Sweetpotato crossing block, Uganda. Reuben Ssali, a plant breeder Associate with the International Potato Center. Credit: CGIAR
NAIROBI, Apr 7 2025 (IPS) – CGIAR and the Kenyan Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) are bringing together the world’s leading scientists and decision-makers in agriculture, climate, and health for the first CGIAR Science Week. This gathering will be a key moment to advance research and innovation, inspire action, and establish critical partnerships that can secure investment in sustainable food systems for people and the planet.
IPS’ team of journalists, Busani Bafana, Joyce Chimbi, and Naureen Hossain, will bring you news and interviews throughout the week as the conference unfolds. This will include the launch of the CGIAR Research Portfolio 2025-2030 today (April 7, 2025).
CIVICUS speaks with Daniel Simons, Senior Legal Counsel Strategic Defence for Greenpeace International, about the lawsuit brought by an oil and gas company against Greenpeace and its broader implications for civil society. Greenpeace is a global network of environmental organisations campaigning on issues such as climate change, disarmament, forests, organic farming and peace.
Daniel Simons
In March, a North Dakota jury ruled that Greenpeace in the USA and Greenpeace International should pay damages of over US$660 million to Energy Transfer, which filed lawsuits alleging that Greenpeace instigated resistance against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 and 2017 and caused operational disruptions and financial losses. The protests were led by Indigenous communities, particularly the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and focused on water protection and tribal rights. Energy Transfer claims the pipeline was properly regulated and provides economic benefits. Civil society has condemned the legal action as a SLAPP – a strategic lawsuit against public participation – designed to silence criticism. Greenpeace is appealing.
What prompted Energy Transfer to take legal action against Greenpeace?
The route of the Dakota Access Pipeline crosses underneath the Missouri River a short distance from the reservation of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. In April 2016, tribal members set up prayer encampments to express their opposition to the construction. They worried that sites of cultural importance would be damaged, and that the pipeline might contaminate the river, the Tribe’s water source.
Energy Transfer took a number of provocative actions. It sued the Tribe’s chairperson and other participants in the Indigenous resistance, and not long after, bulldozed an area less than 24 hours after the Tribe had filed a declaration in court stating there were burial grounds and resources of cultural significance in the area. These events coincided with a huge growth in attention for and attendance at the camp.
Energy Transfer alleges that the Greenpeace defendants were somehow the masterminds, coming in and secretly organising everything that happened during the Standing Rock protests, and that this included trespassing, property damage and creating public nuisance. The company also accuses the Greenpeace defendants of defamation, complaining about nine statements in particular. Additionally, Energy Transfer claims Greenpeace’s actions delayed the refinancing of the pipeline’s construction loan, causing financial harm to the company.
What was Greenpeace’s actual involvement in the protests and its relationship with Indigenous communities?
Greenpeace – including Greenpeace Inc and Greenpeace Fund, both based in the USA, and Greenpeace International, a Dutch foundation – played only a limited role in the protests. Greenpeace Inc had some connections to the Indigenous communities at Standing Rock; as I understand it, the relationship was respectful but not extensive.
Greenpeace Inc supported the protests by funding five trainers from an independent Indigenous network to provide training on non-violent direct action for two weeks, conducting supply drives for the camps, providing short-term staff mainly to help with preparing the camp for winter and donating some lock boxes that protesters could use to form a human chain, although no evidence suggests they were ever used. It also published articles and co-signed two letters to banks containing the nine statements Energy Transfer now claims are defamatory. These statements had already been widely reported by media and United Nations bodies before Greenpeace’s involvement.
According to an Indigenous activist who testified in court, Greenpeace Inc was present but followed the lead of people on the ground. Its involvement was so minimal that most tribal nations at Standing Rock wouldn’t even have been aware of it. The activist described claims that Greenpeace controlled the resistance as ‘paternalistic’ and emphasised that many Indigenous leaders had the ability to run a complex movement and engage with media themselves.
