Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, at a Press Encounter on the UN80 Initiative
Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 12 2025 (IPS) – Our world is facing challenges on every front. Since the United Nations reflects that world in all its aspects, we feel it in all our work.
These are times of intense uncertainty and unpredictability.
And yet certain truths have [never] been more clear: The United Nations has never been more needed. Our values have never been more relevant. And the needs have never been greater.
At the same time, we know the more the UN does together to address big challenges around the world, the less the burden on individual countries to do it alone.
The United Nations stands out as the essential one-of-a-kind meeting ground to advance peace, sustainable development and human rights.
But resources are shrinking across the board – and they have been for a long time. For example, for at least the past seven years, the United Nations has faced a liquidity crisis because not all Member States pay in full, and many also do not pay on time.
From day one of my mandate, we embarked on an ambitious reform agenda to strengthen how we work and deliver.
To be more effective and cost-effective. To simplify procedures and decentralize decisions. To enhance transparency and accountability. To shift capacities to areas such as data and digital.
And, significantly, the Pact for the Future and UN 2.0 are exactly about updating the UN for the 21st century.
These efforts are not ends in themselves. They are about better serving people whose very lives depend on us.
They are about hardworking taxpayers around the world who underwrite everything we do. And they are about ensuring the right conditions for everyone serving under the UN flag as they undertake their critical work.
For all these reasons, it is essential that an organizational system as complex and crucial as the United Nations – subjects itself to rigorous and regular scrutiny to assess its fitness for purpose in carrying out its goals efficiently.
And this 80th anniversary year of the United Nations is a prime moment to expand all our efforts, recognizing the need for even greater urgency and ambition.
That is why I have informed yesterday UN Member States that I am officially launching what we call the UN80 Initiative.
I have appointed a dedicated internal Task Force led by Under-Secretary-General Guy Ryder – and composed of principals representing the entire UN system.
The objective will be to present to Member States proposals in three areas:
First, rapidly identifying efficiencies and improvements in the way we work.
Second, thoroughly reviewing the implementation of all mandates given to us by Member States, which have significantly increased in recent years.
Third, a strategic review of deeper, more structural changes and programme realignment in the UN System.
Under the leadership of the President of the General Assembly, I will consult closely and regularly with all Member States on the progress made, seeking guidance on the way forward and presenting concrete decisions for discussion and decision-making when appropriate.
My objective is to move as soon as possible in areas where I have the authority – and to urge Member States to consider the many decisions that rest with them.
This goes far beyond the technical. Budgets at the United Nations are not just numbers on a balance sheet – they are a matter of life and death for millions around the world.
We must ensure value for money while advancing shared values.
The need is great and the goal is clear: an even stronger and more effective United Nations that delivers for people and is tuned to the 21st century.
Prof Daniel D. Bradlow is Professor/Senior Research Fellow, Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria.
The G20 Johannesburg Summit will be the twentieth meeting of the Group of Twenty (G20), a meeting of heads of state and government scheduled to take place from 22 to 23 November 2025. It will be the first G20 summit held in Johannesburg, South Africa and on the African continent.
The most powerful state in the world, the US, seems intent on undermining the existing order that it created and on demonstrating its power over weaker nations. Other influential countries are turning inward.
These developments raise concerns about how well mechanisms for global cooperation, such as the G20, can continue to operate, particularly those that work on the basis of consensual decision making.
What’s the G20’s purpose?
The G20 is a forum in which the largest economies in the world meet regularly to discuss, and attempt to address, the most urgent international economic and political challenges. The group, which includes both rich and developing countries, accounts for about 67% of the world’s population, 85% of global GDP, and 75% of global trade.
The G20, in fact, is a misnomer. The actual number of G20 participants in any given year far exceeds the 19 states and 2 international entities (the European Union and the African Union) that are its permanent members.
Each year they are joined by a number of invited “guests”. While there are some countries, for example Spain and the Netherlands, that are considered “permanent” G20 guests, the full list of guests is determined by the chair of the G20 for that year.
