The second quadrennial International Migration Review Forum (IMRF) 2026 will be held at the UN Headquarters in New York from 5-8 May 2026, preceded by a multi-stakeholder hearing on 4 May. This forum reviews progress on the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) and aims to produce an inter-governmentally agreed Progress Declaration to set future migration policy goals.
 
https://migrationnetwork.un.org/international-migration-review-forum-2026

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, May 4 2026 (IPS)

Migration is a strange thing, hard to pin down. It is a complex phenomenon that transforms communities while shaping people’s identities and it is so multifaceted that individuals perceive it and live it in different ways.

It can turn to be a vehicle to security and prosperity for some but, on other hand, it can be also experienced with anguish and fear.

In short, migration is something personal that intimately affects both those settling into a new land and those communities that are supposed to co-exist with them.

A German’s state, Baden-Württembergwill soon will have its first state premier from Turkish origin, Cem Özdemir, a veteran green politician. In the past, Mr. Özdemir, according to DW report, has rejected the idea that he should be considered a “successful model of integration” because he always felt at home.

Özdemir’s unwillingness to be boxed into a fixed category of migrant contrasts those narratives that simplify and demean migration.

As we know, migration has been a toxic and divisive issue in many parts of the West, a dangerous problem that must be stopped at any cost. It is being portrayed through the lens of illegality as an open door that only invites violations of the law, including dangerous criminal activities.

While it is undeniable that security concerns can arise especially when there are massive flows of foreigners enter without papers into a new country, much less discussions are about the positive impact of migrants in the local economy.

But the level of politicization is so high that it ended up defining the whole issue. Migration has become something to be fixed, controlled in many parts of the Global North.

Such a framing ignores the fact that migration also occurs in large quantities also between developing nations and is not only about hordes of people from the Global South pushing their way into richer North.

It is unsurprising that the same logic also disregards the multiple and diverse “push factors” that bring individuals to migrate.

Poverty, discrimination and climate change are forcing millions of individuals to search for better places to live. This view has become so pervasive that it has delegitimized a different conversation, one based on exploring legal pathways to migration.

A different way of talking, discussing and regulating migration is possible.

The United Nations, over the last decades, have been trying to offer a venue to promote an approach leading to safe migration based on human rights, conducive, at least on paper, to a multilateralism centered governance of migration.

While far from being perfect, these mechanisms underpinning it, address migration in a way that goes past the deafening rhetoric that generally characterizes the debate on migration.

Because, as we know, migration if managed properly, taking into account the rights of migrants and bringing on board local communities in the destination countries with investment in social integration, instead offers a potent instrument to fight poverty while contributing to the economies of the Global North.

The International Migration Review Forum 2026 is one of these tools at the disposal of the UN to reframe the conversation about migration.

The United Nations in New York will host, from 5-8 May an essential conversation aimed at reviewing the Global Compact on Migration, GCM adopted on 19 December 2018.

Instead of being seen as an opportunity to reboot the conversation about immigration, this non-binding global blueprint, intended to offer a 360 degree approach to foster international cooperation to effectively and inclusively manage migration, ended up being instrumentalised by cunny politicians.

Since then, unfortunately the GCM has been overshadowed by the relentless politics of immigration based on the logic of “control” that has become more and more mainstream in the European Union and in the United States.

Making things more complicated is the fact that it is fitting for demagogues to conflate the issues of migrants with those of refugees. While these two categories often overlap, legally, they remain different concepts, a fact conveniently ignored by politicians.

It has not always been like this.

The international community, thanks also to a more favorable politics in the USA, on September 19, 2016, had successfully managed to create a united policy framework that would bring together both migration and the refugee’s related policies.

The New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants led the foundations not only to the Global Compact on Migration but also to another tool, the Global Compact on Refugees approved just two days before the GCM.

These are two examples of soft law designed to ignite international support and cooperation even if they were criticized as attempts by the Global North of watering down the international human rights framework.

Yet in order for them to remain useful without diluting the international obligations of nations, they must remain as close as possible in terms of implementation.

The central question is if they revitalize and re-balance the conversation on immigration and refugee protection with practical cooperation and synergies among nations.

I doubt that IMRF 2026 can do much to elevate a new discussion about migration and challenge the status quo. After all, GCM has been designed to be structurally weak in terms of its governance.

For example, there is no mandatory reporting for its signatories.

A silver lining in the GCM’s framework is the existence of the United Nations Network on Migration that “coordinates system-wide, timely and practical support to Member States implementing the GCM.

Yet this is the only mechanism where the international community can holistically discuss immigration. No matter how battered the United Nations are amid drastic funding cuts and ongoing discussions about its re-organization and restructuring, multilateralism is needed more than ever in the areas of migration and refugees.

Yet it appears that the UN is not fighting the fight at political levels.

Reading the Report of the Secretary General on the Global Compact on Migration, you do not find a strong, vigorous push back against the politics that tackle immigration as a problem to be controlled.

There is only a small section on Dispelling Misleading Narratives and you could have expected a more punchy style and more space to counterattack this mainstream narrative on migration based on fear.

Perhaps the “immigration as a problem” approach has already metastasized and, inevitably, it adversely influences and restrains the United Nations. The International Migration Organization, the guardian of the GCM, remains a marginal institution within the UN system.

The Office of the High Commissioner on Refugees faced substantial funding cuts and underwent in 2025 a profound restructuring despite its essential role in many humanitarian situations.

At least the former Higher Commissioner, Fillippo Grandi who stepped down at the end of 2025, did not mince his words in criticizing the ways many governments in the West have been dealing with immigration.

“Building walls, sending boats back, offloading refugees and migrants on to other countries –, populists assure voters that controlling everything from borders and immigration numbers to job markets and national security will make their lives better” he wrote for The Guardian in 2024

“Few political tactics succeed like fear. But I can also tell you such claims of control are illusory”. he continued. It is not only the USA which has embraced this tactics.

Civil society organizations across Europe have been recently criticizing the European Union for the way it is drafting its Return Directive that, once approved, would streamline the return of non-EU nationals staying irregularly, including those whose asylum requests have been denied.

Yet amid this gloom, there are some best practices emerging.

Local governments have an important role to play.

The Local Coalition for Migrants and Refugees is showing an interest model to promote a bottom approach to migration. Moreover, some countries are stepping up.