Greenpeace International’s only relevant action was signing an open letter led by the Dutch civil society organisation BankTrack, alongside 500 other organisations. Meanwhile, Greenpeace Fund had no involvement in the Standing Rock resistance, yet Energy Transfer argues that sharing resources such as office space and contact details with Greenpeace Inc makes it liable.
How is Greenpeace defending itself and what impact has the lawsuit had on its operations?
We argue that Energy Transfer has greatly exaggerated our role in the protests and is attempting to recover costs that are all unrelated to our actions. There is just no evidence of any link between the Greenpeace defendants’ activities and the damages the company claims. And there is certainly no link to any act of violence or property damage.
Greenpeace International has also taken legal action in the Netherlands, using the new European Union anti-SLAPP directive for the first time to challenge what we view as an attempt to drain our resources and silence dissent. Defending ourselves has required significant financial and personnel resources. While Greenpeace has the capacity to fight back, there are concerns that such lawsuits could deter smaller or less experienced organisations from challenging the powerful US oil and gas industry – which appears to be one of the goals of this case.
What are the next steps in the legal proceedings and how do you see this case resolving?
While the jury has reached a verdict that decided the Greenpeace defendants must pay US$666 million for defamation and the other claims, the judge still needs to enter a final judgment. There are obvious issues with jury verdict and we are in the process of challenging those. Greenpeace Inc and Greenpeace Fund have already announced they will appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Greenpeace International is pursuing its case against Energy Transfer in the District Court of Amsterdam, with the first procedural hearing scheduled for 2 July.
The battle is far from over. Greenpeace is determined to defeat these claims and hold Energy Transfer accountable for filing repeated SLAPP suits. This fight extends beyond Greenpeace – it concerns the protection of freedom of expression. An attack on one is an attack on all, and we hope civil society will stand with us.
LONDON, Apr 2 2025 (IPS) – Today’s multiple and connected crises – including conflicts, climate breakdown and democratic regression – are overwhelming the capabilities of the international institutions designed to address problems states can’t or won’t solve. Now US withdrawal from global bodies threatens to worsen a crisis in international cooperation.
The second Trump administration quickly announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization (WHO), terminated its cooperation with the UN Human Rights Council, walked out of negotiations on a global tax treaty and imposed sanctions on International Criminal Court officials.
Although the USA has sometimes been an obstructive force, including by repeatedly blocking Security Council resolutions on Israel, global institutions lose legitimacy when powerful states opt out. While all states are formally equal in the UN, the reality is that the USA’s decisions to participate or quit matter more than most because it’s a superpower whose actions have global implications. It’s also the biggest funder of UN institutions, even if it has a poor record in paying on time.
As it stands, the USA’s WHO withdrawal will take effect in January 2026, although the decision could face a legal challenge and Trump could rescind his decision if the WHO makes changes to his liking, since deal-making powered by threats and brinkmanship is how he does business. But if withdrawal happens, the WHO will be hard hit. The US government is the WHO’s biggest contributor, providing around 18 per cent of funding. That’s a huge gap to fill, and it’s likely the organisation will have to cut back its work. Progress towards a global pandemic treaty, under negotiation since 2021, may be hindered.
It’s possible philanthropic sources will step up their support, and other states may help fill the gap. The challenge comes if authoritarian states take advantage of the situation by increasing their contributions and expect greater influence in return. China, for example, may be poised to do so.
That’s what happened when the first Trump administration pulled out of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). China filled the vacuum by increasing its contributions to become UNESCO’s biggest annual funder. Presumably not coincidentally, a Chinese official became its deputy head, while China was able to block Taiwan’s attempts to join. It was out of concern about this growing influence that the Biden administration took the USA back into UNESCO in 2023; that decision could now be reversed, as Trump has claimed UNESCO is biased against the USA and ordered a review.