This year, South Africa has invited 13 countries, including Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates. They are joined by 24 invited international organisations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the United Nations and eight African regional organisations, among others.
The G20 should be understood as a process rather than a set of discrete events. Its apex is the annual leaders’ summit at which the participating heads of state and government seek to agree on a communiqué setting out their agreements on key issues. These agreements are non-binding and each of the participating states usually will implement most but not all the agreed points.
The communiqué is the outcome of a two track process: a finance track, consisting of representatives of the finance ministries and central banks in the participating counties, and a “sherpa” track that deals with more political issues. In total these two tracks will involve over 100 meetings of technical level.
Most of the work in each track is done by working groups. The finance track has seven working groups dealing with issues ranging from the global economy and international financial governance to financial inclusion and the financing of infrastructure. The sherpa track has 15 working groups dealing with issues ranging from development and agriculture to health, the digital economy, and education.
The agenda for the working group meetings is based on issues notes prepared by the G20 presidency. The issues notes will discuss both unfinished business from prior years and any new issues that the president adds to the G20 agenda.
The working group chairs report on the outcomes of these meetings to the ministerial meetings in their track. These reports will first be discussed in meetings of the deputies to the ministers. The deputies will seek to narrow areas of disagreement and sharpen the issues for discussion so that when they are presented at the ministerial meeting the chances of reaching agreement are maximised.
The agreements reached at each of these ministerial meetings, assuming all participants agree, will be expressed in a carefully negotiated and drafted communiqué. If the participants cannot agree, the minister chairing the meeting will provide a chair’s summary of the meeting.
These documents will then inform the communiqué that will be released at the end of the G20 summit. This final communiqué represents the formal joint decision of the participating heads of state and government.
The G20 process is supplemented by the work of 13 engagement groups representing, for example, business, labour, youth, think tanks, women and civil society in the G20 countries. These groups look for ways to influence the outcomes of the G20 process.
What is the G20 troika and how does it operate?
The G20 does not have a permanent secretariat. Instead, the G20 president is responsible for organising and chairing the more than 100 meetings that take place during the year. The G20 has decided that this burden should be supported by a “troika”, consisting of the past, present and future presidents of the G20. This year the troika consists of Brazil, the past chair; South Africa, the current chair; and the US, the future chair.
The role of the troika varies depending on the identity of the current chair and how assertive it wishes to be in driving the G20 process. It will also be influenced by how active the other two members of the troika wish to be.
The troika helps ensure some continuity from one G20 year to another. This is important because there is a significant carryover of issues on the G20 agenda from one year to the next. The troika therefore creates the potential for the G20 president to focus on the issues of most interest to it over a three-year period rather than just for one year.
The G20 was first brought together during the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s. At that time, it was limited to a forum in which ministers of finance and central bank governors could meet to discuss the most important international economic and financial issues, such as the Asian financial crisis.
The G20 was elevated to the level of heads of state and government at the time of the 2008 global financial crisis.
The G20 tends to work well as a cooperative forum when the world is confronting an economic crisis. Thus, the G20 was a critical forum in which countries could discuss and agree on coordinating actions to deal with the global financial crisis in 2008-9.
It has performed less well when confronted with other types of crises. For example, it was found wanting in dealing with the COVID pandemic.
It has also proven to be less effective, although not necessarily totally ineffective, when there is no crisis. So, for example, the G20 has been useful in helping address relatively technical issues such as developing international standards on particular financial regulatory issues or improving the functioning of multilateral development banks.
On other more political issues, for example climate, food security, and funding the UN’s sustainable development goals, it has been less effective.
There’s one less obvious, but nevertheless important, benefit. The G20 offers officials from participating countries the chance to interact with their counterparts from other G20 countries. As a result, they come to know and understand each other better, which helps foster cooperation between states on issues of common interest.
It also ensures that when appropriate, these officials know whom to contact in other countries and this may help mitigate the risk of misunderstanding and conflict.
