Democracy under Attack: Why the World Needs a New UN Special Rapporteur

Active Citizens, Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Trafficking, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Cover photo by OHCHR

BRUSSELS, Belgium / MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Jul 2 2025 (IPS) – When tanks rolled through Myanmar’s streets in 2021, civil society groups worldwide sounded the alarm. When Viktor Orbán systematically dismantled Hungary’s free press, democracy activists demanded international action. And as authoritarianism returns to Tanzania ahead of elections, it’s once again civil society calling for democratic freedoms to be respected.


Around the world, authoritarian populists have learned to maintain democratic language and rituals while gutting democracy’s substance. They hold fraudulent elections with no real opposition and crack down on civil society when it tries to uphold democratic freedoms. As a result, more than 70 per cent of the world’s population lives in countries where civic space is routinely repressed.

In response, over 175 civil society organisations and 500 activists have united behind a demand to help improve respect for democratic freedoms, calling on the UN to establish a Special Rapporteur on Democracy.

The proposal isn’t coming from diplomatic corridors or academia; it’s a grassroots call from the frontlines of a global democratic struggle. Democracy defenders who face harassment, imprisonment and violence have identified a gap in international oversight that emboldens authoritarians and lets down those fighting for democratic rights when they most need support.

Critical blind spots

While the UN investigates everything from torture to toxic waste through specialised rapporteurs, democracy – supposedly a core UN principle – receives no systematic international oversight. This is a blind spot civil society wants to change.

Today’s threats to democracy are often more subtle than outright coups and blatant election rigging. Repressive leaders have mastered the art of legal authoritarianism, using constitutional amendments to extend term limits, judicial re-engineering to capture courts and media laws to silence critics, all while maintaining a facade of democratic governance.

In countries from Belarus to Venezuela, elections have been turned into elaborate ceremonies emptied of competition. Even established democracies face growing challenges, with foreign influence and disinformation campaigns documented across dozens of recent elections, often amplified by AI that creates deepfakes faster than fact-checkers can debunk them.

The rise of right-wing populism across Europe and in the USA shows how easily democratic processes can elevate leaders who systematically undermine democratic institutions from within, weaponising the law to concentrate executive authority, criminalise opposition and restrict civic space.

These evolving threats expose fundamental gaps in how the international community monitors and responds to democratic regression. The proposed UN Special Rapporteur on Democracy would help fill this gap: unlike current mandates that focus on specific rights, this role would examine how democratic systems function as a whole.

Existing UN Special Rapporteurs have recognised the urgent need for dedicated democracy oversight, with the Special Rapporteurs on freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, freedom of opinion and expression, and the independence of judges and lawyers highlighting how democratic backsliding undermines the rights they’re mandated to protect.

A democracy rapporteur could investigate the full spectrum of threats that escape international attention: how electoral systems become compromised through legal manipulation, how parliamentary oversight gets systematically weakened while maintaining constitutional appearances, how judicial independence is eroded through seemingly legitimate reforms, and how meaningful participation beyond elections gets stifled through bureaucratic restrictions.

Crucially, the mandate could document not just obvious authoritarian crackdowns but the subtler forms of democratic erosion that often escape international notice until democratic institutions are compromised, offering early warnings about gradual processes that transform vibrant democracies into hollow shells.

Legal foundations

The proposal builds on solid legal foundations. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes that ‘public authority must derive from the will of the people’, while article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognises every citizen’s right to participate in public affairs and vote in free, fair and clean periodic elections.

Regional mechanisms provide valuable precedents. The Inter-American Democratic Charter explicitly states that ‘the peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend it’. Building on this, Guatemala has recently requested an advisory opinion to clarify whether democracy constitutes a fundamental human right and what tangible obligations this imposes on states.

These foundations provide an actionable definition of democracy that respects diverse democratic models while upholding universal principles, sidestepping cultural relativist arguments that some authoritarian governments use to avoid accountability.

Momentum building

The proposal has generated remarkable momentum. On the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a broad coalition of civil society groups and think tanks published a joint statement calling for the appointment of a UN Special Rapporteur on Democracy.

Civil society leadership reflects widespread frustration among democracy activists who work under increasingly dangerous conditions and demand better institutional responses. Budget-conscious states should find this proposal attractive given the remarkable cost-effectiveness of the UN mandates system. Following standard UN practice, the new position would be unpaid, relying on voluntary funding from supportive states.

During its recent 58th session, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution on human rights, democracy and the rule of law, conferring multilateral legitimacy on governments that want to support stronger democracy oversight. The window for action is open, but it won’t stay open indefinitely.