For example, in 2025, Brazil approved a National Plan on Refugees, Migrants and Stateless while Kenya also brought in a new policy that would positively impact the more than 830,000 refugees and asylum-seekers that are hosted in the country.

At the same time, Ecuador reached an important milestone in 2025 with its National Implementation Plan (NIP) of GCM. Similarly, Malawi has finalized its first National Implementation Plan on Migration.

It is too early to see if these plans will be enforced and a lot will depend on the availability of international funding. Despite the constraints, the IOM remains steadfast in its mission of protecting the rights of migrants.

In 2024 a new Strategic Plan that aims at saving lives and protecting people on the move, driving solutions to displacement and facilitating pathways for regular migration, was introduced.

In a world in which 8,000 migrants were officially reported dead or missing worldwide in 2025, bringing the total since 2014 to more than 82,000 and with 117.3 million people worldwide are forcibly displaced, the international communities cannot stay indifferent.

Let’s remind ourselves of the real power of the GCM.

This Global Compact does not only recognize that safe, orderly and regular migration works for all when it takes place in a well-informed, planned and consensual manner. It is also a tool that highlights the role of the international community in helping create conducive policies for individuals to be able to lead peaceful and productive lives in their home nations.

In short, migration should never be an act of desperation.

While there are individuals of migrant origins like Cem Özdemir who offer a glaring example of successful achievements that allow himself to openly reject a stereotyped categorization, there is a sea of vulnerabilities and deaths affecting millions of others who voluntarily or forcibly left their homes.

This is the reason why legal tools like the International Refugees Convention, this year in its 75th anniversary and more limited but potentially useful mechanisms like IMRF this coming week and next Global Refugee Forum (GRF) 2027, do matter and we should all pay attention to them.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

UN Secretary-General António Guterres (left), is participating in a meeting with the Heads of State and Government of the European Union in Brussels, Belgium. Credit: UNRIC/Miranda Alexander-Webber Source: UN News

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Feb 5 2026 (IPS)

Will trade be enough to navigate the current waves of chaos and disorder that are underpinning the ongoing rifts among competing powerful and hegemon nations and the rest?

Amid tectonic shifts in the realm of geopolitics and international relations, amid what the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently defined as a “rupture” in the rules-based multilateral order, trading is seen almost as a panacea.

Yet are we really sure that new and alternative trading partnerships like the ones the European Union has signed with the Mercosur and India are the only ways to cope with an increasingly unpredictable American administration and an over confident and more ambitious China?

Mark Carney in his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos a few weeks ago offered a blueprint for middle powers like Canada on how they can become less dependent on big hegemon powers.

While he was tacitly describing a tactic to tackle a bossy, unpredictable and more and more authoritarian president south to the border, Mr. Carney provided a foundational framework on how countries like Canada can leverage its natural resources and bet big on the power of trade with alternative markets.

No one doubts that trade can open valuable new options for established economies as well for new emerging ones like India.

The EU has also pivoted to this realm, using new commercial deals as a way to strengthen its own resilience and boost its economy while having no other options than maintaining a good relationship with the USA. But a playbook entirely focused on trade will also hit the wall.

While useful in the short term to escape from or at least try dodging expansionist maneuverings from Washington or Beijing, trade has limitations as well. A comprehensive and long-term response to these new difficult emerging circumstances cannot but be political.

Trade should be seen as a part of a broader toolkit of policies centered on nations committing themselves to invest more on regional projects of cooperation with other nations.

Strengthening political ties among neighboring nations through enhanced economic partnerships could offer the initial impetus to a new form of international regionalism.

Yet nations, while capitalizing on the economic dimensions of their bilateral relationships, should also be powered by a bolder, wider and importantly, more inspiring design.

The need for initiatives that, by intent, go beyond economics while dealing with other nations, would provide the space to imagine new political entities that could get respected and even compete with the existing hegemonic powers.

Imagine how trade and economics was underpinning and turbocharging the project of regional cooperation in post second world war Europe.

With the time, what was a mere economic association, a successful story of cooperation among equals , the European Economic Community turned into something more visionary and braver, a project of regional integration.

As we know from the recent episodes of confrontations generated across the Atlantic that humiliated and defamed Europe, this project is far from being accomplished.

Capitals from around the world, in the Global South and Global North alike, need to understand one thing: only the pursuit of a wider vision with multiple and complementary elements of integration that transcend economy, can offer them the safest route to be able to remain independent.

The building of regional cooperation frameworks, think of Association of South East Asian Nations or the Southern Africa Development Community, can offer a pathway to uphold their members’ internal legitimacy among the citizens while at the same time, cementing their power in the realm of international relations.

Yet the lesson from Europe is clear: economic cooperation and even economic based integration can only go so far.

Only an unequivocal support for more audacious projects can provide states with the leverage needed to deal with few but unrestrained hegemonic powers like China and Russia but also the USA with the second Trump administration.

As difficult and daunting as it is, only regional integration can offer nations a degree of collective power that will earn them some decent amounts of respect. Unfortunately, even regional cooperation is in shambles.

The Southern Common Market or Mercosur despite hitting the headlines with the recent signing of a trade agreement with the EU, (an agreement that the European Parliament, the semi-legislative chamber of the EU, “paralyzed” it with a vote to deferring its legality to the European Court of Justice) is nowhere resembling a politically integrated body of nations.

Who remembers the existence of the Union of South American Nations or UNASUR? Even ASEAN, seen as a model of regional cooperation, is at risk of losing its credibility with its famed “centrality” being put in question.

In Africa, the potential of SADC has evaporated while the most promising and bold attempt of building a political union, the East African Community (EAC) that was supposed to transform itself into a real federation, the East African Federation, also lost considerable steam.

Thanks to Mr. Trump’s ego and dramas stemming from it, the EU is now forced to reconsider its current trajectory of regional integration.

At this current pace and course, the EU will never be able to stand its ground and remain united and cohesive in tackling both overt and veiled threats and blackmails from the hegemonic powers vying to dominate the world.

The EU must be able to project power beyond its economic realm as Mario Draghi, the former Italian Prime Minister and President of the European Central Bank recently shared at the KU Leuven University in Belgium.