These crisis management and other benefits would be lost if the G20 were to stop functioning. And there is currently no alternative to the G20 in the sense of a forum where the leading states in the world, which may differ on many important issues, can meet on a relatively informal basis to discuss issues of mutual interest.
Importantly, the withdrawal of one G20 state, even the most powerful, should not prevent the remaining participants from using the G20 to promote international cooperation on key global challenges.
In this way it can help manage the risk of conflict in a complex global environment.
COP16 President Susana Muhamad. Parties to the UN Biodiversity adopted decisions to implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Credit: IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin/Mike Muzurakis.
BLOOMINGTON, U.S.A & ROME, Feb 28 2025 (IPS) – The second round of the UN Biodiversity Conference, COP16, concluded in the early hours of Friday, February 28 in Rome, with an agreement to raise the funds needed to protect biodiversity.
COP16 was suspended in Cali, Colombia, in 2024 without any major financial support decision to support biodiversity conservation. But in the second round of the conference in Rome, Italy, governments agreed on a financial strategy to address the action targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), which was adopted in 2022 with the aim of closing the biodiversity finance gap.
In a final document, all parties to the biodiversity convention agreed to mobilize resources to close the global biodiversity finance gap and achieve the target of mobilizing at least 200 billion dollars a year by 2030, including international flows of USD 20 billion per year by 2025. Which will be rising to USD 30 billion by 2030.
In the closing press briefing in the early hours of Friday, COP16 President Susana Muhamad said the Rome conference came to a successful end. “It was a remarkable achievement of being able to approve all the decisions, especially the most contentious, difficult decisions.” She said, “And not in a way that made the parties feel that they were compromising their main objectives.”
The agreement includes the commitment to establish permanent arrangements for the financial mechanism in accordance with Articles 21 and 39 of the Convention while working on improving existing financial instruments. It also includes a roadmap of the activities and decision-making milestones until 2030.
COP16 president Muhamad also said that the agreement between governments in Rome will help bring the agendas of biodiversity and climate change together. In November, Belem in the Amazon rainforest region of Brazil will be hosting the UN climate conference, COP30.
“The importance of these resolutions that have been approved in Cali and also here of the cooperation between the different conventions,” she said.
The biodiversity COP also adopted a Strategy for Resource Mobilization to mobilize the funds needed for implementation of the KMGBF. Which includes public finance from national and subnational governments, private and philanthropic resources, multilateral development banks, blended finance, and other approaches.
The Cali Fund
The Rome gathering of parties also agreed to establish a dedicated fund for fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Research (DSI), known as the Cali Fund.
The fund was launched on 26 February 2025—at least 50 percent of its resources will be allocated to indigenous peoples and local communities, recognizing their role as custodians of biodiversity. Large companies and other major entities benefiting commercially from the use of DSI are expected to contribute a portion of their profits or revenues in sectors and subsectors highly dependent on the use of DSI.
Pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, plant and animal breeding, agricultural biotechnology, industrial biotechnology, laboratory equipment associated with the sequencing and use of digital sequence information on genetic resources, and information, scientific and technical services related to digital sequence information on genetic resources, including artificial intelligence. Academic, public databases, public research institutions and companies operating in the concerned sectors but not relying on DSI are exempt from contributions to the Cali Fund.
The fund is part of a multilateral mechanism on the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources adopted at COP15 in December 2022 alongside the KMGBF.
Gina Romero is UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of assembly and of association
Gina Romero
BOGOTA, Colombia, Feb 27 2025 (IPS) – The U.S. administration has the prerogative to review and adjust public expenditure policies, including foreign aid. However, this power must be exercised responsibly, adhering to national and international legal frameworks, including the principles of human rights law.
The recent decisions by the Trump administration to freeze federal grants and loans, including foreign aid, have raised serious concerns about the implications for local, national and international associations.