A test for international institutions

No single initiative will reverse global democratic decline. But this new role would enable systematic documentation, trend spotting and the sustained international attention democracy defenders desperately need. The rapporteur could investigate not just obvious authoritarian crackdowns but early signs of subtler democratic erosion, while highlighting innovations and good practices that others could adapt.

The debate over a UN Special Rapporteur on Democracy offers a test of whether international institutions can adapt to contemporary challenges or will remain trapped in outdated approaches while democracy crumbles. Creating this mandate would communicate that the international community takes democratic governance seriously enough to monitor it systematically – a signal that matters to democracy activists who need international support and serves as a warning to authoritarian leaders who thrive when nobody is watching.

With hundreds of civil society groups leading this charge from the frontlines of democratic struggle, the question isn’t whether this oversight is needed, but whether the UN will act before it’s too late.

Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, and Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, writer at CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

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

  Source

Multi-Year Drought Gives Birth to Extremist Violence, Girls Most Vulnerable

Africa, Armed Conflicts, Biodiversity, Child Labour, Climate Change Finance, Climate Change Justice, Combating Desertification and Drought, Conferences, Development & Aid, Disaster Management, Editors’ Choice, Energy, Environment, Europe, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Gender Violence, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Migration & Refugees, Peace, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Water & Sanitation, Women & Climate Change, Youth

Combating Desertification and Drought

In Nairobi’s Kibera, the largest urban informal settlement in Africa, girls and women wait their turn for the scarce water supply. Credit: Manipadma Jena/IPS

SEVILLE & BHUBANESWAR, Jul 2 2025 (IPS) – While droughts creep in stealthily, their impacts are often more devastating and far-reaching than any other disaster. Inter-community conflict, extremist violence, and violence and injustice against vulnerable girls and women happen at the intersection of climate-induced droughts and drought-impoverished communities.


Five consecutive years of failed rain in Ethiopia, Somalia, and Kenya brought the worst drought in seventy years to the Horn of Africa by 2023. In Somalia, the government estimated 43,000 excess deaths in 2022 alone due to drought-linked hunger.

As of early current year, 4.4 million people, or a quarter of Somalia’s population, face crisis-level food insecurity, including 784,000 people expected to reach emergency levels. Together, over 90 million people across Eastern and Southern Africa face acute hunger. Some areas have been enduring their worst ever recorded drought, finds a United Nations-backed study, Drought Hotspots Around the World 2023-2025 released today at the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4).

UNCCD Executive Secretary Ibrahim Thiaw said "Drought is here, escalating, and demands urgent global cooperation" Photo courtesy: UNCCD

UNCCD Executive Secretary Ibrahim Thiaw noted that while drought is here and escalating, it demands urgent global cooperation. Photo courtesy: UNCCD

High tempera­tures and a lack of precipitation in 2023 and 2024 resulted in water supply shortages, low food supplies, and power rationing. In parts of Africa, tens of millions faced drought-induced food shortages, malnutrition, and displacement, finds the new 2025 drought analysis, Drought Hotspots Around the World 2023-2025, by the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and the U.S. National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC).

It not just comprehensively synthesizes impacts on humans but also on biodiversity and wildlife within the most acute drought hotspots in Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Botswana, and Namibia), the Mediterranean (Spain, Morocco, and Türkiye), Latin America (Panama and the Amazon Basin) and Southeast Asia.

Desperate to Cope but Pulled Into a Spiral of Violence and Conflict

“The coping mechanisms we saw during this drought grew increasingly desperate,” says lead author Paula Guastello, NDMC drought impacts researcher. “Girls pulled from school and forced into marriage, hospitals going dark, and families digging holes in dry riverbeds just to find contaminated water. These are signs of severe crisis.”

Over one million Somalis in 2022 were forced to move in search of food, water for families and cattle, and alternative livelihoods. Migration is a major coping mechanism mostly for subsistence farmers and pastoralists. However, mass migration strains resources in host areas, often leading to conflict. Of this large number of displaced Somalis, many crossed into territory held by Islamic extremists.

Drought in a Sub-Saharan district leads to 8.1 percent lower economic activity and 29.0 percent higher extremist violence, an earlier study found. Districts with more months of drought in a given year and more years in a row with drought experienced more severe violence.

Drought expert and editor of the UNCCD study Daniel Tsegai told IPS at the online pre-release press briefing from the Saville conference that drought can turn into an extremist violence multiplier in regions and among communities rendered vulnerable by multi-year drought.