The Human Rights Council may be less immediately affected because the USA isn’t currently a member, its term having ended at the close of 2024. It rejoined in 2021 after Trump pulled out in 2018, and had already made the unusual decision not to seek a second term, likely because this would have provoked a backlash over its support for Israel. Apart from its relationship with Israel, however, during its term under the Biden administration the USA was largely recognised as playing a positive role in the Council’s business. If it refuses to cooperate, it deprives US citizens of a vital avenue of redress.
The USA’s actions may also inspire other states with extremist leaders to follow suit. Argentina’s President Milei, a keen Trump admirer, has imitated him by announcing his country’s departure from the WHO. Political leaders in Hungary and Italy have discussed doing the same. Israel followed the USA in declaring it wouldn’t engage with the Human Rights Council. For its own reasons, in February authoritarian Nicaragua also announced its withdrawal from the Council following a report critical of its appalling human rights record.
It could be argued that institutions like the Human Rights Council and UNESCO, having survived one Trump withdrawal, can endure a second. But these shocks come at a different time, when the UN system is already more fragile and damaged. Now the very idea of multilateralism and a rules-based international order is under attack, with transactional politics and hard-nosed national power calculations on the rise. Backroom deals resulting from power games are replacing processes with a degree of transparency aimed at achieving consensus. The space for civil society engagement and opportunities for leverage are in danger of shrinking accordingly.
Real reform needed
Revitalising the UN may seem a tall order when it’s under attack, but as CIVICUS’s 2025 State of Civil Society Report outlines, civil society has ideas about how to save the UN by putting people at its heart. The UNMute Civil Society initiative, backed by over 300 organisations and numerous states, makes five calls to improve civil society’s involvement: using digital technologies to broaden participation, bridging digital divides by focusing on connectivity for the most excluded, changing procedures and practices to ensure effective and meaningful participation, creating an annual civil society action day as an opportunity to assess progress on civil society participation and appointing a UN civil society envoy.
Each of these ideas is practical and could open up space for greater reforms. A UN civil society envoy could, for example, promote best practices in civil society participation across the UN and ensure a diverse range of civil society is involved in the UN’s work.
Civil society is also calling for competitive Human Rights Council elections, with a civil society role in scrutinising candidates, and limits on Security Council veto powers. And as time approaches to pick a new UN Secretary-General, civil society is mobilising the 1 for 8 billion campaign, pushing for an open, transparent, inclusive and merit-based selection process. The office has always been held by a man, and the call is for the UN to make history by appointing a feminist woman leader.
These would all offer small steps towards making the UN system more open, democratic and accountable. There’s nothing impossible or unimaginable about these ideas, and times of crisis create opportunities to experiment. States that want to reverse the tide of attacks on international cooperation and revitalise the UN should work with civil society to take them forward.
Former UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres praised the role of small island states in maintaining the integrity of international climate agreements but said the world was far behind and said that the decarbonisation of the global economy is by now irreversible with or without the craziness in the United States.
Former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Christiana Figueres, speaking during a press briefing with the Oxford Climate Journalism Network on March 27. Credit: Alison Kentish/IPS
Mar 31 2025 (IPS) – 2025 marks the tenth anniversary of the Paris Climate Agreement. One of its chief architects, Christiana Figueres, says the world is heading in the right direction but warns that urgent action is needed to close critical gaps.
The pact, adopted in 2015 by 195 nations, set out to limit global warming to “well below 2°C” above pre-industrial levels, striving for 1.5°C. But in 2024, the world shattered records as the hottest year ever, surpassing that crucial threshold.
Speaking at a press briefing with the Oxford Climate Journalism Network on March 27, Figueres said while technology and investment are advancing, the world is not moving fast enough.
“We’re far behind,” she said. “We have very clear data points of all of the technologies that are exponentially growing on both sides of the market – the supply side as well as the demand – and we can see that all of that is moving, as well as investment. That definitely defines the direction of travel and the decarbonisation of the global economy is by now irreversible with or without the craziness in the United States. What still is not at the level that we should have is speed and scale.”
A co-founder of Global Optimism, an organisation focused on hope and action in the face of climate change, Figueres emphasised the urgency of the crisis while highlighting the global capacity to address it.