These measures, which followed executive orders aimed at “reevaluating” U.S. foreign assistance and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, risk undermining the freedoms that are vital to democratic societies.
In a letter sent to the USG, 35 UN experts indicate that the freeze on funding and stop work orders has been described as a drastic measure that could have a far-reaching impact on the ability of individuals and organizations to advocate for and protect human rights.
The decision to stop work on federal projects, including critical programs funded through foreign aid, is having an immediate effect on vulnerable communities and human rights defenders worldwide. The ripple effects are particularly severe for marginalized groups who depend on these resources for essential services like healthcare, education, access to food and housing.
These measures also disproportionately affect organizations working on gender equality, LGBTIQ issues, reproductive rights, and poverty alleviation, which are already underfunded and face significant challenges in the global South.
The implications of these measures affect different type of associations, including small and medium-sized businesses, not-for-profit entities, civil society organizations, universities, faith-based groups, and even scientific research institutions that rely on U.S. funding to carry out their work.
The speed and scale of the funding freeze have left these entities unable to fulfil their missions. Some have already been forced to lay off staff, suspend vital programs, and even close their doors, leading to the shrinking of civic space in countries where they have long been key players in advocating for democracy, human rights, and sustainable development.
The Need for Proportionality, Transparency, and Legal Compliance
While the goal of effective public expenditure is commendable, its success depends on a transparent and inclusive process that is in line with legal standards, including international human rights law. These measures, which were implemented with little consultation or clear communication, have not adhered to the principle of proportionality, which is enshrined in both domestic and international law.
The absence of transparent guidelines, accountability mechanisms, respect for due process, and avenues for appeal is troubling, especially when the measures have such wide-reaching consequences.
International human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is a signatory, guarantees the right to freedom of association. This right not only protects the ability to form associations but also to carry out the activities for which those associations were established.
The freedom to access resources is a critical component of this right, as it enables organizations to seek, receive, and use resources from a variety of sources, both domestic and international. When funding is denied, it effectively denies organizations the means to operate, undermining their ability to fulfil their missions.
The freeze on U.S. funding, without due process or clear guidelines, is in direct conflict with these principles. The lack of clarity on how decisions are made or how organizations can challenge them undermines the rights of associations.
Furthermore, the failure to involve stakeholders—including U.S. civil society organizations—in the decision-making process is a violation of the principles of democratic governance and transparency.
The Global Impact of U.S. Funding Decisions
The far-reaching consequences of the funding freeze are most acutely felt in countries where U.S. aid supports critical initiatives in areas such as healthcare, education, peacebuilding, and human rights protection.
For example, programs addressing sexual and reproductive health are at immediate risk of cessation. Similarly, efforts to combat gender-based violence, support displaced communities, and provide education to marginalized groups are being disrupted.
In addition to these humanitarian concerns, the freeze also threatens to derail long-standing initiatives aimed at promoting democracy, good governance, and the rule of law. U.S. foreign aid has long been a pillar of support for civil society organizations that monitor elections, promote anti-corruption efforts, and advocate for human rights protections, among others.
The suspension of funding to these programs undermines not only the work of these organizations but also the broader goal of promoting democratic values worldwide.
The U.S. government’s decision to cut funding to programs that address discrimination—particularly those related to DEI initiatives—has sparked additional controversy. These measures have the potential to undermine efforts to protect individuals from workplace discrimination and ensure equal access to opportunities.
By targeting DEI programs, the administration is signalling a shift away from policies designed to address structural inequalities, which could have long-term negative effects on social justice worlwide.
The Stigmatization of Civil Society Organizations
Another concerning consequence of these decisions is the stigmatization of associations managing and receiving U.S. funding. The administration’s rhetoric has painted many civil society organizations as threats to national security.
This kind of stigmatization is dangerous because its fosters hostility toward groups that are engaged in legitimate advocacy for development, human rights and democratic governance.
Also, it places these organizations—and their staff—at risk of harassment, intimidation, and even physical violence, particularly in countries where civil society organizations are already under threat. Stigmatization is the entry door for repression and violence.