“Power requires Europe to move from confederation to federation” because as things stand now, Europe cannot even imagine to be able to survive as it is now.

“ “This is a future in which Europe risks becoming subordinated, divided and de-industrialized at once, and a Europe that cannot defend its interests will not preserve its values for longer.”

Mr Carney, the Canadian Prime Minister, should be praised for mincing no words in Davos. But rupture in the current multilateral order cannot be fixed with band aid solutions.

As much as important trade remains, it is going to be delusional to believe that, alone, it can do the job, in sewing and patching up the rupture that has been created and offer a very potent but still incomplete solution for nations.

We need initiatives that, by design, are fit to build political projects that, while start with nation states at the center, are able to envision, in a not too far horizon, a much more daring political project.

Brussels, as the de facto capital of the EU, could again provide a blueprint for this quantum jump towards a new phase of the European political project that can finally pursue deeper forms of union that, inescapably, would embrace federalism.

After all, the best way to preserve a nation’s standing is to invest in new forms of shared sovereignty.

This should not be a priority only for middle powers like Canada or the members of the EU. Even developing nations must come to terms with this new order and understand that their survival will be only guaranteed through ambitious initiatives of regional cooperation that have only the sky as the limit.

Unfortunately for Mr Carney and Canada, geography is unforgiving.

Who knows, perhaps we could imagine what are now unimaginable ties that would perpetually bind Ottawa with Europe or Mexico and the Caribbean.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

This coming International Volunteer Day (IVD), celebrated every year on 5 December, is special because the United Nations will launch the International Volunteer Year 2026 or IVY 2026.

This is going to be a great opportunity to reset the global agenda of volunteerism, one of the most important tools to promote civic engagement, the bedrock of our societies.

Civic engagement, expressed through volunteerism, can make local communities more inclusive and people-centered.

Because volunteerism in essence is by the people, for the people and with the people, it is not just a tool but a catalyst for meaningful human-to-human experiences.

If it can be designed, planned and managed properly, including investing in the people that are engaged in it and driving it, volunteerism provides unique opportunities to grow and become better human beings.

In an era in which artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly evolving and challenging some of the most foundational aspects of our lives, volunteerism could offer a new meaning and new ground to forge connections by helping others.

“In an era of political division and social isolation, volunteering offers a powerful way to forge connections and foster our shared humanity,” shares UN Secretary-General António Guterres in his official message for this year’s IVD.

Yet, almost inexplicably, volunteerism struggles to be recognized for its vital role and for the functions it plays in our lives. Volunteerism should be something that can really rally people together, a glue that can help with re-establishing connections with others.

In short, volunteerism is a precious, universal unifying element in our lives. Unfortunately, we are still unable to uphold its values on a daily basis but we are also far from practicing it, truly making it an inextricable part of our being. After all, there is a common understanding that policymakers around the world have more serious things to deal with.

Instead of considering volunteering as something transformational, it is just seen as something nice, while instead it should be at the core of any serious policy promoting social cohesiveness, something that should be a priority for any government.

But will IVY mark a turnaround? Will this special initiative really make a difference? Will IVY then be embraced by leaders in a tokenistic way as normally happens or will there be a serious effort to center volunteering as a key enabler of local well-being and prosperity?

These might sound like rhetorical questions that can be easily shrugged off and dismissed because there are more important issues to be worried about.

UNV, the United Nations program that is formally part of UNDP, has a unique role in boosting volunteerism around the world.

I personally have great admiration for this organization but unfortunately, it falls short of the urgent priority to turbo-charge volunteerism, spreading it and mainstreaming it. At the end I do believe that UNV is failing in what is its central mission.

Recently I came across a post on LinkedIn about how the government of Uzbekistan is stepping up its support for UNV. This should be great news because for too long, the agency was seen as too westernized, too much modeled to reflect only a certain and partial version of promoting and practicing volunteerism.

I do recognize and praise UNV’s efforts to change and embrace a more diverse strategic outlook and engage with emerging economies and new nations like Uzbekistan.

But as I was going through the post, I immediately felt that this new type of engagement was as much as promoting volunteerism as it was about strategically building a pipeline of future UN staff from the Central Asian nation.

Because UNV has always been an entry door to join the ranks of the United Nations system, and this is something that has always bothered me. I never understood why this agency should promote what are, in practice, full-time jobs that have, basically, nothing to do with volunteerism and are more similar to professional internships or fellowships that, in essence, offer cheaper manpower compared to the UN’s pay standards.

To me, this approach does not make sense. Then why do we not entrust UNOPS, the operational arm of the UN with the tasks of running schemes that can offer tangible opportunities to those youths who dream of joining the UN?

I am aware that the UN is undergoing a drastic overhaul. I am concerned about it but I also see this process, driven by immense aid cuts by the American and other administrations, as a chance to redeem the UN as a more effective development force.

I do not know what will happen to UNV. I do appreciate and value the part of the agency that tries to elevate volunteerism in the policy-making processes around the world.

This coming IVY could offer a great platform to better promote and pitch volunteerism around the world.

A new edition of The State of the World’s Volunteerism Report, a massive global undertaking, will also be unveiled. With the new global report, a new Framework for the Global Volunteer Index will also be launched, an undertaking led by the University of Pretoria.

Having more data, more parameters and indicators to measure and assess the numbers of volunteers around the world and, importantly, their impact, is essential.

In this type of task, UNV has developed a unique degree of expertise and it can really exercise the best of the convening powers that the United Nations has been famed for.

In the eventuality of any restructuring, this component of UNV must be not only protected and safeguarded but also boosted. Perhaps UNV needs to shed itself of the outsourcing and onboarding functions it ended up assuming.

They were not supposed to become so central in the agency’s identity but they became the most important component of the agency, budget-wise. Either another agency takes up these responsibilities or UNV can fully separate such functions from its core business agenda.

An autonomous, semi-independent function could operate as it is already working now but it should be sealed off from other dimensions.

This would constitute a semi-spin-off of the operation of placing full-time United Nations Volunteers (UNV Volunteers) in UN Agencies, a task that is deemed strategically important for many nations, as the case of Uzbekistan I ran into tells us.

In envisioning such restructuring, each government willing to sponsor its UNV volunteers should be charged an additional budget item that could be directed to support the core functions of UNV.

