From Algorithms to Accountability: What Global AI Governance Should Look Like

Posted on by admin

Artificial Intelligence, Civil Society, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is a specialized agency of the United Nations. Credit: ITU/Rowan Farrell

 
Artificial intelligence holds vast potential but poses grave risks, if left unregulated, UN Secretary-General António Guterres told the Security Council on September 24.

ABUJA, Nigeria, Oct 14 2025 (IPS) – Recent research from Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered AI warns that bias in artificial intelligence remains deeply rooted even in models designed to avoid it and can worsen as models grow. From bias in hiring of men over women for leadership roles, to misclassification of darker-skinned individuals as criminals, the stakes are high.

Yet it’s simply not attainable for annual dialogues and multilateral processes as recently provisioned for in Resolution A/RES/79/325 for the UN to keep up to pace with AI technological developments and the cost of this is high.

Hence for accountability purposes and to increase the cost of failure, why not give Tech Companies whose operations are now state-like, participatory roles at the UNGA?

When AI Gets It Wrong: 2024’s Most Telling Cases

In one of the most significant AI discrimination cases moving through the courts, the plaintiff alleges that Workday’s popular artificial intelligence (AI)-based applicant recommendation system violated federal antidiscrimination laws because it had a disparate impact on job applicants based on race, age, and disability.

Judge Rita F. Lin of the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in July 2024 that Workday could be an agent of the employers using its tools, which subjects it to liability under federal anti-discrimination laws. This landmark decision means that AI vendors, not just employers, can be held directly responsible for discriminatory outcomes.

In another case, the University of Washington researchers found significant racial, gender, and intersectional bias in how three state-of-the-art large language models ranked resumes. The models favored white-associated names over equally qualified candidates with names associated with other racial groups.

In 2024, a University of Washington study investigated gender and racial bias in resume-screening AI tools. The researchers tested a large language model’s responses to identical resumes, varying only the names to suggest different racial and gender identities.

The financial impact is staggering.

A 2024 DataRobot survey of over 350 companies revealed: 62% lost revenue due to AI systems that made biased decisions, proving that discriminatory AI isn’t just a moral failure—it’s a business disaster. It’s too soon for an innovation to result in such losses.

Time is running out.

A 2024 Stanford analysis of vision-language models found that increasing training data from 400 million to 2 billion images made larger models up to 69% more likely to label Black and Latino men as criminals. In large language models, implicit bias testing showed consistent stereotypes: women were more often linked to humanities over STEM, men were favored for leadership roles, and negative terms were disproportionately associated with Black individuals.

The UN needs to take action now before these predictions turn into reality. And frankly, the UN cannot keep up with the pace of these developments.

What the UN Can—and Must—Do

To prevent AI discrimination, the UN must lead by example and work with governments, tech companies, and civil society to establish global guardrails for ethical AI.

Here’s what that could look like:

Working with Tech Companies: Technology companies have become the new states and should be treated as such. They should be invited to the UN table and granted participatory privileges that both ensure and enforce accountability.

This would help guarantee that the pace of technological development—and its impacts—is self-reported before UN-appointed Scientific Panels reconvene. As many experts have noted, the intervals between these annual convenings are already long enough for major innovations to slip past oversight.

Developing Clear Guidelines: The UN should push for global standards on ethical AI, building on UNESCO’s Recommendation and OHCHR’s findings. These should include rules for inclusive data collection, transparency, and human oversight.

Promoting Inclusive Participation: The people building and regulating AI must reflect the diversity of the world. The UN should set up a Global South AI Equity Fund to provide resources for local experts to review and assess tools such as LinkedIn’s NFC passport verification.

Working with Africa’s Smart Africa Alliance, the goal would be to create standards together that make sure AI is designed to benefit communities that have been hit hardest by biased systems. This means including voices from the Global South, women, people of color, and other underrepresented groups in AI policy conversations.

Requiring Human Rights Impact Assessments: Just like we assess the environmental impact of new projects, we should assess the human rights impact of new AI systems—before they are rolled out.

Holding Developers Accountable: When AI systems cause harm, there must be accountability. This includes legal remedies for those who are unfairly treated by AI. The UN should create an AI Accountability Tribunal within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to look into cases where AI systems cause discrimination.

