five candidates for five seats, Latin America and the Caribbean has three for three, Eastern Europe has two for two and Western Europe and Others has two for two.

This election is less competitive than last year’s, when 17 candidates contested 15 seats. Only Latin America and the Caribbean and Eastern Europe had more candidates than seats, resulting in the defeat of Russia. In 2021, all 18 candidates running for 18 seats were elected, receiving between 144 and 189 votes out of a possible 193, despite some having extremely problematic human rights records.

Unfortunately, non-competitive elections are common, with fully closed slates being presented four times since 2008. Other elections have seen only one or two competitive slates. The problem with non-competitive races is they deprive voting states of the opportunity to rigorously evaluate and select candidates based on their records and commitments, potentially compromising the quality of the Council.

But even in closed slates, it’s still possible for unopposed candidates to fail if they don’t receive at least 97 out of 193 votes. In 2023, for example, Burundi and China received the lowest number of votes in their regional groups, sending a message that their candidacies were not fully supported. ISHR encourages voting states to evaluate all candidates carefully and withhold votes from problematic ones, even in closed slates.

Who are the candidates in the October election?

Candidates in this year’s election include Benin, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, The Gambia and Kenya from the African group. In the Asia and Pacific group, Cyprus, South Korea, the Marshall Islands, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Thailand are running. Latin America and the Caribbean is represented by Bolivia, Colombia and Mexico. Iceland, Spain and Switzerland are the candidates from Western Europe and Others, while the Czech Republic and North Macedonia are running for Central and Eastern Europe.

This year, one candidate has a particularly poor human rights record: Saudi Arabia. It has closed civic space and has been repeatedly included in the UN Secretary-General’s reprisals report and accused by UN experts of committing war crimes in Yemen. Due to these serious concerns, we are actively campaigning against its election in the Asia and Pacific group.

What’s the role of civil society in this process?

Civil society, including ISHR, has a crucial role to play in advocating for a more effective and accountable Human Rights Council. One of the key areas where reform is needed is closed slates. Competitive elections are essential to ensure that only states with a genuine commitment to human rights are elected.

ISHR has created scorecards to assess and compare the candidates based on their history of cooperation with human rights mechanisms such as the Universal Periodic Review and their engagement with civil society, UN treaty bodies and special procedures. These criteria provide a solid understanding and clear overview of a country’s human rights record and therefore its suitability to sit on the Council. While we understand no country has a perfect record, these criteria aim to provide valuable insights into each state’s commitment to upholding human rights and its potential role on the Council.

In addition to our scorecards, our annual joint pledging event with Amnesty International provides a platform for states to present their candidacies, make strong, public commitments as potential members and receive direct feedback and critical questions from civil society. If all candidates participated in this event, it would increase the political cost of refusing to participate or failing to submit formal pledges and commitments. Such engagement would make it harder for states with poor human rights records to seek a seat without facing scrutiny.

What should be the Council’s priorities?

The Human Rights Council is vital in amplifying the voices of rights holders, victims and human rights defenders, providing them with a platform to expose violations and demand accountability. To fulfil this role effectively, its priorities must focus on being credible, effective and accessible. It should continue to focus on upholding international law universally, supporting the remote and hybrid participation of civil society and ensuring that demands for accountability are promptly addressed.

A credible and effective Council can only function if its members fully cooperate with its mechanisms and adhere to objective human rights criteria. At a time of increasing conflict and crisis, often rooted in repression and human rights violations, the Council’s role in promoting accountability and justice is more important than ever. States should support the work of human rights defenders, whose efforts to prevent violations, document abuses and provide essential services are essential to crisis resolution.

To address these conflicts, states must apply human rights standards consistently. Selective or inconsistent application of standards undermines the international framework and the credibility of those involved. International human rights law, when applied consistently and in a principled manner, remains the best guide to achieving a more just, peaceful and inclusive world.

Get in touch with ISHR through its website or Facebook page, and follow @ishrglobal on Instagram and @ISHRglobal and @Madeleine_ISHR on Twitter.