I still imagine UNV running volunteering schemes around the world but these should be part-time and only in partnership with civil society. The current model of UNV Volunteers should be rebranded and decontextualized from any association with volunteerism.

The reason for this is simple: these promising young professionals, all well-meaning and well-motivated, are not volunteers nor are they engaged in any volunteerism-centered activity.

If UNV wants to still facilitate and deploy full-time volunteers, then the model being championed by VSO, centered on partnership with local organizations and offering small living stipends to its volunteers, should be considered.

This year’s theme of IVD is “Every Contribution Matters.”

A new and different UNV, more grounded, agile and closer to local communities and civil society organizations, can be imagined, ensuring that every contribution would “really” matter.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

17 Goals for People, for Planet.

By Ananthu Anilkumar and Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Nov 25 2025 (IPS)

Less than five years from 2030 it is time for the international community to confront the future of the Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals.

The SDGs turned what was a generic declaration into a tangible and actionable blueprint.

As ample evidence shows, so far, the implementation of the SDGs have been a tremendous disappointment with all the goals being off the track.

Recent UN assessments show how far the world is from meeting the SDGs. Only 16 to 17 % of targets are on track. Out of 137 targets with available data, about 35% show on track or moderate progress, 47% show marginal or no progress, and 18% have moved backwards since 2015.

Some of the most urgent areas are among the furthest off track, including Zero Hunger (SDG 2), Sustainable Cities (SDG 11), Life Below Water (SDG 14), Life on Land (SDG 15), and Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions (SDG 16).

Weak institutional commitments, poor coordination, the failure to integrate SDGs into budgets and policies, and the voluntary nature of reporting have all held back progress. At the same time, breaches of planetary boundaries tied to climate and biosphere integrity threaten the conditions needed for sustainable development.

Even where gains exist, such as in education and disease reduction, they remain slow and fragile. The data is clear. The world is not on course for 2030.

As the world edges toward 2030, these conversations can no longer be postponed. The SDGs did more than outline global aspirations. They created a shared language for justice, dignity, and sustainability. They shaped policy debates and mobilized public attention in ways the development field had not seen before, even if governments often ignored the direction they set.

Yet the SDGs have served an important, we would say, indispensable purpose to the international community even if states wasted it.

First, the SDGs functioned not only as a springboard for action but also as an accountability tool
to keep a check on states’ commitments towards achieving a world without poverty, inequalities and deprivations while guaranteeing a greener, more sustainable and just economic framework.’
Unfortunately, leadership never matched the ambition of the goals.

Many governments failed to translate the SDGs into national and regional strategies capable of real impact.

Least developed countries lacked financial resources and effective institutions, with weak governance, corruption, and mismanagement limiting their ability to plan and implement reforms.

At the same time, wealthier nations refused to scale up development cooperation to levels required for transformative progress.

In short, both governments in the Global South and Global North are complicit in avoiding fulfilling their duties towards the present next generations.

As much as this absence of stewardship towards the people and the planet has been a moral disaster, the international community has enough time to frame a different formula to ensure that whatever will come after the expiration of the Agenda 2030 will be a success.

This loss of momentum reflects more than technical shortcomings.

It shows how fragile political will has been, especially in a model built around voluntary participation. The SDGs lost traction because governments were free to treat them as optional. The gap between aspiration and action became a moral failure as well as a governance one.

Let’s remind ourselves that the launch of the SDGs had started with a “boom”. There was a visible, contagious enthusiasm and everyone was interested to know more about the Agenda 2030.

Notwithstanding the complex negotiations at the UN Secretariat first with the Open Working Group and then with the Intergovernamental Negotiations that followed, there was a vibrant participation of non state actors.

Civil society organizations and global advocacy networks were deeply involved in shaping the SDGs. Their expertise, campaigning, and coordination helped bring local realities, social justice concerns, and thematic priorities into the negotiation rooms.

Then, there was a period, in the aftermath of 2015 when the document was endorsed after three years of negotiations, in which talking about the SDGs was very trendy and on the top of the agenda not only for governments but also for non-state actors, from civil society organizations to universities to corporate players.

That passion soon vanished and there are many reasons for this, including the rise of climate change as a threat to our planet, a phenomenon of paramount importance but somehow overshadowed other important policy agenda.

What will be next?

In 2027 the UN will formally start a conversation about the future of the Agenda 2030.
How to shape the conversation that will lead to a revised framework?

In the months and years ahead, assuring the same level of involvement and participation will be important but not enough. Civil society inputs and contributions must evolve into a broader, more democratic process that moves beyond representation by established organizations.

Communities who live the consequences of global policies every day must be able to shape the next framework directly. Should we start imagining a revamped roadmap that will enable Planet Earth to decarbonize where inequalities are wiped out and where every child will have a chance to have quality health and meaningful educational pathways?

The negotiations that led to the SDGs were contentious and complex in such a way that some of the goals were more the results of internal bargains and trade-offs among governments at the UN rather than genuine attempts to solve policy issues.

Certainly, while brainstorming for the next agenda, the global oversight system of the SDGs will be put into discussion.

Rather than the current model centered on the High-Level Political Forum where, on rotation some goals are discussed and where nations at their complete will voluntarily share their reports, what in jargon is called National Voluntary Reviews, it would be much more effective to have a model resembling the Universal Periodic Reviews applied at the Human Rights Council.

States should mandatorily present updates of their work in implementing the next generation of the SDGs and if we are serious about creating a better world, such reviews should happen annually.

Localization must also become central rather than optional. The localization of the SDGs should also be formally adopted and mainstreamed in the official playbook, prompting local governments to play their parts.

Some have already been doing that but it is a tiny minority and often such a process of localization happens without engagement and involvement of local communities.

This must change in such a way to truly empower local communities to have an ownership over local planning and decision making in matters of sustainable and equitable development.

True localization requires building formal pathways for community participation and ensuring that subnational institutions shape priorities. People closest to the issues should help define the solutions.

Without local ownership, global frameworks remain abstract and ineffective.

While some local governments have aligned their work with SDG priorities, most of these efforts remain isolated and disconnected from the communities they are meant to serve.

Localizing the next Agenda offers an opportunity to democratize the future of the goals.
Development cannot be sustainable when local voices are excluded from planning and decision making.