This pattern of vilification has serious consequences. As I noted in my more recent report to the UN General Assembly, negative narratives about civil society organizations and other associations deepen the stigmatization of activists and organizations, leading to increased repression, physical attacks, and online harassment.
These dynamics create an environment in which activists and civil society organizations are seen not as contributors to public good but as enemies.
The Path Forward: Upholding Human Rights and Civil Society
The decision to freeze funding may have been motivated by a desire to ensure more effective public spending, but it risks doing lasting damage to civil society. The lack of transparency, failure to follow due process, and disregard for international human rights law make these measures problematic.
To ensure that the U.S. upholds its commitment to human rights and the freedom of association, it is imperative that the U.S. government must urgently comply with the recent court orders, pay invoices, reconsider the impact of its freeze on foreign aid and federal grants and to compensate for the damage done. Besides, future decisions regarding foreign aid and public funding be made with greater clarity, accountability, and respect for the rule of law.
The U.S. must also recognize that associations in general and civil society organizations in particular are critical to the realization of human rights. These organizations play an essential role in advocating for the protection of fundamental freedoms, including the rights to health, education, and social justice.
Freezing funding and issuing stop work orders without clear and transparent procedures not only undermines these organizations but also threatens to dismantle vital systems of support for marginalized communities.
It is crucial that the U.S. government ensures that future funding decisions are made with respect for international human rights standards, that organizations are able to access the resources they need to carry out their work, and that the right to freedom of association is upheld.
In conclusion, the freeze on U.S. funding represents a significant threat to the functioning of civil society organizations and to the protection of human rights globally. While the government’s decision to review public expenditure is within its rights, the approach taken thus far raises serious concerns about transparency, proportionality, and adherence to international human rights law.
To avoid further harm, the U.S. must prioritize the protection of civil society, uphold the right to freedom of association, and ensure that any policy changes are made in a manner that respects the fundamental freedoms on which democracy depends.
Civil society organisations and community leaders at the Finance in Common Summit 2023. Credit: Sebastian Barros/Forus
CAPE TOWN, South Africa, Feb 24 2025 (IPS) – As public development banks gather for the Finance in Common Summit (FiCS) in Cape Town, South Africa, civil society and community activists from across the world are demanding a shift to a community-led, equitable, and human rights-based development approach, that prioritise people and planet over profit, and a reform of the global financial architecture.
“With more than 10 % global investment flowing through them each year, public development banks hold immense responsibility—not only to fund infrastructure and development but to do so in a way that is just, inclusive, and sustainable. Development that does not listen to the voices of the people it affects is not true development; it deepens inequalities, harms ecosystems, and leaves communities behind. True development is not done for communities, but with them”, says Mavalow Christelle Kalhoule, Chair at Forus.
Since its first edition in 2020, civil society has been playing a critical role at FiCS in ensuring public development banks are accountable to the people they serve, and in amplifying the voices – too often ignored – of communities in the Global South who are most directly affected by development projects.
“Over the next few days, the world’s public development banks will be patting themselves on the back for all the good they’re doing around the world. But all that glitters is not gold. Way too often these institutions are replicating a neocolonial and neoliberal approach, dividing the world between those to be sacrificed and those to benefit from the sacrifices”, says Ony Soa Ratsifandrihamanana, Africa Regional Coordinator at the Coalition for Human Rights in Development.
Civil society organisations and community leaders at the Finance in Common Summit 2023. Credit: Sebastian Barros/Forus
Amidst rising inequality, debt crises, and the climate emergency, public development banks must move beyond rhetoric and commit to concrete, transformative actions. This is why over 300 civil society groups have joined forces to bring their demands at FiCS, calling on development banks to champion a new era of development finance, placing human rights, community leadership, and environmental sustainability at the core of all financing decisions.