This tribunal should have the authority to issue penalties, such as suspending UN partnerships with companies that violate these standards, including cases like Workday.

Support Digital Literacy and Rights Education: Policy makers and citizens need to understand how AI works and how it might impact their rights. The UN can help promote digital literacy globally so that people can push back against unfair systems.

Lastly, there has to be Mandates for intersectional or Multiple Discriminations Audits: AI systems should be required to go through intersectional audits that check for combined biases, such as those linked to race, disability, and gender. The UN should also provide funding to organizations to create open-source audit tools that can be used worldwide.

The Road Ahead

AI is not inherently good or bad. It is a tool, and like any tool, its impact depends on how we use it. If we are not careful, AI could lengthen problem-solving time, deepen existing inequalities, and create new forms of discrimination that are harder to detect and harder to fix.

But if we take action now—if we put human rights at the center of AI development—we can build systems that uplift, rather than exclude.

The UN General Assembly meetings may have concluded for this year, the era of ethical AI has not. The United Nations remains the organization with the credibility, the platform, and the moral duty to lead this charge. The future of AI—and the future of human dignity—may depend on it.

Chimdi Chukwukere is an advocate for digital justice. His work explores the intersection of technology, governance, Big Tech, sovereignty and social justice. He holds a Masters in Diplomacy and International Relations from Seton Hall University and has been published at Inter Press Service, Politics Today, International Policy Digest, and the Diplomatic Envoy.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Abusive Governments Set to Win Seats in Human Rights Council

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

NEW YORK, Oct 10 2025 (IPS) – Egypt and Vietnam are on track to secure seats on the United Nations Human Rights Council despite being woefully unfit for membership. The UN General Assembly will elect members to the UN’s premier rights body in a noncompetitive vote on October 14, 2025.

These 2 countries are among 14 member states seeking three-year terms on the 47-nation Human Right Council starting in January 2026. Vietnam, currently a Council member, is seeking re-election.

“Noncompetitive UN votes permit abusive governments like Egypt and Vietnam to become Human Rights Council members, threatening to make a mockery of the Council,” said Louis Charbonneau, UN director at Human Rights Watch. “UN member states should stop handing Council seats on a silver platter to serial rights violators.”

Egypt, along with Angola, Mauritius, and South Africa are running for four African seats. India, Iraq, and Pakistan are joining Vietnam for the four Asian seats. For Latin America and the Caribbean, Chile, and Ecuador are unopposed for two seats.

In the Western group, Italy and the United Kingdom are running for two available seats, while Estonia and Slovenia are candidates for two seats for Central and Eastern Europe.

General Assembly Resolution 60/251, which created the Human Rights Council in 2006, urges states voting for members to “take into account the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights.” Council members are required to “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights” at home and abroad and to “fully cooperate with the Council.”

Candidates only need a simple majority in the secret-ballot vote in the 193-nation General Assembly to secure a seat on the Human Rights Council. That makes it highly unlikely that any of the candidates will not be elected. Nevertheless, UN member states should not cast votes for abusive governments that are demonstrably unqualified for Council membership.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s government has continued wholesale repression, systematically detaining and punishing peaceful critics and activists, and effectively criminalizing peaceful dissent. Government security forces have committed serious human rights abuses with near-absolute impunity. These include killing hundreds of largely peaceful protesters and widespread, systematic torture of detainees, which most likely amount to crimes against humanity.

The government also tries to prevent its own citizens from engaging with the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, and punishes those who engage with brutal reprisals. It ignores UN experts’ requests to visit the country.

The ruling Communist Party of Vietnam maintains a monopoly on political power and allows no challenge to its leadership. Basic rights are severely restricted, including freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, association, and religion. Rights activists and bloggers face police intimidation, harassment, restricted movement, and arbitrary arrest and detention.

Mauritius and the UK, among the countries running. signed a treaty that recognizes Mauritius’ sovereignty over the Chagos islands but fails to address the ongoing crimes against humanity against Chagossians and their right of return to all the islands.

The UK forcibly displaced the Chagossian people between 1965 and 1973 to allow the US to build a military base. Mauritius and the UK should comply with their international rights obligations, including Chagossians’ right of return and should provide an effective remedy and reparations.

Angolan President João Lourenço has pledged to protect human rights, though Angolan security forces have used excessive force against political activists and peaceful protesters. South Africa has taken strong stances for accountability on Palestine and other issues. It should be similarly robust with rights violations by Russia and China.