These and other propositions should be up for debate and review in the months and years ahead.

We do hope that experts and policy makers will discuss in detail ways to strengthen the future development agenda, building on the lessons that led first to the establishment of the SDGs and also leaning on the experiences that are still being made on their implementation.

At the start of the discussions on “what’s next”, we do believe that young people should have a big and real say.

Involving young people and enabling them to have agency in contributing to the future of the Agenda 2030 is one of the best guarantees that the new governance related to the future goals will be stronger and more inclusive.

Imagine youths lab around the world starting the conversation about the post Agenda 2030 scenarios.

How can the goals be strengthened?

Capacity building of students could also become an opportunity to open up the decision making on one of the most important agendas of our time.

Imagine youths’ assemblies and forums to discuss and ideate the future global development goals. Such exercise should not become the traditional top down approach designed and backed by donor agencies like in the past.

Rather it can embed more radical and ambitious principles of grassroots level deliberative democracy and shared decision making.

One thing is certain: without a profound acceleration, the current trends in implementing the SDGs will not shift.

Realistically speaking, it is highly probable that we will reach the 2030 with an abysmal record of accomplishment in terms of realizing the Agenda 2030.

The international community can avoid such shameful outcomes while designing a post 2030 framework.

There is still time to design an agenda that is accountable, inclusive, and grounded in lived experience. But this requires listening to those who will inherit the consequences of today’s decisions.

The next framework can be drastically different if young people, rather than diplomats and government officials, will meaningfully own the process.

The young generations should not only lead in the designing of a new “Global Sustainable Development Deal” but also have a say and voice into its implementation.

Only then, governments at all levels will take the job of ensuring a future for humanity seriously.

Ananthu Anilkumar writes on human rights, development cooperation, and global governance. Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jul 14 2025 (IPS)

The extensive plan of action adopted at the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4), held recently in Sevilla, Spain (30 June – 3 July), triggers the question: Where will the money come from?

When I hear of mind-blogging figures of money needed to tackle the most daunting challenges humanity faces, I always ask myself how these resources will materialize.

Developing nations are saddled with debts whose serving is getting more and more onerous. Developed nations are entangled in a dangerous geopolitical downward spiral that is pushing them to invest enormous amounts in defense at the expense of global justice.

Meanwhile climate finance alone is going to be in the surround of trillions American dollars. In addition the recently World Bank published Global Economic Outlook provides another dismal forecast for the days to come.

“Global growth is slowing due to a substantial rise in trade barriers and the pervasive effects of an uncertain global policy environment. Growth is expected to weaken to 2.3 percent in 2025, with deceleration in most economies relative to last year. This would mark the slowest rate of global growth since 2008, aside from outright global recessions”.

This is the bedrock based on which the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development was recently held in Sevilla.

The final outcome of the Conference, the Sevilla Commitment is an extensive plan of actions with potentially groundbreaking measures that could truly support developing nations.

Yet as often happens with such documents, we should ask ourselves how this pledge will be upheld and implemented, especially the ones launched during the conference through the FFD4 Sevilla Platform for Action Initiatives.

The onus is going to be equally on both sides of the equation.

A Universal Peer Review to track the financial commitments of developed nations might be what is needed.

Will developed nations really be serious about raising their developed aid, mobilize the regional and international multilateral financial institutions that they control while being serious at finding ways to relieve developing nations of parts of their debts?

Even more crucially, with the stakes so high and the overall economic situation in such a distressful mode, will developed nations muster the courage to truly reform the international financial system?

On the other hand, will developed nations be committed and determined to root out corruption and malpractices in governance?

How will these nations be able to raise their taxation basis and undertake policy making actions transparently and inclusively?

The Sevilla Commitment does offer a broad framework to raise trillions of dollars to achieve the SDGs, including resources for climate and biodiversity actions.

This is an important aspect of the document that cannot go underestimated.

The document provides, at least in principle, a vision to do away, in matters of financing, with artificial and inefficient silos that the international aid system has created.

Paragraph 8 is key to this ambitious effort.

“National development efforts need to be supported by an enabling international economic environment and effective means of implementation that promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, and prevent external shocks from disproportionately affecting developing countries. We commit to align international support with national strategies, plans and frameworks, such as Integrated National Financing Frameworks (INFFs), and will respect each country’s policy space to pursue sustainable development while remaining consistent with relevant international rules and commitments”.

Annalisa Prizzon, an economist and Principal Research Fellow in the Development and Public Finance Programme at ODI, one of the most renowned development think tanks offered a clear insight.

“We should focus on “how much but also on how financing for development is delivered and reinvigorate the discussions on what makes cooperation for development effective”.

The International Commission of Experts on Financing for Development (FFD4) led by José Antonio Ocampo, a former Minister of Finance and Public Credit of Colombia that also included Prizzon, in its report released in February 2025, there is a proposal of creating a UN Global Economic Coordination Council.

The fact that the whole UN system is under immense pressure of restructuring itself in order to be more of value for money should not imply that it cannot still play an important role.

In a much different way, the UN should especially strengthen its convening and coordination powers among its members.

Yet I found it baffling that the whole text of the Sevilla Commitment does not contain any reference to the concept of “SDGs Stimulus” that have been championed for long by the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. Instead, it was less surprising that in Seville there was a lot of focus on the role of the private sector and blended capitals.

Now there is an overwhelming consensus that public financing cannot do the job alone and finding private resources, often by leveraging complex and abstruse financial mechanisms that only equity investors seem to comprehend, is seen as a must.

While it is certainly true that Multilateral Development Banks can be much more effective at increasing their landing capacities and also incentivizing the mobilization of private capitals, the biggest challenges faced by humanity cannot be tackled through shortcuts.

And centering the international finance for development on private capitals rather than public money in the forms of grants or concessional loans with minimal interests and a lot of flexibility on the receiving nations, developed countries are taking a very convenient route that helps them dodging their moral responsibilities.

At G7 held in Alberta, Canada, it was decided that American multinationals would be exempted from the global minimum taxation regime that was agreed in 2021.

While this decision might hit more the revenues of European governments where many American companies operate, it is a troubling signal. If big chunks of the international finance framework are outsourced and handed out to the private sector, then the international community is abdicating from its moral duties.