Climate change-driven drought does not directly cause extremist conflict or civil wars; it overlaps and exacerbates existing social and economic tensions, contributing to the conditions that lead to conflict and potentially influencing the rise of extremist violence, added Tsegai.

Extracting water from a traditional well using a manual pulley system. Credit: Abdallah Khalili / UNCCD

Extracting water from a traditional well using a manual pulley system. Credit: Abdallah Khalili / UNCCD

Though the effects of climate change on conflict are indirect, they have been seen to be quite severe and far-reaching. An example is the 2006-2011 drought in Syria, seen as the worst in 900 years. It led to crop failures, livestock deaths and mass rural displacement into cities, creating social and political stress. Economic disparities and authoritarian repression gave rise to extremist groups that exploited individuals facing unbearable hardships.

The UN study cites entire school districts in Zimbabwe that saw mass dropouts due to hunger and school costs. Rural families were no longer able to afford uniforms and tuition, which cost USD 25. Some children left school to migrate with family and work.

Drought-related hunger impact on children

Hungry and clueless about their dark futures, children become prime targets for extremists’ recruitment.

A further example of exploitation of vulnerable communities by extremists is cited in the UNCCD drought study. The UN World Food Programme in May 2023 estimated that over 213,000 more Somalis were at “imminent risk” of dying of starvation. Little aid had reached Somalia, as multiple crises across the globe spread resources thin.

However, al-Shabab, an Islamic extremist group tied to al-Qaida, allegedly prevented aid from reaching the parts of Somalia under its control and refused to let people leave in search of food.

Violent clashes for scarce resources among nomadic herders in the Africa region during droughts are well documented. Between 2021 and January 2023 in eastern Africa alone, over 4.5 million livestock had died due to droughts, and 30 million additional animals were at risk. Facing starvation of both their families and their livestock, by February 2025, tens of thousands of pastoralists had moved with their livestock in search of food and water, potentially into violent confrontations with host regions.

Tsegai said, “Drought knows no geographical boundaries. Violence and conflict spill over into economically healthy communities this way.”

Earlier drought researchers have emphasized to policymakers that “building resilience to drought is a security imperative.”

Women and Girls Worst Victims of Drought Violence

“Today, around 85 percent of people affected by drought live in low- and middle-income countries, with women and girls being the hardest hit,” UNCCD Deputy Executive Secretary Andrea Meza said.

“Drought might not know boundaries, but it knows gender,” Tsegai said. Women and girls in low-income countries are the worst victims of drought-induced societal instability.

Traditional gender-based societal inequalities are what make women and girl children par­ticularly vulnerable.

During the 2023-2024 drought, forced child marriages in sub-Saharan Africa more than doubled in frequency in the four regions hit hardest by the drought. Young girls who married brought their family income in the form of a dowry that could be as high as 3,000 Ethiopian birr (USD 56). It lessened the financial burden on girls’ parental families.

Forced child marriages, however, bring substantial risks to the girls. A hospital clinic in Ethiopia (which, though, it has outlawed child marriage) specifically opened to help victims of sexual and physi­cal abuse that is common in such marriages.

Girls gener­ally leave school when they marry, further stifling their opportunities for financial independence.

Reports have found desperate women exchanging sex for food or water or money during acute water scarcities. Higher incidence of sexual violence happens when hydropower-dependent regions are confronted with 18 to 20 hours without electricity and women and girls are compelled to walk miles to fetch household water.

“Proactive drought management is a matter of climate justice,” UNCCD Meza said.

Drought Hotspots Need to Be Ready for This ‘New’ Normal

“Drought is no longer a distant threat,” said UNCCD Executive Secretary Ibrahim Thiaw, adding, “It is here, escalating, and demands urgent global cooperation. When energy, food, and water all go at once, societies start to unravel. That’s the new normal we need to be ready for.”

“This is a slow-moving global catastrophe, the worst I’ve ever seen. This report underscores the need for systematic monitoring of how drought affects lives, livelihoods, and the health of the ecosystems that we all depend on,” said Mark Svoboda, report co-author and NDMC Founding Director.

“The struggles experienced by Spain, Morocco and Türkiye to secure water, food, and energy under persistent drought offer a preview of water futures under unchecked global warming. No country, regardless of wealth or capacity, can afford to be complacent,” he added.

Global Drought Outlook 2025 estimates the economic impacts of an average drought today can be up to six times higher than in 2000, and costs are projected to rise by at least 35% by 2035.