The Bharatiya Janata Party government in India led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi has refused access to UN experts. Modi’s party leaders and supporters repeatedly vilify and attack Muslims and Christians with impunity, while the authorities often punish those who protest this campaign of Hindu majoritarianism.

Pakistan should cease the use of draconian counterterrorism and sedition laws to intimidate peaceful critics, and repeal its blasphemy laws. The government should prosecute those responsible for incitement and attacks on minorities and marginalized communities.

In 2024, Iraq passed a law criminalizing same-sex relations and transgender expression. Violence and discrimination against LGBT people are rampant, for which no one is held to account. Iraqi authorities have increasingly repressed activists and journalists.

In Ecuador, the government has attacked judicial independence and security forces have committed serious human rights violations since President Daniel Noboa declared an “internal armed conflict” in January 2024.

In Chile, President Gabriel Boric’s administration has played a leading role in speaking out on human rights violations around the world. Human rights challenges, including racism and abuses against migrants, remain a problem in the country, however.

In the UK, the authorities should end their crackdown on freedom of assembly. Many peaceful protesters in support of Palestinians or action on climate change have been arrested and some imprisoned after demonstrating.

Italy should stop criminalizing and obstructing sea rescues and enabling Libyan forces to intercept migrants and refugees and take them back to Libya, where they face arbitrary detention and grave abuses. Italy also failed to comply with a 2025 International Criminal Court arrest warrant by sending a wanted suspect back to Libya instead of to The Hague.

The Human Rights Council has played a crucial role in investigating abuses in Syria, Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, and elsewhere. It recently established an investigation into serious crimes in Afghanistan by all parties—past and present —and extended its fact-finding mission for Sudan. Other countries and situations need scrutiny.

Council members should press for investigations of abuses by major powers, such as China’s crimes against humanity against Uyghurs and others in Xinjiang, and take up extrajudicial killings by the US of alleged narcotics traffickers on sea vessels.

For Council investigations to be credible, it needs financing. It is critical for countries to pay their assessed UN dues while boosting voluntary contributions. This will ensure that independent human rights investigations do not become casualties of the UN’s financial crisis resulting from the Trump administration halting virtually all payments to the UN and China and others paying late.

“The Human Rights Council has been able to save countless lives by carrying out numerous human rights investigations that deter governments and armed groups from committing abuses,” Charbonneau said. “All governments should recognize that it’s in their interests to promptly pay their UN dues so the rights Council can do its job.”

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Civil Society on the Edge

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Gina Romero is UN Special Rapporteur for the rights to freedom of assembly and of association.

Credit: UN Web TV

BOGOTA, Colombia, Oct 9 2025 (IPS) – The collapse of aid architecture is one of the greatest dangers for civic space. This shift is not accidental but systemic, reflecting deliberate policy choices – not only by the US but accelerated by its decisions- that prioritize security agendas over human rights and solidarity.

Aid cuts, securitization, and geopolitical rivalries have led to the defunding of grassroots organizations, especially those led by women, LGBTQI groups, and marginalized communities. As a result, associations that once filled critical gaps are disappearing. These dynamics as existential because without resources, protections, and solidarity, civil society cannot survive—let alone flourish.

This is the center of my more recent report, that will be presented at the UN General Assembly on October 16th.

Civil society’s weakening has direct consequences for human rights protection and democratic participation. Without independent associations, accountability mechanisms collapse, and corruption flourishes. The report highlights that marginalized groups are disproportionately affected, as grassroots organizations are often their only safety net. The dismantling of solidarity also jeopardizes progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

For example, women’s organizations that once advanced gender equality and access to reproductive health are closing. LGBTQI associations providing health services face funding cuts. Environmental defenders, crucial in climate justice, are left exposed.

Thus, the report warns that the rollback of aid and civic freedoms undermines not only democracy but also global commitments to equality and sustainability.

The report makes a call for urgent action to rebuild international solidarity and redesign the architecture of aid in ways that strengthen rather than weaken civic space. The vision is for a people-centered, rights-based, and sustainable system of cooperation. Key elements include:

Guaranteeing equitable access to resources: ensuring groups with high vulnerabilities, have direct and fair access to funding. Includes aid models that channels resources to local civil society, avoiding intermediaries, and simplified bureaucratic procedures.