While one in five people globally already experience climate impacts daily, and climate-related costs rose to $320 billion last year, investment in clean technology is outpacing fossil fuels, she noted.
“We had last year two times the level of investment into clean technology versus fossil fuels and the prices continue to fall. Every year they fall even more and more. Solar prices last year fell by a whopping 35%. Electric vehicle batteries fell by 20%,” she said.
Figueres also spoke about the disproportionate burden placed on small island nations, which are already importing fossil fuels at the cost of up to 30% of their national budgets. “These islands are importing the poison that is directly threatening their survival,” she argued, stressing the need for renewable energy solutions like wind and hydro to replace fossil fuels.
The former head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) also praised the role of small island states in maintaining the integrity of international climate agreements. “It’s not the size of the nation but the integrity of their position that matters,” she said, noting how these nations have consistently held larger emitters accountable.
Asked about the Paris Agreement’s architecture, Figueres defended its approach.
“The Paris Agreement is really strange in its legal bindingness. It is legally binding to all countries that have ratified it, but what is binding is the overall trajectory of decarbonisation to get to net zero by 2050. What is not binding is the level of the NDCs which are the nationally determined contributions that every country has to submit every 5 years and be held accountable against that,” she said, likening the agreement’s style to running a marathon, “the goal is clear, but the pace is up to each runner.”
Figueres says the COP process was designed in the early 1990s as a multilateral platform for countries to negotiate agreements aimed at addressing climate change collectively – something that was critical for establishing frameworks like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. She stressed that with agreements in place to guide global decarbonisation until 2050, the next phase of climate talks should focus on implementation rather than new negotiations.
“The implementation is mostly on the part of the private sector and the financial sector. Do they need governments to support them? Absolutely, so what governments need to do is to put regulations, incentives, and tax credits in place to accelerate investment in the sectors that we know are going to address climate change and to give long-term certainty to the private sector so that they can do their planning, but those regulations, those incentives, and those tax breaks are not to be negotiated between countries. They are to be enacted nationally, domestically.”
With COP 30 approaching, Figueres urged countries to take a long-term view in their climate planning. “NDCs should align government and private sector ambitions with the next decade’s possibilities, not just the current technologies,” she said.
As host country Brazil prepares for the 2025 UN Climate Talks, Figueres called for a holistic approach to climate policy, linking energy, industry, and nature. She also cautioned against framing COP 30 as a “last chance”, emphasising that it should be seen as a milestone in a longer journey toward global climate goals.
2025 marks the tenth anniversary of the Paris Climate Agreement. One of its chief architects, Christiana Figueres says the world is heading in the right direction but warns that urgent action is needed to close critical gaps.
The pact, adopted in 2015 by 195 nations, set out to limit global warming to “well below 2°C” above pre-industrial levels, striving for 1.5°C. But in 2024, the world shattered records as the hottest year ever, surpassing that crucial threshold.
Speaking at a press briefing with the Oxford Climate Journalism Network on March 27, Figueres said while technology and investment are advancing, the world is not moving fast enough.
“We’re far behind,” she said. “We have very clear data points of all of the technologies that are exponentially growing on both sides of the market – the supply side as well as the demand – and we can see that all of that is moving, as well as investment. That definitely defines the direction of travel and the decarbonisation of the global economy is by now irreversible with or without the craziness in the United States. What still is not at the level that we should have is speed and scale.”
A co-founder of Global Optimism, an organisation focused on hope and action in the face of climate change, Figueres emphasised the urgency of the crisis while highlighting the global capacity to address it.
While one in five people globally already experience climate impacts daily, and climate-related costs rose to $320 billion last year, investment in clean technology is outpacing fossil fuels, she noted.
“We had last year two times the level of investment into clean technology versus fossil fuels and the prices continue to fall. Every year they fall even more and more. Solar prices last year fell by a whopping 35%. Electric vehicle batteries fell by 20%,” she said.