“It is calculated that $1 of investment in drought prevention results in bringing back $7 into the GDP lost to droughts. Awareness of the economics of drought is important for policymaking,” Tsegai said.

The report released during the International Drought Resilience Alliance (IDRA) event at the Saville conference aims to get public policies and international cooperation frameworks to urgently prioritize drought resilience and bolster funding.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

FFD4 Must Deliver for the World’s Most Vulnerable Nations

Aid, Climate Action, Climate Change, Conferences, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Education, Environment, Global, Headlines, Health, Poverty & SDGs, Sustainability, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

OHRLLS Office Banner. Credit: OHRLLS

UNITED NATIONS, Jul 1 2025 (IPS) – Five years from the 2030 deadline for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), we face a development emergency. The promise to eradicate poverty, combat climate change, and build a sustainable future for all is slipping away. The SDG financing gap has ballooned to over $4 trillion annually—a crisis compounded by declining aid, rising trade barriers, and a fragile global economy.


At the heart of this crisis is a systemic failure: the world’s most vulnerable nations—Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs), and Small Island Developing States (SIDS)—are being left behind. The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4) in Seville is a historic chance to correct course.

We must seize it.

LDCs: Progress Stalled, Financing Denied

Three years into the Doha Programme of Action, LDCs are lagging precariously. Growth averages just 4.1%, far below the 7% target. FDI remains stagnant at a meager 2.5% of global flows, while ODA to LDCs fell by 3% in 2024. Worse, 29 LDCs now spend more on debt than health, and eight spend more on debt than education.

USG Rabab Fatima

These numbers demand action: scaled-up concessional finance, deep debt relief, and innovative tools like blended finance to unlock private investment. Without urgent measures, the 2030 Agenda will fail its most marginalized beneficiaries.

LLDCs: Trapped by Geography, Strangled by Finances

Six months after adopting the ambitious Awaza Programme of Action, LLDCs remain hamstrung by structural barriers. Despite hosting 7% of the world’s people, they account for just 1.2% of global trade, with export costs 74% higher than coastal nations. FDI has plummeted from $36 billion in 2011 to $23 billion in 2024, while ODA continues its downward spiral. Official Development Assistance (ODA) has also declined significantly from $38.1 billion in 2020 to $32 billion in 2023, with projections indicating continued downward trends.

The Awaza Programme outlines solutions—trade facilitation, infrastructure, and resilience—but these will remain empty promises without financing. FFD4 must align with its priorities, ensuring LLDCs get the investment they need to transform their economies.

I seize the opportunity to warmly invite all of you to continue these critical discussions at the Third United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDC3), to be held in Awaza, Turkmenistan, from 5 to 8 August 2025 under the theme “Driving Progress through Partnerships”.

SIDS: Debt, Disasters, and a Broken System

For SIDS, the crisis is existential. Over 40% are in or near debt distress; 70% exceed sustainable debt thresholds. Between 2016 and 2020, they paid 18 times more in debt servicing than they received in climate finance. This is unconscionable. Countries on the frontlines of the climate crisis should not be left on the margins of global finance. Nations drowning in rising sea level – which they did not contribute to – should not be drowning in debt.

We can continue patching over cracks in a broken system. Or we can build a more equitable foundation for sustainable development, and for that addressing debt sustainability is not only an economic necessity, but also a development imperative. No country should be forced to choose between servicing debt and protecting its future.

The Way Forward: Solidarity in Action

FFD4 must deliver:

    1. Debt relief and restructuring for LDCs, LLDCs, and SIDS to free up resources for development.
    2. Scaling up concessional finance and honoring ODA commitments.
    3. Mobilizing private capital through de-risking instruments and blended finance.
    4. Climate finance justice, ensuring SIDS and LDCs receive grants and concessional finance, not loans, to build resilience.

The moral case is clear, but so is the strategic one: A world where billions are left in poverty and instability, should be a world of shared risks and responsibilities. FFD4 must be the moment we choose a different path—one of equity, urgency, and action. The time for excuses is over. The agreement on the Compromiso de Sevilla is the start – the real test will be its implementation.

As we move forward on those important responsibilities s and necessary actions, my Office, UN-OHRLLS, is with you every step of the way.

Rabab Fatima, UN Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries, and Small Island Developing States

IPS UN Bureau

 

‘Enabling Machines to Make Life and Death Decisions Is Morally Unjustifiable’

Active Citizens, Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Featured, Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Jun 27 2025 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses autonomous weapons systems and the campaign for regulation with Nicole van Rooijen, Executive Director of Stop Killer Robots, a global civil society coalition of over 270 organisations that campaigns for a new international treaty on autonomous weapons systems.