Repealing restrictive laws and counter-terrorism measures: ending the misuse of security frameworks—such as counter-terrorism and anti-money laundering— and repealing laws that stigmatize NGOs as “foreign agents” or limit their ability to operate freely.

Ensuring meaningful participation of civil society: in multilateral decision-making, as equal partners shaping priorities, including global financing mechanisms and SDG implementation frameworks.

Aligning aid with human rights and civic space protection: Condition aid and credits on compliance with obligations to protect freedoms and rights and promote long-term, flexible funding instead of short-term project-based support.

Protecting digital freedoms and resisting securitization: Safeguarding the use of technologies, including spyware and facial recognition technologies, for association and assembly while preventing its misuse for surveillance and repression.

Reimagining solidarity: Shifting from a charity-based approach to one of global justice and shared responsibility; supporting civil society is not an act of benevolence but a legal and moral obligation under international human rights law.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Multilateralism Minus the People: 80 Years of the UN’s Broken Promise

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

Credit: United Nations

NEW YORK, Sep 30 2025 (IPS) – Last week, the United Nations (UN) marked its 80th anniversary against the backdrop of an unprecedented global crisis. With the highest number of active conflicts since 1946, trust in multilateralism is faltering.

Yet the UN’s founding vision, rooted in the principle of ‘We the Peoples,’ remains as urgent as ever; affirming that peace, human rights, and development cannot be achieved by governments alone. From the very beginning, civil society has been integral to this vision, a role formally recognised in Article 71 of the UN Charter, which underscores the value of NGOs in shaping international agendas.

“Article71: The Economic and Social Council may make suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organisations which are concerned with matters within its competence. Such arrangements may be made with international organisations and, where appropriate, with national organisations after consultation with the Member of the United Nations concerned.”

Yet despite this important provision, multilateral processes have increasingly become state-centric, turning global governance into a top-down exercise detached from the people it is meant to serve.

Excluding civil society and global citizens from policy-making not only produces laws and policies out of touch with local needs but also undermines community-driven practices that are often best placed to identify challenges and craft solutions.

At worst, silencing those who hold governments accountable empowers authoritarian regimes to flout international law, restrict human rights, and erode the rules-based international order. While the UN may recognise the role of civil society in principle, why does practice remain so distant from this commitment?

One area for reflection is the extent to which international spaces mirror national realities. Many see the multilateral system as an all-powerful body safeguarding humanity from the scourge of war. In reality it is a regrouping of national actors, the same ones responsible for shrinking civic space at home.

According to the CIVICUS Monitor, more than 70 percent of the global population lives in countries where freedoms of expression, association, and assembly are severely restricted. For many human rights defenders (HRDs), even raising their voices at the UN has led to reprisals at home, including surveillance and imprisonment.

By privileging repressive states and sidelining accountability actors, multilateral institutions replicate domestic restrictions globally, leaving abuses unchecked and defenders excluded.

A second challenge is how money dictates priorities. The collapse of the global aid sector has forced many to confront this reality again. The UN is funded largely by member states through mandatory and voluntary contributions. Over time, earmarking of funds and shifting UN priorities have led to chronic underinvestment in human rights.

Today, the human rights pillar receives just five percent of the UN’s regular budget, and with the upcoming UN80 budget cuts, this already underfunded area faces further risk. When human rights are deprioritised through budget cuts and underfunding, the message to member states is clear- resources and political will are better placed elsewhere. This dynamic discourages collaboration with civil society and reinforces their marginalisation.

A third challenge is the unequal access granted to civil society at UN headquarters. Negotiation rooms are closed to most organisations, and draft resolutions are often circulated only among those with close ties to diplomats, leaving others without privileged access unable to provide timely input. Meaningful participation is impossible without timely information.

During high-level weeks in New York, even side event spaces can only be booked through a member state, effectively controlling who speaks and what is discussed. Major processes such as the Summit of the Future or Financing for Development rarely engage civil society at the national level in time to influence outcomes.

Even when hundreds of civil society organisations submit feedback on policy documents, there is little transparency on how their contributions are used. These opaque practices erode trust and leave committed groups questioning whether investing their scarce time and resources in multilateral spaces is worthwhile.