Figueres also spoke about the disproportionate burden placed on small island nations, which are already importing fossil fuels at the cost of up to 30% of their national budgets. “These islands are importing the poison that is directly threatening their survival,” she argued, stressing the need for renewable energy solutions like wind and hydro to replace fossil fuels.
The former head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) also praised the role of small island states in maintaining the integrity of international climate agreements. “It’s not the size of the nation but the integrity of their position that matters,” she said, noting how these nations have consistently held larger emitters accountable.
Asked about the Paris Agreement’s architecture, Figueres defended its approach.
“The Paris Agreement is really strange in its legal bindingness. It is legally binding to all countries that have ratified it, but what is binding is the overall trajectory of decarbonisation to get to net zero by 2050. What is not binding is the level of the NDCs, which are the nationally determined contributions that every country has to submit every 5 years and be held accountable against that,” she said, likening the agreement’s style to running a marathon, “the goal is clear, but the pace is up to each runner.”
Figueres says the COP process was designed in the early 1990s as a multilateral platform for countries to negotiate agreements aimed at addressing climate change collectively – something that was critical for establishing frameworks like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. She stressed that with agreements in place to guide global decarbonisation until 2050, the next phase of climate talks should focus on implementation rather than new negotiations.
“The implementation is mostly on the part of the private sector and the financial sector. Do they need governments to support them? Absolutely, so what governments need to do is to put regulations, incentives, and tax credits in place to accelerate investment in the sectors that we know are going to address climate change and to give long-term certainty to the private sector so that they can do their planning, but those regulations, those incentives, and those tax breaks are not to be negotiated between countries. They are to be enacted nationally, domestically.”
With COP 30 approaching, Figueres urged countries to take a long-term view in their climate planning. “NDCs should align government and private sector ambitions with the next decade’s possibilities, not just the current technologies,” she said.
As host country Brazil prepares for the 2025 UN Climate Talks, Figueres called for a holistic approach to climate policy, linking energy, industry, and nature. She also cautioned against framing COP 30 as a “last chance”, emphasising that it should be seen as a milestone in a longer journey toward global climate goals.
The Giant Plastic Tap installation by Canadian artist Benjamin Von Wong.
NEW DELHI, Mar 28 2025 (IPS) – “The size of the faucet highlights the magnitude of the problem. It makes the problem impossible to ignore. We’re used to throwing things ‘away’—but when we’re confronted with what happens when ‘away’ is not an option, I think it creates an emotional wake-up call,” says Benjamin Von Wong.
The 39-year-old Canadian artist and activist is referring to his inspiration behind The Giant Plastic Tap installation, which created a buzz in the art world, highlighting the problem of plastic pollution.
Wong, known for his environmental art installations and hyper-realist art style, created the Giant Plastic Tap that features an oversized faucet seemingly floating in mid-air while spewing plastic waste, serving as a striking metaphor for the world’s urgent need to address plastic production at its source.
He explains, “I wanted to bring the phrase ‘Turn off the plastic tap’ to life in a tangible way. I adapted the concept of the ‘floating fountain’ but distorted it with plastic—to emphasize the urgency of tackling the problem at its source by reducing plastic production, rather than relying solely on downstream solutions like recycling and beach cleanups.”
Reportedly, the global effects of plastic pollution are becoming more evident, highlighting the urgent need for collective action. Scientific studies and policy changes are essential but it is also crucial to acknowledge the influence of art in raising awareness and inspiring people to act.
Art has a unique power to evoke emotions, ignite conversations, and build a deep connection between individuals and the environment.
In the fight against plastic pollution, one art installation has become a powerful symbol of change, with Wong playing an important role.
Plastic pollution is one of the biggest crises of this generation.
The latest study, by charity EA Earth Action and released last year, revealed that more than a third of plastic waste will be improperly handled at the end of its lifecycle. This equates to 68.6 million tonnes of plastic, translating to an average of 28kg of plastic waste per person worldwide. In 2024, approximately 220 million tonnes of plastic waste were generated, marking a 7.11 percent increase since 2021.