Nicole van Rooijen

In May, United Nations (UN) member states convened in New York for the first time to confront the challenge of regulating autonomous weapons systems, which can select and engage targets without human intervention. These ‘killer robots’ pose unprecedented ethical, humanitarian and legal risks, and civil society warns they could trigger a global arms race while undermining international law. With weapons that have some autonomy already deployed in conflicts from Gaza to Ukraine, UN Secretary-General António Guterres has set a 2026 deadline for a legally binding treaty.

What are autonomous weapons systems and why do they pose unprecedented challenges?

Autonomous weapons systems, or ‘killer robots’, are weapons that, once activated by a human, can select and engage targets without further human intervention. These systems make independent decisions – without the intervention of a human operator – about when, how, where and against whom to use force, processing sensor data or following pre-programmed ‘target profiles’. Rather than using the term ‘lethal autonomous weapons systems’, our campaign refers to ‘autonomous weapons systems’ to emphasise that any such system, lethal or not, can inflict serious harm.

The implications are staggering. These weapons could operate across all domains – air, land, sea and space – during armed conflicts and law enforcement or border control operations. They raise numerous ethical, humanitarian, legal and security concerns.

The most troubling variant involves anti-personnel systems triggered by human presence or individuals or groups who meet pre-programmed target profiles. By reducing people to data points for algorithmic targeting, these weapons are dehumanising. They strip away our inherent rights and dignity, dramatically increasing the risk of unjust harm or death. No machine, computer or algorithm can recognise a human as a human being, nor respect humans as inherent bearers of rights and dignity. Autonomous weapons cannot comprehend what it means to be in a state of war, much less what it means to have – or to end – a human life. Enabling machines to make life and death decisions is morally unjustifiable.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has noted it is ‘difficult to envisage’ scenarios where autonomous weapons wouldn’t pose significant risks of violating international humanitarian law, given the inevitable presence of civilians and non-combatants in conflict zones.

Currently, no international law governs these weapons’ development or use. As the technology advances rapidly, this legal vacuum creates a dangerous environment where autonomous weapons could be deployed in ways that violate existing international law while escalating conflicts, enabling unaccountable violence and harming civilians. This is what prompted the UN Secretary-General and the ICRC president to jointly call for urgent negotiations on a legally binding international instrument on autonomous weapons systems by 2026.

How have recent consultations advanced the regulatory agenda?

The informal consultations held in New York in May, mandated by UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 79/62, focused on issues raised in the UN Secretary-General’s 2024 report on autonomous weapons systems. They sought to broaden awareness among the diplomatic community and complement the work around the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), emphasising risks that extend far beyond international humanitarian law.

The UNGA offers a crucial advantage: universal participation. Unlike the CCW process in Geneva, it includes all states. This is particularly important for global south states, many of which are not a party to the CCW.

Over two days, states and civil society explored human rights implications, humanitarian consequences, ethical dilemmas, technological risks and security threats. Rich discussions emerged around regional dynamics and practical scenarios, examining how these weapons might be used in policing, border control and by non-state actors or criminal groups. While time constraints prevented exhaustive exploration of all issues, the breadth of engagement was unprecedented.

The Stop Killer Robots campaign found these consultations energising and strategically valuable. They demonstrated how UN processes in Geneva and New York can reinforce each other: while one forum provides detailed technical groundwork, particularly in developing treaty language, the other fosters inclusive political leadership and momentum. Both forums should work in tandem to maximise global efforts to achieve an international legally binding instrument on autonomous weapons systems.

What explains the global divide on regulation?

The vast majority of states support a legally binding treaty on autonomous weapons systems, favouring a two-tier approach that combines prohibitions with positive obligations.

However, roughly a dozen states oppose any form of regulation. Among them are some of the world’s most heavily militarised states and the primary developers, producers and likely users of autonomous weapons systems. Their resistance likely stems from the desire to preserve military superiority and protect economic interests, and the belief in inflated claims about these weapons’ supposed benefits promoted by big tech and arms industries. Or perhaps they simply favour force over diplomacy.

Whatever their motivations, this opposition underscores the urgent need for the international community to reinforce a rules-based global order that prioritises dialogue, multilateralism and responsible governance over unchecked technological ambition.

How do geopolitical tensions and corporate influence complicate international regulation efforts?

It is undeniable that geopolitical tensions and corporate influence are challenging the development of regulations for emerging technologies.