Despite these glaring challenges, which have turned the system into “we the member states,” the UN is not without tools to ensure it is inclusive of the people it was created to serve. First, existing tools such as the UN Guidance Note on the Promotion and Protection of Civic Space provide a clear framework for action through the “three P’s”: participation, protection, and promotion. To move this document beyond paper, the task force assigned to implement it must act urgently.

Accreditation processes may get civil society past the security desk after years of hurdles, but it does not guarantee meaningful engagement. What matters in the long run is meaningful participation across the UN system, not just at headquarters, in order to achieve political and practical impact.

Second, a focus on accountable leadership. When funding is slashed and political will abandoned, the UN inadvertently strengthens authoritarian regimes, enabling them to silence voices, restrict rights, and openly flout international law. This erosion of support for human rights contributes to shrinking civic freedoms worldwide and leaves many losing trust in the multilateral system.

In this context, civil society engagement is not optional, it is key to steering the UN’s future leadership toward defending human rights and global freedoms.

With conversations on the next Secretary-General already gaining momentum, civil society’s role must be a central test for every candidate. Town halls with nominees should be used to demand clear commitments to meaningful participation of civil society, as well as sustained funding and protection for human rights programmes.

This is not about tokenistic symbolism; meaningful civil society engagement is a fundamental condition for development progress, the protection of human rights, and the survival of a rules-based international order- including multilateral organisations like the UN.

As the UN enters its ninth decade, its relevance depends on accountability to the people, not just the states. Civil society must be recognized as independent partners, with their constructive input embedded across decision-making, financing, and oversight. Only by centering people and their rights can the UN restore trust, strengthen multilateralism, and truly fulfill its founding promise: a world grounded in peace, development, and human rights.

Jesselina Rana, a human rights lawyer, is the UN Advisor at CIVICUS’ New York Hub.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Mamdani’s Stand on Genocide is More Important than the Dynamics of Arresting Netanyahu

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

NEW YORK, Sep 23 2025 (IPS) – No leader responsible for mass atrocities enjoys greater impunity on the international stage than Benjamin Netanyahu. This is due to the strange stranglehold of the pro-Israel lobby on the two major political parties in the United States.

Unsurprisingly, the assertion by New York City mayoral candidate and front runner Zohran Mamdani on September 13 that he would order the arrest of Netanyahu if he ever came there, has attracted blowback from within the mainstream political establishments of both the Democratic and Republic parties, as well from extremist right-wing circles.

Legal experts have gone into a tizzy whether a future mayor of New York can arrest the leader of a foreign government. The unjustified blowback apparently in support of Israel’s televised genocide of the Palestinian people flies in the face of facts, basic principles of humanity and the shifting sands of public opinion in the United States.

A high- powered UN Commission of Inquiry led by a judge who investigated the Rwandan genocide of 1994 has recently concluded that Israel has committed genocide – the worst crime under international law – in Gaza.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has a standing arrest warrant against Netanyahu and his former defence minister for using starvation as a weapon of war and for deliberately killing thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. But bizarrely, it’s not Israel’s leaders but ICC judges and prosecutors who are being targeted through sanctions by the Trump administration.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu’s cruel war on Gaza is rapidly eroding American public support for Israel. According to the Pew Research Center’s latest findings more than half of American adults now possess an unfavourable opinion of Israel. Just 32 percent have confidence in Netanyahu himself.

However, the negative impacts of the damage done to American democracy by Netanyahu and his hardline supporters will linger on. Under the pretext of containing anti-Israeli sentiment, the Trump administration has attacked universities that were the site of sustained pro-Palestinian protests including Columbia and Harvard.

Academic freedom is a cherished American ideal but that hasn’t prevented the administration from threatening colleges and universities with federal funding cuts and placing restrictions on foreign students if they don’t toe the government’s line. Sadly, several pro-Palestinian student protest leaders have been arbitrarily detained in direct repudiation of constitutional protections on the freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest drawing criticism from UN experts.

Many of us in civil society have been pointing out for some time that the leaders of the two major political parties in the United States are so beholden to the moneyed interests of their donors that they have become out of touch with the needs and aspirations of the American people.

Indeed, Israel’s belligerence in continuing atrocities on the civilian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territories of Gaza and the West Bank has been sharply rebuked by progressive groups like Jewish Voices for Peace and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice who support a new wave of politicians such as Mahmud Mamdani who are willing to stand up for human rights.