The same dynamics is also unfolding in matter of climate negotiations. In the recent held Bonn Climate Talks, officially the SB 62 held in the former capital of Western Germany (16 Jun – 26 Jun), even if financing was not a central topic on the official agenda, it was impossible avoid it.

Developed nations are pushing for a major role of private funding while also, quite correctly, demanding that nations like China and the Gulf Countries step up with new commitments.

In this context, developing nations must be more assertive with a “Show Me the Money” attitude when dealing with developed nations. The former might have some bargaining chips in the form of rare earth materials that the West is so desperately in need of.

Forums like the G20, where developing and developed nations come together, offer a platform to push for changes. There are also now plenty of serious proposals to change the status quo.

On the top of the Sevilla Commitment, the same International Commission of Experts on Finance for Development has come up with a holistic array of proposals that, with political will, can make the difference.

The same can be said with the recently launched “The Jubilee Report: A Blueprint for Tackling the Debt and Development Crises and Creating the Financial Foundations for a Sustainable People-Centered Global Economy”, an initiative of the Vatican based Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences and Columbia University’s Initiative for Policy Dialogue.

Yet even if the flow of development finance from the private sector is tempered and controlled and a new governance system is created, we need some new forms of accountability.

What about a Universal Peer Review, UPR for development finance that could be devised while re-thinking the Post 2030 Development Agenda?

Borrowing from the UPR model in place in the Human Rights Council, such an accountability system could be the only hope to pressurize developed nations to hold to their promises.

As the international community will soon start discussing what will happen to the Agenda 2030 and the SDGs, we need some strongest mechanisms to hold nations answerable to their pledges.

While this is itself far from being a perfect mechanism (after all there are is no way of punishing or sanctioning the not complying governments), sometimes some shame is what is needed to give a jolt and ensure rich nations walk the talk.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres prioritizes reform at 'UN80 Initiative' launch. 1 May 2025. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, May 20 2025 (IPS)

How would the UN80 Initiative, designed to mark the 80th Anniversary of the United Nations, turned out to be, if Kamala Harris had won the American presidential election in November last year?

As more details are emerging on plans being drawn by Secretary General António Guterres to drastically restructure and re-organize the whole United Nation system, I could not stop thinking about this question.

The UN has become a real “galaxy” of agencies, programs and offices, often with overlapping mandates and functions. Yet without a second Trump Administration, it is very likely that the UN80 Initiative would have taken a much different shape.

After all, the UN 2.0 blueprint, a timid proposal to reform and modernize the United Nations, developed in 2022 as a key pillar of the ambitious Our Common Agenda, never really took off.

A frank assessment would consider the UN 2.0 as a blueprint full of hype and catchy words but profoundly lacking substance.

Yet at least the UN 2.0 talked, even if in generic terms, about an important need that the United Nations should have taken care of: change its internal culture.

But instead of focusing only on the UN turning itself into a “forward thinking” organization as proposed in the blueprint, the cultural shift at the UN should be much more ambitious and radical.

Does the UN have to start to think and act as a startup organization? Perhaps it can help get rid of a red tape culture but at the same time, some caution might be welcome, considering also all the negative consequences stemming from embracing a venture capitalist approach to organizational culture.

That’s why the profound rethinking that now is under place at the UN should be grounded on simple values of humbleness and humility.

As shocking as they might seem, these two elements are the cornerstone of principled leadership and the UN, if it really wants to be a “lighthouse” in situations in which humanity and the planet face troubling dark times, these should be embedded in any new restructuring.

Over the years the UN has become aloof and remote even in places like in the so-called Global South where it has a strong presence and its mandate is generally well received by locals.

This situation can be emblematically thought of as a working culture that lacks responsiveness and does not do enough to reach out to the locals.

This is partly due to the UN’s mandate to work and assist with national governments but it has become an excuse to not engage civil society and the citizenry.

The problem, instead, is deeper and it starts with the fact that UN staff ended up, even unconsciously and involuntarily, as a “caste” of special “ones”.

I do not doubt the seriousness and commitment of the vast majority of UN personnel but the system is so flawed that it is inevitable that, no matter your good intentions, you end up being isolated from the ground reality.

As naïve as it might look, why do not we start from the basics? Are the highly paid jobs at the UN morally justified?

One thing is to have a good salary but another thing is to have perks and facilities that only the privileged “ones” are supposed to be entitled to. Then, why not tax the salaries of UN personnel?

These issues do snowball and become bigger and influence an entire working mindset and, at the end, they become deeply entrenched in the organizational culture of the UN.

Why is it so difficult to secure appointments with the UN officials or getting an answer for some ideas that have been proposed to them?

It is certainly impossible for the UN agencies and programs to entertain any requests, but, I do believe it would make sense for the UN to have a much more responsive approach.

Another example: why running events in four or five star hotels?

Again, this question could be shot down with disdain and as a trivial matter but, it is just a symptom of a much broader malaise that has a real outcome: a lot of wasted resources that could be better spent.

There is a broader acceptance, even if it will be hardly admitted, that the UN are neither responsive nor accountable. The discussions being prioritized at the moment by the UN SG are not tackling these underlying issues.

The ongoing debate is more about eliminating the vast amount of inefficiencies through merging and elimination of overlapping entities. It is not that these potential shake ups do not make sense.

It is actually welcome but, unless there is a deep reflection on how the UN can be really more accountable and transparent and accessible, the change won’t be as powerful as many hope.

Right at the top, most of the executive heads of agencies and programs are very well-meaning and committed professionals but many of them are former high level officials in their country of origin.

They have been accustomed to high offices that often are far removed from the ground reality. Therefore, they are not well suited to try to create efficiencies and re-tool the entire working approach. But the problem is also with the mandate of the United Nations.

Rather than focusing exclusively on assisting its member nations, the UN should also reposition its functions to do a much better job at partnering with civil society organizations. This also makes sense because freedoms are shrinking both in the North and in the South and overall democracy is in decline.

A more agile and humble UN could have a core mandate of supporting grassroots organizations and the whole civil society. A practical way to start doing it is for the UN to engage and consult more and better with the society at large, even when the hosting nations would not appreciate it.

I do often think that the UN as a system is oftentimes too submissive to the host governments even if the latter are recipients of huge amounts of assistance. It acts and obliges as if it did not have any negotiating powers.