A handful of powerful states are prioritising narrow military and economic advantages over collective security, undermining the multilateral cooperation that has traditionally governed arms control. Equally troubling is the expanding influence of the private sector, particularly large tech companies that operate largely outside established accountability frameworks while wielding significant sway over political leaders.

This dual pressure is undermining the international rules-based order precisely when we most need stronger multilateral governance. Without robust regulatory frameworks that can withstand these pressures, development of autonomous weapons risks accelerating unchecked, with profound implications for global security and human rights.

How is civil society shaping this debate and advocating for regulation?

Anticipating the challenges autonomous weapons systems would pose, leading human rights organisations and humanitarian disarmament experts founded the Stop Killer Robots campaign in 2012. Today, our coalition spans over 270 organisations across more than 70 countries, working at national, regional and global levels to build political support for legally binding regulation.

We’ve played a leading role in shaping global discourse by highlighting the wide-ranging risks these technologies pose and producing timely research on weapons systems evolution and shifting state positions.

Our multi-level strategy targets all decision-makers who can influence this agenda, at local, regional and global levels. It’s crucial that political leaders understand how autonomous weapons might be used in warfare and other contexts, enabling them to advocate effectively within their spheres of influence for the treaty we urgently need.

Public pressure is key to our approach. Recent years have seen growing weapons systems autonomy and military applications, particularly in ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, alongside rising use of technologies such as facial recognition in civilian contexts. Public concern about the dehumanising nature of these technologies and the lack of regulation has grown online and offline. We frame these concerns along the whole spectrum of automated harm, with autonomous weapons representing the extreme, and highlight the critical need to close the gap between innovation and regulation.

We also collaborate with experts from arms, military and technology sectors to bring real-world knowledge and credibility to our treaty advocacy. It is crucial to involve those who develop and deploy autonomous weapons to demonstrate the gravity of current circumstances and the urgent need for regulation.

We encourage people to take action by signing our petition, asking their local political representatives to sign our Parliamentary Pledge or just spreading the word about our campaign on social media. This ultimately puts pressure on diplomats and other decision-makers to advance the legal safeguards we desperately need.

GET IN TOUCH
Bluesky
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Twitter
Nicole/Bluesky
Nicole/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Facial recognition: the latest weapon against civil society CIVICUS Lens 23.May.2025
Weaponised surveillance: how spyware targets civil society CIVICUS Lens 24. Apr.2025
Technology: Human perils of digital power CIVICUS | 2025 State of Civil Society Report

  Source

Time to Redesign Global Development Finance

Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Conferences, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Education, Environment, Financial Crisis, Food and Agriculture, Gender, Global, Headlines, Health, Inequality, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Sarah Strack, Forus Director and Christelle Kalhoule, Forus Chair

Farmer in Colombia. Credit: Both Nomads/Forus

SEVILLE, Spain , Jun 23 2025 (IPS) – Can the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4) be a turning point? The stakes are high. The international financial system—so important to each and every one of us—feels out of reach and resistant to change, because it is deeply entrenched in unjust power imbalances that keep it in place. We deserve better.


Under its current form, the Compromiso de Sevilla – the outcome document of FFD4 adopted on June 17 ahead of the conference – reads like a mildly improved version of business as usual with weak commitments. To avoid being derailed, decision-makers at FFD4 must act with clarity and courage, and here’s why.

With predatory interest rates, the international financial system is pushing hundreds of millions into misery as several nations continue to be shackled by a deepening debt crisis. While millions struggle without adequate food, healthcare, or education – basic services and rights – their governments must funnel billions to creditors.

Shockingly, 3.3 billion people – almost half of humanity – disproportionately in Global South nations, live in countries where debt interest payments outstrip education, health budgets and urgent climate action. This imbalance is particularly pernicious toward women, who bear the brunt of the failure of the gender-blind global financial architecture. This system fails to acknowledge and redistribute care and social reproduction responsibilities, resulting in women, especially those located in the Global South, lacking access to adequate essential services and decent jobs.

“The current model of international cooperation is not working, and its financing is also not working while we are facing a series of interconnected crises,” says Mafalda Infante, Advocacy and Communications Officer at the Portuguese Platform of Development NGOs, sharing their recently released Civil Society Manifesto for Global Justice calling for change and a restoration of fairness at FFD4 and beyond.