Canadian artist Benjamin Von Wong.
Art installed so far
Von Wong, who shifted from mining engineering to environmental activism through art, has created four large-scale faucet installations, showcased at venues including Art Basel, the United Nations Environment Assembly 5.2 in Nairobi (2022), and the United Nations Ocean Conference.
“We’ve installed them in over a dozen locations—but even more exciting is that hundreds of cardboard replicas have been made worldwide,” Wong says.
Wong reflects, “I’m not sure how you measure the impact of art, but I think the fact that this installation has become a symbol for the importance of a global plastic treaty is probably the biggest achievement.”
The Giant Plastic Tap has been featured at previous INC (Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the plastic treaty) sessions. However, its absence was notably felt during the INC-5 conference in Busan, South Korea.
Wong says, “I did my best to have the tap installation placed in Busan, but it wasn’t allowed. Instead, the ‘beached whale’ was placed on the lawns of BEXCO, the exhibition center that hosted the event last year.” He adds, “Despite reaching out over six months in advance to the operations team, the delegation, and securing local partners with independent funding, we were met with silence.”
Interestingly, INC-5 failed to reach a consensus on the global plastic treaty due to disagreements over national interests, industry influence, financial and technical support, and enforcement mechanisms.
Despite current challenges in global plastic treaty negotiations, including the presence of fossil fuel lobbyists and the constraints of consensus-based decision-making, Artist Wong remains optimistic about the future. “I’m certain we will find a way forward,” he asserts, pointing to the numerous dedicated individuals and organizations working to advance the treaty.
Meanwhile, after the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee decided to postpone the fifth session, the second part of the fifth session (INC-5.2) is scheduled to take place from 5 to 14 August 2025 at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland.
Involving locals
Wong involved the local communities to complete the installation at UNEA 5.2 in Nairobi. The project collaborated with the Human Needs Project to collect three tons of plastic from the Kibera slums. The initiative employed over 80 local women to clean and organize the plastic, ensuring their voices were heard by world leaders. “We also fundraised to support the creation of a more local waste management system,” he adds.
The installation has achieved significant success in its mission to influence public perception. Viewers consistently grasp the fundamental message about the need to stop plastic pollution, and the installation’s visual impact helps transform an intellectual discussion into an emotional experience. Its symbolism has become particularly significant in the context of the global plastic treaty discussions.
Lastly, can art play a pivotal role in driving real-world change? To this Wong draws a compelling parallel: “What is the value of a monument like the Statue of Liberty? How would you measure it?”
The success of The Giant Plastic Tap suggests that art remains a powerful catalyst for environmental awareness and social change, particularly when it transforms complex global issues into visceral, emotional experiences that resonate across cultural and linguistic barriers.
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Mar 25 2025 (IPS) – The United Nations Refugee Agency faces devastating cuts that may eliminate 5,000 to 6,000 jobs, with potentially catastrophic consequences for millions of people fleeing war, repression, hunger and climate disasters. This 75-year-old institution, established to help Europeans displaced by the Second World War, now confronts an unprecedented financial crisis, primarily due to the US foreign aid freeze – and the timing couldn’t be worse.
As CIVICUS’s 14th annual State of Civil Society Report documents, a series of connected crisis – including conflicts, economic hardship and climate change – have created a perfect storm that threatens migrants and refugees, who face increasingly hostile policies and dangerous journeys from governments turning their backs on principles of international solidarity and human rights.
At least 8,938 people died on migration routes worldwide in 2024, making it the deadliest year on record, with many of the deaths in the Mediterranean and along routes across the Americas, including the Caribbean Sea, the Darién Gap between Colombia and Panama and the extensive border between Mexico and the USA. Just last week, six people died and another 40 are missing after their boat capsized in the Mediterranean.