To bring in efficiencies, moreover, the UN agencies and programs should stop being implementers on behalf of other donors.

It often happens that, at country levels, the offices of major UN agencies sign partnership agreements with bilateral agencies.

There are better practices to implement development assistance rather than relying on the “technical’ expertise of UN Agencies.

Why can’t bilateral agencies directly support civil society or why can’t the UN agencies only play a much more limited role? Instead of setting up whole teams made up by contracted officials, in effect long term consultants, why not truly support local NGOs in terms of organizational development and technical knowledge through a much more nimble approach?

All these proposals might be easily dismissed by those who have been thriving throughout the years in a system whose potential of real impact has been trimmed by a working culture that does not any more meet the thresholds set by the high purposes for which the UN were created.

But the status quo cannot continue.

Unfortunately, only Donald Trump could trigger a bold restricting of the UN. Merging and cutting agencies and programs should be one side of the revolution that Mr. Guterres has been forced to tackle.

Let’s not forget the less visible, perhaps softer side of the coin. Without eradicating a mindset that ended up self-justifying and self-promoting, the UN will cease to exist.

And this will be a real problem for our humanity.

That’s why the status quo at the UN must be defeated.

https://press.un.org/en/2025/sgsm22644.doc.htm

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, May 7 2025 (IPS)

A UN groundbreaking report published in 1982 laid the legal ground for defining the inalienable rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The document, written by José Martínez Cobo, a United Nations Special Rapporteur, analyzed the complex discrimination patterns faced by Indigenous Peoples.

If the international community is serious about protecting and safeguarding their rights, then it is indispensable to go back to one of the central questions raised in that report: the identity of indigenous people has always been intrinsically interconnected to their lands.

This tenant, now a legal concept mainstreamed in the international human rights jurisprudence, is with few exceptions, unheeded.

Disregarding and violating the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their own lands had led to disenfranchisement, alienation and countless suffering.

The relationship of Indigenous Peoples with their lands with all the measures needed to be enforced to protect it, are the foundations of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007.

Upholding the Declaration’s principles and ensuring its implementation remains one of the key challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples worldwide. It was also the theme of this year’s United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, (UNPFII) the most important UN sanctioned gathering of Indigenous Peoples.

In its 24th session, hosted at the UN HQ in New York from 21 April to 2 May 2025, discussions were focused on how power sharing should underpin any quests of implementing the UNDRIP.

Because, essentially and let’s not forget it, the UNDRIP, is about recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ power. Ensuring Indigenous Peoples’ rights to their lands is paramount if we really want to ensure an inclusive form of governance that respects them.

Discussions over more inclusive forms of governance for Indigenous Peoples should yield to venues for them to have a much stronger saying over their own affairs. After many years of advocacy and legal battles, there have been some victories.

New Zealand, before the rise to power of its current conservative government, and Canada made major strides to respect and uphold the sovereign rights of their Indigenous Peoples.

There have also been strides also on other fronts, more locally.

A research presented at last year’s session of the Forum, showed some encouraging practices. For example, the Sami Parliament in Norway, the concept of Indigenous Autonomies in Mexico City and some traditions from the Tharu and Newar Peoples of Nepal, do offer some models of self-governance.

But, overall, the picture is grim.

Despite the legal framework that has been established and despite many declarations, still, the right to self-determination of Indigenous Peoples, paramount to their quest towards autonomous decision making, is contested and fought back.

And the only way to ensure its realization is when states will accept that in case of governance, whenever the rights of Indigenous Peoples are implied, it should be shared.

To be clear, this process should not be seen as a devolution of power. Rather it should be understood as a legitimate reclamation of power. The just concluded UNPFII tried to underscore this concept.

One of the conclusions of this year’s session underscored that “there has been growing recognition of the need for formal UN mechanisms that ensure Indigenous Peoples’ meaningful participation in global governance”.

The Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, acknowledged, in his opening remarks at the Forum, the violations and abuses faced by Indigenous Peoples.

“The difficulties facing Indigenous Peoples around the world are an affront to dignity and justice. And a source of deep sorrow for me personally”.

The daunting challenges posed by climate warming and the imperative to transition to a net zero economy are going to further challenge the compliance of the UNDRIP.

At the 24th Session, a central focus was the role of Indigenous Peoples in the context of the extraction of critical minerals that are indispensable to ensure a just transition.

On this aspect, a major study, submitted by Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim and Hannah McGlad, two members of the Forum, highlighted that there is no quest for critical minerals nor any just transition unless Indigenous Peoples are put at the front of this epochal shift.

One of the key questions is to think how governments, already pressed by geopolitical imperatives and in many cases already not compliant with the UNDRIP, can really involve, engage and consult with Indigenous Peoples.

The principle of Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC) a foundational pillar of the UNDRIP, is normally only paid lip service to. But without respecting the FPIC, there won’t be a “Just Transition”.

In this regard, the worst performers in upholding this right are often multilateral and bilateral banks. Some difficult questions must be solved.

What could be done to ensure that Indigenous Peoples are at the center of the decision making whenever their lives and lands are concerned?

How to shift from a legal landscape in which the few positive exceptions become the norm? How can Indigenous Peoples better channel their grievances and come forward with their own solutions?

The UNPFII remains the only major platform that Indigenous Peoples can leverage. Yet, no matter its relevance, we are still dealing with a tool driven by symbolism that holds no binding powers.

Certainly, we cannot forget the existence of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

If the former can offer valuable insights, the latter, as all the special procedures within the United Nations Human Rights Council, lacks teeth and enforceable powers.

One of the major requests at UNPFII, since several years, has been the appointment of a Special Representative or Advisor on Indigenous Issues to the Secretary General. Yet, even if this demand were to be fulfilled, such a new role would not lead to any substantial impact.

Even within the UNFCCC process, Indigenous issues do struggle to get attention. The recently approved Baku Work Plan could be seen just as unambitious document and the existing

The UNFCCC Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP) is not only designed to dilute the voice of Indigenous Peoples but it is made ineffective by purpose.

More promising it is the upcoming debate to create an Indigenous Voice, the so called on Article 8(j), within the framework of the UN Convention on Biodiversity but the negotiations are going to be contentious.