A generation of politicians who represent a more forward looking and inclusive vision for the United States and who enjoy widespread support in New York and beyond such as Alexandria Ocasio Cortez have rallied to Mamdani’s side.

Mamdani’s win in the Democratic primaries for the New York mayoral election was powered by a diverse coalition of supporters in America’s most diverse and vibrant city. He continues to be the front runner for the mayoral election slated on November 4.

So far, his focus has been on the issues that matter to most of the people of New York, such as the high cost of living and the ever- widening gap between millionaires and the rest of the country fueled by pro-big business policies and tax cuts.

Funnily, in blatant negation of diplomatic protocol, Netanyahu has jumped into the political fray by dubbing Mamdani’s proposals for New York City’s mayoral elections as ‘nonsense’.

Notably, Netanyahu is planning to come to New York to address the UN General Assembly on 26 September. When he speaks at the UN, it’s usually to disparage the institution, which will be marking 80 years of its founding from the ashes of war and the horrors of the holocaust.

Last year, a large number of delegates walked out of the UN hall when he came on stage. This year, Netanyahu emboldened by Trump’s support will try his best to repudiate the findings of the UN Commission of Inquiry on genocide in Gaza. Whether the delegates will pay attention is arguable.

However, one thing is certain. If Netanyahu attempts to go on to the streets of New York to campaign against Mamdani he will likely be met by mass protests.

Mandeep S. Tiwana is a human rights lawyer and Secretary General of global civil society alliance, CIVICUS. He is presently based in New York.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Loss and Damage at COP30: Indigenous Leaders Challenge Top-Down Finance Models

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Climate Change Finance, Climate Change Justice, Conferences, COP29, COP30, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Indigenous Rights, International Justice, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Indigenous Rights

Indigenous activists continue to fight for a seat at the table in solving climate change, asking for self-determination and financial agency.

Activists demand loss and damage reparations outside the hall where the COP29 negotiators were concluding their negotiations. Credit: UN Climate Change/Kiara Worth

Activists demand loss and damage reparations outside the hall where the COP29 negotiators were concluding their negotiations. Credit: UN Climate Change/Kiara Worth

UNITED NATIONS, Sep 17 2025 (IPS) – As climate-induced disasters continue to devastate the Global South, nations are steadily mounting pressure at the United Nations for wealthier countries to deliver on long-promised climate reparations through the Loss and Damage Fund. For Indigenous peoples, whose territories are often the most ecologically intact yet most damaged by climate change, these negotiations define survival, sovereignty and recognition as rights-holders in global climate governance.

After the fund’s operationalization at the 29th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP29) in Baku last fall, developing countries say that the pledges so far—approximately USD 741 million—fall drastically short of the trillions needed to recover from climate devastation.

This low number is acutely felt in Indigenous communities, whose local economies rely on thriving ecosystems.

“A lot of rich biodiversity, carbon sinks and the most preserved parts of the world are within indigenous territories,” said Paul Belisario, Global Coordinator for the Secretariat of the International Indigenous Peoples Movement for Self-Determination and Liberation (IPMSDL), in an interview with IPS. “Without recognizing Indigenous people’s right to take care of it, to govern it and to live in it so that their traditional knowledge will flourish, we cannot fully address the climate crisis.”

UN Secretary-General António Guterres echoed this sentiment in Baku, saying, “The creation of the Loss and Damage Fund is a victory for developing countries, for multilateralism and for justice.  But its initial capitalization of USD 700 million doesn’t come close to righting the wrong inflicted on the vulnerable.”

These “wrongs,” Indigenous leaders argue, must include the exclusion of traditional and tribal knowledge in decision-making. In light of pushback to make climate action a legal responsibility rather than a political agreement, many are hopeful that COP30 will yield a more successful negotiation for adequate compensation.

The call for action is led by coalition blocs including the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and G77, an alliance of developing countries with China as its primary political and financial supporter. Both alliances represent the countries most vulnerable to climate-related natural disasters. G77 was particularly vocal during COP29, where their rejection of the deal was backed by a number of climate and civil society organizations who criticized the negotiating text for giving developed countries too much leeway to shirk their climate finance obligations.