“The world is passing through the most critical and testing times of its history and once again the solutions are being imposed without the consent, participation and engagement of citizens at large and representative civil society in particular. This is the time to think, reflect and act out of the box, and this opportunity of coming together at FiCS should not be considered business as usual,” says Zia ur Rehman, Secretary General and Director at the Asia Development Alliance.
In a context of shrinking civic space and increasing attacks against the human rights movement, development banks should also play a more decisive role to make sure people can actively and safely participate in decision-making processes and consultations.
“While development banks acknowledge the importance of civil society engagement, their frameworks often fall short in implementation, resulting in limited access to information, tokenistic public participation, and a lack of accountability for reprisals against activists,” says Manana Kochladze, Strategic Area Leader – Democratization and Human Rights at CEE Bankwatch Network. “There is a pressing need for development banks to collaboratively develop a unified and proactive approach to safeguarding and expanding civic space”.
More than 60 civil society organizations and community activists will also join the Summit in-person, to share their first-hand testimonies on the actual impact of development projects. From renewables in Kenya to green hydrogen projects in Chile, too often projects presented as sustainable are displacing local communities, polluting the environment, and failing to ensure that the benefits trickle down to those most in need.
Civil society organisations and community leaders at the Finance in Common Summit 2023. Credit: Sebastian Barros/Forus
“When decisions are made without the input of local voices, finance becomes an instrument of exclusion, perpetuating inequality and undermining true progress. We demand a comprehensive overhaul of global financial structures that prioritizes community rights. A shift to people-led finance will enable genuine economic transformation, lifting up every individual and fostering resilient, inclusive growth that benefits society as a whole,” says Ndeye Fatou Sy, Programs Manager at Lumière Synergie pour le Développement (Senegal).
The Lesotho Highlands Water Project, for instance, provides water to South Africa in exchange for royalties and generation of hydropower for Lesotho, but has led to devastating socio-economic and environmental impacts. Hundreds of families have been involuntarily resettled and more than 30,000 people lost their cropland and grazing land, with a particular impact on women.
“As we gather at the Finance in Common Summit, we remind public development banks that front-line communities should not bear the cost of development. Public development banks must create and use independent accountability mechanisms to hear directly from local communities and ensure that their land, livelihoods, and environment are protected,” says Robi Chacha Mosenda, Senior Associate at Accountability Counsel.
Civil society and community representatives participating at the Summit will also present viable and alternative solutions, such as small-scale and renewable energy solutions that are led by Indigenous communities themselves.
“Any form of financing by multilateral development banks should start with support to community-led planning initiatives that ascertain that decisions on energy alternatives centre the rights of affected persons and communities”, says Mwebe John, Africa Finance Campaigner at Recourse. “Multilateral development banks are investing more money than ever into renewable energy, but the scale and kind of projects matters if these investments are going to truly power people and protect the planet. Community-led projects are popping up everywhere – from rooftop solar in India, to micro hydropower in Indonesia, and rural mini grids in Rwanda and Tanzania. These are the types of projects to be supported,” adds Federico Sibaja, IMF Campaign Manager at Recourse.
These stories show that it is key for development banks to use FiCS as an opportunity to step out from their echo chamber, listen to those who are bearing the brunt of their investments, and strengthen the dialogue with civil society.
Lorena Cotza is Communications Lead, Coalition for Human Rights in Development
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 24 2025 (IPS) – The UN’s human rights agenda is in danger of faltering since the Geneva-based Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) is planning to “restructure” the office, under the moniker OHCHR 2.0.
But this proposal, if implemented, would result in the abolition of the Special Procedures Branch, established by the Human Rights Council (HRC), to report and advise on human rights from thematic and country-specific perspectives.
The question remains whether or not the HRC will give its blessings to the proposed restructuring. Currently, there are more than 46 thematic mandates and 14 country-specific mandates.
The Special Rapporteurs (who are also designated “independent UN human rights experts”) cover a wide range of thematic issues, including investigations into extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, racism and xenophobia, human rights in the Palestinian territories, right to freedom of opinion and expression, rights of the indigenous peoples, violence against women, human rights of immigrants, among others.