“Gender equality perspectives are absolutely central to how we understand global justice and financial reform, because let’s be clear: the current system isn’t neutral. It produces and reinforces inequalities, including gender-based ones. The debt crisis and climate emergency disproportionately affect women and girls, especially in the global south. We’ve seen it again and again when public services are cut, when healthcare is underfunded or when food systems collapse, it’s women who carry the heaviest burden. But at the same time, feminist economics also offer solutions. They challenge the idea that GDP growth is the ultimate goal. They prioritise care, sustainability and community well-being. They demand that financing should be people-centered and rights-based and accountable as well. So the role of civil society has been to bring these ideas into the FFD4 space to connect macroeconomic reform with everyday realities and to insist that justice – economic, climate, racial, gender justice – is indivisible,” Infante adds.

FFD4 offers an opportunity to reimagine a financial architecture that can be just, inclusive, and rights-based. This is not a technical summit for experts alone. It is the only global forum where governments, international institutions, civil society organisations, community representatives and the private sector sit together to shape the future of global finance, and it’s happening after 10 years since the latest edition in Addis Ababa.

But there are realities that decision-makers just can’t shy away from. While some powerful countries borrow at rock-bottom rates, other nations face interest charges nearly four times higher. We must thus ask ourselves: is this really a pathway to truly sustainable development or a continuation of profound financial injustices through something akin to “financial colonialism” ?

“Many countries like us in the South, are totally concerned that there can be no development with the current debt situation not discussed. The issue of debt vis-a-vis taxes is vitally important. The money that countries are collecting from the domestic mobilization of resources is all channeled to self-debt servicing. And debt handcuffs social policy. Without these resources, these countries cannot deliver on public services like health and education. There can be no way of improving people’s social indicators without addressing the question of debt stress,” says Moses Isooba , Executive Director of the Uganda National NGO Forum (UNNGOF).

Forus is attending FFD4 as a global civil society network with one clear message: the current model must change.

We call for a radical transformation of global finance that moves away from a system that enables “tax abuse” and outsized influence from a powerful few.

A crucial step for transformation is creating a UN Convention on Sovereign Debt to fairly and transparently restructure and cancel illegitimate debt, as many countries spend more on debt than on essential services.

In today’s context of shrinking development aid, the role of public development banks is ever more important in support of Agenda 2030 and the Paris Agreement on climate change. Forus therefore calls on public development banks to work in partnership with civil society and community representatives through a formal global coalition and local engagement to ensure development finance is locally-led and reflects the real needs of people, rooted in consent and mutual trust.

Official development assistance (ODA) must be protected and increased, reversing harmful aid cuts that damage civil society as well as urgent and basic services. The UN has warned that aid funding for dozens of crises around the world has dropped by a third, largely due to the decrease in US funding slashed US funding and announced cuts from other nations.

Finally, governments should support a new UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, adopting gender-responsive, environmentally sustainable fiscal policies while disincentivizing polluters and extractive industries.

“Development financing must not perpetuate cycles of debt, austerity, and dependency. Instead, it must be grounded in democratic governance, fair taxation, climate justice, and respect for human rights. It’s also crucial to promote inclusive decision-making by strengthening the role of the United Nations in global economic governance, countering the dominance of informal and exclusive clubs such as the OECD,” says Henrique Frota, Executive Director of the Brazilian Association of NGOs (ABONG) and former C20 Brazil Chair.

FFD4 must ensure that there is a genuine space for civil society engagement, where all voices are heard and can influence financial decision making, to strengthen accountability and transparency, and to promote greater inclusion.

“The voices of the communities most affected should be included, otherwise large-scale development projects are not sustainable. Local communities and local civil society are the point of contact to make implementation more inclusive,” says Pallavi Rekhi, Programmes Lead at Voluntary Action Network India (VANI), reinforcing that FFD4 must shift from vague aspirations to binding, systemic reforms that rebalance power and serve justice.

“Don’t take stock of what has been done. Instead, look at what has not yet been done at this conference and you will see the immense challenges that lie ahead for the future of our planet,” says Marcelline Mensah-Pierucci, President of FONGTO, the national platform of civil society organisations in Togo.

“The continuous cycle of unfairness and social inequality must come to an end. The time to act is now,” adds Zia ur Rehman, Chairperson of Pakistan Development Alliance.

For many, the road to Sevilla has been long and hard and still, the world’s majority are left behind on this journey. The hard work continues after FFD4 on the need for bold leadership, real action and transformative change that can lead to a more effective and responsive global financial architecture.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Time to Rethink Health Financing: It’s Not Just a Public Sector Concern

Civil Society, Economy & Trade, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Parents and caregivers line up with their children at an immunization centre in Janakpur, southern Nepal. Meanwhile recent funding cuts have caused “severe disruptions” to health services in almost three-quarters of all countries, according to the head of the UN World Health Organization (WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. April 2025. Credit: UNICEF

LONDON, Jun 19 2025 (IPS) – As G7 leaders of the world’s wealthiest nations wrapped up their summit in Kananaskis June 16, a critical issue was absent from the agenda: the future of global health financing.