For Indigenous groups, this criticism stems from concerns that funding will not successfully reach their communities due to bureaucracy or geographical and political isolation.

Secretary-General António Guterres meets with André Aranha Corrêa do Lago, President-designate of COP 30, the 2025 UN Climate Change Conference, which will be held in Belém, Brazil. Credit: UN Photo

Secretary-General António Guterres meets with André Aranha Corrêa do Lago, President-designate of COP 30, the 2025 UN Climate Change Conference, which will be held in Belém, Brazil. Credit: UN Photo

Janene Yazzie, director of policy and advocacy at the NDN Collective, spoke about the importance of Indigenous involvement in funding distributions, saying, “What we’re advocating for is to ensure that these mechanisms… are accessible to Indigenous Peoples, uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and can be utilized towards solutions and responses that are designed and prioritized by Indigenous Peoples.”

Last year, countries eventually settled on mobilizing USD 300 billion annually by 2035 to developing countries for climate finance—far below the USD 1 trillion experts say is the minimum for effective mitigation and adaptation. The financial commitment is voluntary, meaning that countries can withdraw without consequence and no protections exist to ensure the money is distributed with regard for Indigenous governance systems.

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Indigenous Foundation noted that groups without formal land titles could be excluded entirely, despite their role in stewarding biodiverse landscapes.

However, a recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) report has created new legal pathways. The court placed stringent obligations on states to prevent significant climate harm and tackle climate change, stating that failure to do so triggers legal responsibility. Scientific evidence can link emissions to specific countries, allowing those affected by climate change to seek legal action, which could include getting money back, restoring land, improving infrastructure, or receiving compensation for financial losses.

Indigenous activists at COP29. Credit: UN Climate Change/ Kiara Worth

Indigenous activists at COP29. Credit: UN Climate Change/Kiara Worth

This legal opinion opens new pathways for seeking restitution—not only in money but also in land recovery, infrastructure for adaptation, and guarantees of political participation.

This legal shift comes at a crucial time. In April 2025, thousands of Indigenous Brazilians marched in the capital ahead of COP30 in Belém, demanding land rights and decision-making influence. Meanwhile, the National Organization of the Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon (OPIAC) also issued a statement about the summit for Deforestation of the Amazon. They outline an action plan to end deforestation, strengthen land rights and phase out oil and gas exploration.

After indigenous groups were denied a co-presidency for COP30, Conference President André Corrêa do Lago pledged to establish a “Circle of Indigenous Leadership” within the conference. Many leaders found the arrangement insufficient—the FSC Indigenous Foundation called instead for “co-governance models where Indigenous Peoples are not just consulted but are leading and shaping climate action.”

Indigenous people make their message clear during COP29. Credit: Photo- UN Climate Change/Lara Murillo

Indigenous people make their message clear during COP29. Credit: UN Climate Change/Lara Murillo

Other groups were more explicitly critical. The Indigenous Climate Action co-authored a statement at the end of COP29 saying, “There is nothing to celebrate here today… While we urgently need direct and equitable access to climate finance for adaptation, mitigation and loss and damage across all seven socio-cultural regions… we reject the financial colonization that comes from loans and any other financial mechanisms that perpetuate indebtedness of nations that have contributed the least to climate change yet bear the brunt of its tragedies.”

Belisario frames the funding question as a matter of justice rather than charity.

“This funding is not just corporate social responsibility or compensation,” he told IPS. “This is historical justice.”

However, without Indigenous influence in the distribution of money from the Loss and Damage Fund, it remains unclear how effective this aid will be in combating climate change based on Indigenous knowledge and science. Many activists advocate for more localized approaches to climate action.

Belisario acknowledges the limitations of international negotiations.

“It’s been a running joke that we will negotiate until COP100, and we might not have that long. What we would really like to get out of COP30 is to meet many communities to discuss the common problems and make them realize that this COP is just a part of how we would like to solve our climate crisis,” he said. “We really believe that more radical ways to enact accountability and responsibility will start with movements in people’s own countries, in their own localities.”

As the FSC Indigenous Foundation concluded, “Indigenous Peoples must lead the design, management, and oversight of financial mechanisms that affect their lands, lives, and futures. Climate justice will only be possible when Indigenous Peoples are recognized as rights-holders and partners in decision-making.”

IPS UN Bureau Report