Ian Richards, an economist at the Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and former President of the Coordinating Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations, told IPS the staff of the Special Procedures Branch play an essential role in supporting the work of the special rapporteurs.
He said former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described their work as the jewel in the crown of the UN human rights system.
“We know that some of their recent work has created pushback. There is a belief is that they are being penalized for this”.
“The High Commissioner for Human Rights “hasn’t accepted to meet with the staff union to discuss this, which is unusual. We hope he will change his mind,” said Richards.
Some of the Special Rapporteurs have been vociferously critical of member states, including Israel, on war crimes charges in Gaza, and also countries in the Middle East and South-east Asia, like Singapore and Saudi Arabia, for continuing to enforce the death penalty.
In a press release last week, two Special Rapporteurs said Singapore must urgently halt the execution of Malaysian national Pannir Selvam Pranthaman for drug trafficking.
“We have repeatedly** called on Singapore to halt executions for drug offences which are illegal under international human rights law on several grounds,” the experts said.
“We reiterate that under international law, only crimes of extreme gravity involving intentional killing meet the threshold for the death penalty,” the experts said. “Mandatory death sentences are inherently over-inclusive and inevitably violate human rights law.”
“There is no evidence that the death penalty does more than any other punishment to curb or prevent drug trafficking,” they said.
The experts warned that the rate of execution notices for drug-related offences in Singapore was “highly alarming”. They noted that eight people have already been executed on these charges since 1 October 2024, a period of just four and a half months.
Speaking off-the-record, a UN source told IPS the staff of the Special Procedures Branch fear the “re-structuring” is being done in order to reduce the effectiveness and voice of the Special Rapporteurs. And the High Commissioner’s refusal to consult with the union may be evidence of this, he said.
“As you may be aware, the special rapporteurs, and one in particular, have been vocal on the issue of Gaza, which has generated complaints from a number of member states to the High Commissioner. To seek a second term, he needs their support”.
According to the UN, Special Rapporteurs/Independent Experts/Working Groups are independent human rights experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council. Together, these experts are referred to as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council.
Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. While the UN Human Rights office acts as the secretariat for Special Procedures, the experts serve in their individual capacity and are independent from any government or organization, including OHCHR and the UN.
Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the UN or OHCHR. Country-specific observations and recommendations by the UN human rights mechanisms, including the special procedures, the treaty bodies and the Universal Periodic Review, can be found on the Universal Human Rights Index https://uhri.ohchr.org/en/
The Office of the High Commissioner is being funded by the UN regular budget and voluntary contributions.
But UN Special Rapporteurs are not paid a salary by the United Nations. They receive funding primarily through logistical and personnel support from the Office of the High Commissioner.
They often also receive additional funding from private foundations and NGOs like the Ford Foundation and Open Society Foundations, which can raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest due to the source of funding.
Special procedures cover all human rights: civil, cultural, economic, political and social as well as issues relating to specific groups. Special procedures mandate-holders are either an individual (called a Special Rapporteur (SR) or Independent Expert (IE)) or a Working Group (WG) of five members, according to the UN.
As part of their mandates, special procedures examine, advise and publicly report on human rights issues and situations. They conduct thematic studies and convene expert consultations, contribute to the development of international human rights standards, engage in advocacy and provide advice for technical cooperation.
Upon the invitation from Governments, they visit particular countries or territories in order to monitor the situation on the ground. Special procedures also act on individual cases and concerns of a broader, structural nature by sending communications to States and other entities in which they bring alleged violations or abuses to their attention.
Finally, they raise public awareness of a specific topic through press releases or other public statements. Special procedures report annually to the Human Rights Council; the majority of the mandates also report annually to the General Assembly
In 2024, OHCHR received a total of US$268.9 million in voluntary contributions. As in previous years, the overwhelming majority of voluntary contributions came from Member States and International organizations including the European Commission and UN partners.