Amid escalating geopolitical tensions, trade conflicts and cuts to development aid, health has been sidelined – less than five years since COVID-19 devastated lives, health systems and economies.

With the fiscal space for health shrinking in over 69 countries, it’s time to recognise that health financing is no longer solely a public sector concern; it is a fundamental pillar of economic productivity, stability, and resilience.

A glimmer of hope has emerged from South Africa, the current G20 Presidency host, and from the World Health Organization (WHO). A landmark health financing resolution, adopted at last month’s World Health Assembly calls on countries to take ownership of their health funding and increase domestic investment.

While this is a promising step, the prevailing discourse continues to rely on outdated solutions which are often slow to implement and fall short of what is needed.

Invest Smarter, Not Just More, in Health

Recent trends among G20 countries show that annual healthcare expenditure is actually declining across member states. In 2022, health expenditure dropped in 18 out of 20 G20 nations, leading to increased out-of-pocket expenses for citizens.

While countries like Japan, Australia, and Canada demonstrate a direct correlation between higher per capita health expenditure and increased life expectancy, others, such as Russia, India, and South Africa, show the opposite.

This disparity underscores a crucial point: the quality and efficiency of investment matters more than quantity. Smart investment encompasses efficient resource allocation, equitable access to affordable care, effective disease prevention and management, and broader determinants of health like lifestyle, education, and environmental factors.

Achieving positive outcomes hinges on balancing health funding – the operational costs – with sustainable health financing – the capital costs.

Private capital is already moving into health, what’s missing is coordination and strategic alignment

Despite the surge in healthcare private equity reaching USD 480 billion between 2020 and 2024, many in the sector remain unaware of this significant shift. Recent G20 efforts have focused on innovative financing tools, but what’s truly needed are systemic reforms that reframe health as a core pillar of financial stability, economic resilience, and geopolitical security, not just a public service.

This year’s annual Health20 Summit at the WHO, supporting the G20 Health and Finance Ministers Meetings, addresses this need by launching a new compass for health financing: a groundbreaking report on the “Health Taxonomy – A Common Investment Toolkit to Scale Up Future Investments in Health.”

Why do we need an investment map for health?

The answer is simple: since the first ever G20 global health discussions under Germany’s G20 Presidency in 2017, there has been no consistent effort to rethink or coordinate investments. G20 countries still lack a strategic dialogue between governments, health and finance ministries, investors and the private sector.

Market-Driven, Government-Incentivised: The Path Forward

Building on the European Union’s Green Taxonomy, the health taxonomy aims to foster a shared understanding and common language among governments, companies, and investors to drive sustainable health financing. Investors, Asset Managers, Venture Capitalists, G20 Ministries of Health and Finance, Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), and International Organisations broadly agree that a market-driven taxonomy is both credible and practical.

Governments can have greater confidence knowing it has been tested with investors and is grounded in market realities.

The Health Taxonomy report identifies a key barrier to progress: the fundamental confusion between health funding and health financing: Health financing refers to the system that manages health investments, such as raising revenue, pooling resources and purchasing services. In contrast, health funding refers to the actual sources of money.

Increasing health funding alone will not improve health outcomes if the financing system is poorly designed. Conversely, a well-developed health financing framework won’t succeed without sufficient funding. Both are essential and must work together.

The health taxonomy has the potential to serve as a vital tool for policy planning sessions, strategic boardroom discussions and investment committees, thereby enabling health to be readily integrated into existing portfolios and strategies. It could also support more systematic assessments of health-related risks and economic impacts, including through existing processes like the IMF’s Article IV consultations and other macroeconomic surveillance frameworks.

The report urges leading G20 health and finance ministers to rethink and align on joint principles for health funding and financing.

The next pandemic could be more severe, more persistent, and more costly. Failure to invest adequately in health before the next crisis is a systemic risk our leaders can no longer afford to ignore.

Hatice Beton is Co-Founder, H20Summit; Roberto Durán-Fernández; PhD, is Tec de Monterrey School of Government, Former Member of the WHO’s Economic Council; Dennis Ostwald is Founder & CEO, WifOR Institute (Germany); Rifat Atun is Professor of Global Health Systems, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

IPS UN Bureau

  Source