Such tragedies have come time again over the last year. In March 2024, 60 people, including a Senegalese mother and her baby, died from dehydration after their dinghy was left adrift in the Mediterranean. In June, US border agents found seven dead migrants in the Arizona and New Mexico deserts. In September, seven people were found clinging to the sides of a boat that capsized off the Italian island of Lampedusa, after watching 21 other people, many of them family members, drown around them.
These tragedies weren’t accidents or policy failures. They were the predictable results of morally indefensible political choices.
The reality behind the rhetoric
The facts contradict populist narratives about migration overwhelming wealthy countries. At least 71 per cent of the world’s refugees remain in the global south, with countries such as Bangladesh, Colombia, Ethiopia and Uganda hosting far more displaced people than most European countries. Yet global north governments keep hardening borders and outsourcing migration management to prevent arrivals. The second Trump administration has declared a ‘national emergency’ at the US southern border, enabling military deployment and promising mass deportations while explicitly framing migrants as invaders – a rhetoric that history shows can easily lead to deadly consequences.
Europe continues its own troubling trajectory. Italy is attempting to transfer asylum seekers to Albanian detention centres, while the Netherlands has proposed sending rejected asylum seekers to Uganda, blatantly disregarding the state’s human rights violations, particularly against LGBTQI+ people. The European Union is expanding controversial deals with authoritarian governments in Egypt and Tunisia, effectively paying them to prevent migrants reaching European shores.
Anti-migrant rhetoric has become a common and effective electoral strategy. Far-right parties have made significant gains in elections in many countries by campaigning against immigration. Demonising narratives played a key role in Donald Trump’s re-election. The mobilisation of xenophobic sentiment extends beyond Europe and the USA, from anti-Haitian rhetoric in the Dominican Republic to anti-Bangladeshi campaigning in India.
Civil society under siege
Civil society organisations providing humanitarian assistance are increasingly being criminalised for their work. Italy has made it illegal for search-and-rescue organisations to conduct more than one rescue per trip, imposes heavy fines for noncompliance and deliberately directs rescue vessels to distant ports. These measures have achieved their intended goal of reducing the number of active rescue ships and contributed to the over 2,400 migrant drownings recorded in the Mediterranean in 2024 alone. Tunisia’s president has labelled people advocating for African migrants’ rights as traitors and mercenaries, leading to criminal charges and imprisonment.
Despite mounting obstacles, civil society maintains its commitment to protecting the human rights of migrants and refugees. Civil society groups maintain lifesaving operations in displacement settings from the Darién Gap to Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh. Legal aid providers navigate increasingly complex asylum systems to help people access protection. Community organisations facilitate integration through language instruction, job placements and social connections. Advocacy groups document abuses and push for accountability when state authorities violate migrants’ human rights.
But they’re now operating with drastically diminishing resources in increasingly hostile environments. Critical protection mechanisms are being dismantled at a time of unprecedented need. The implications should alarm anyone concerned with human dignity. If borders keep hardening and safe pathways disappear, more people will attempt dangerous journeys with deadly consequences. The criminalisation of solidarity risks eliminating critical lifelines for the most vulnerable, and dehumanising rhetoric is normalising discrimination and institutionalising indifference and cruelty.
A different approach is possible
Rather than reactive, fear-based policies, civil society can push for comprehensive approaches that uphold human dignity while addressing the complex drivers of migration. This means confronting the root causes of displacement through conflict prevention, climate action and sustainable development. It also means creating more legal pathways for migration, ending the criminalisation of humanitarian assistance and investing in integration support.
There’s a need to challenge the fundamental assumption that migration is an existential threat rather than a manageable reality than requires humane governance, and an asset to receiving societies. Historically, societies that have integrated newcomers have greatly benefited from their contributions – economically, culturally and socially.
In a world of unprecedented and growing global displacement, the question isn’t whether migration will continue – it will – but whether it will be managed with cruelty or compassion. As CIVICUS’s State of Civil Society Report makes clear, the treatment of migrants and refugees serves as a litmus test: the way societies respond will prove or disprove their commitment to the idea of a shared humanity – the principle that all humans deserve dignity, regardless of where they were born or the documents they carry.