The real crux is how to engage the many governments that, even now, do not recognize the unique identities of Indigenous Peoples. But here is still a lot that the United Nations system could do on its own.

This was a major point of discussion at UNPFII because UN agencies and programs must do a much better job at involving and engaging Indigenous Peoples beyond tokenism.

The probable restructuring process that the UN might be forced to undertake following the cuts in official aid by the new American Administration, should simplify its governance. But such redesign should lead to imagining new spaces that, at minimum, would enable Indigenous Peoples to have their voice heard.

The call for a “Second World Conference on Indigenous Peoples” to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the UNDRIP in September 2027, offers an important opportunity for Indigenous Peoples.

But the advocacy work needed to hold such a historic event would only be justified if the focus in 2027 will be on measures to return the decision making to Indigenous Peoples. Essentially, any new World Conference on Indigenous Peoples should be centered on new forms of governance and power sharing.

These are the two key but inconvenient concepts that must be analyzed and discussed and ultimately internalized with the overarching goal of finally giving back Indigenous Peoples what is due.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A 30-foot- high monument entitled Turn off the plastics tap by Canadian activist and artist Benjamin von Wong was exhibited at the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi, Kenya, in 2022. Credit: UNEP/Cyril Villemain

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jan 20 2025 (IPS)

The last few weeks of 2024 were a disappointment for those who strongly believed that planet Earth is in need of bold actions.

First, there were the frustration stemming from what could be defined at minimum as unconvincing outcomes of both COP 16 on Biodiversity and COP 29 on Climate.

Then all hope was resting on a successful conclusion of the 5th and final round of negotiations held in Busan to reduce plastic pollutions, at the Inter-governmental Negotiating Committee INC-5. (25 November -1 December 2024)

Instead also in this case, at the end, it was a letdown because no consensus had emerged on some of the key elements of the negotiations. Yet, flopping this more gloomy and dark view, I am learning that activists for a strong treaty are not giving up.

They are not ready to concede defeat and, rightly so. The fight must go on.

At least at Busan, the gap between the parties involved in the discussions came at the fore, providing clarity on their own desired outcomes, this time, each showing their cards, without hesitancy. On the one hand, a diverse coalition of more progressive nations.

Within it, both members of the Global South and a part of the Global North worked very hard to press for the best possible outcome, a treaty that would also include targets to reduce plastic production, especially the most nefarious type of it.

On the other hand, governments representing strong petro-chemical establishments had the overt mission to trample and block any attempts of reducing plastic production. Their mantras were conveniently focused on recycling and circularity as the best remedy to reduce plastic pollution.

To have a better assessment of INC-5, I approached the Plastic Pollution Coalition, a US civil society organization advocating an ambitious treaty. The group has also pressurized Washington to take a bolder stance in the fight against plastic pollution.

The resulting conversation with members of the Coalition, carried out via e-mails, was also an opportunity to identify the next goalposts for future negotiations and what scenarios might emerge in the months ahead.

They key messages are that, despite the final outcomes of the negotiations were not what many had hoped for, those, who want bold actions towards reducing plastic pollution, should not despair.

First of all, my interest was on assessing the level of disillusionment among activists advocating for a strong and ambitious treaty.

“Plastic pollutes throughout its existence, and a strong globally binding treaty is critical for a healthy future for humanity. While we are disappointed with the outcome of INC-5—little to no progress on the treaty text—we remain hopeful and are very inspired by the growing collaboration and efforts of a majority of ambitious countries” said Dianna Cohen, Co-Founder and CEO of the Plastic Pollution Coalition.

The commitment from the members of the Coalition is not diminished but rather it is growing ad with it also a sense of optimism.

“The fight is far from over. Talks will resume in 2025, and Plastic Pollution Coalition and allies continue to call on the US government to adopt a stronger position in the treaty negotiations” said Jen Fela, Vice President, Programs and Communications at the Plastic Pollution Coalition.

“The work won’t be easy. While necessary to protect the planet and human health, there will likely be even less support for a strong and legally binding global treaty by the incoming US administration”.

“The good news is that the talks in Busan demonstrated that more and more countries are willing to be bold and tell the world to get on board with what UN Environment Programme Executive Director Inger Andersen called a ‘once-in-a-planet opportunity’ for a treaty that will end the plastics age once and for all”, Fela further stressed.

But what next? Balancing realism with ambition, what activists should aim in the next negotiations?

“We will keep pushing for a treaty that caps plastic production and prioritizes health, centers frontline and fence-line communities, acknowledges the rights of Indigenous Peoples and rights holders, restricts problematic plastic products and chemicals of concern, and supports non-toxic reuse systems”, Cohen, the Co-Founder and CEO of the Coalition told me.

“We are proud to stand with our incredible community of allies and continue our work toward a more just, equitable, regenerative world free of plastic pollution and its toxic impacts”,

Indeed, signs of hope are not misplaced”.

“Despite Member States being unable to reach a deal at INC-5, there was promising ambition and growing collaboration among the majority of countries, and we’re hopeful for the additional round of talks at INC-5.2 next year”, she further added.

“Ultimately, a delay is better than settling for a weak agreement that fails to meaningfully address the problem now, and the silver lining is that in the meantime, we can gain even more support for a strong treaty that cuts plastic pollution”.

Moreover, it is important to remember that despite there was no agreement, a new consensus is emerging.

“Despite pressure from a handful of petrostates, the majority of countries are rallying together for a strong treaty, with more than 100 countries backing Panama’s proposal to reduce plastic production, 95 supporting legally binding targets to regulate harmful chemicals, and over 120 nations calling for a treaty with robust implementation measures” reads a summary of INC-5 published by the Coalition.

A new coalition got cemented in Busan with countries like Panama and Rwanda working with European nations and others in the so called High Ambition Coalition to end Plastic Pollution.

I also wanted to better understand the key elements that can either make a future treaty at least acceptable for those advocating for plastic reductions and which are the “red lines” for them.

“Signs of a weak Plastics Treaty include voluntary measures to address plastic pollution, failure to commit to a significant global reduction in the total production of plastics, failing to identify and cease production of “chemicals of concern” known to harm frontline communities—a major environmental justice issue, a focus on recycling plastic as a solution, and omitting a full and strong range of actions that address plastic pollution throughout its endless toxic existence—from the extraction of its fossil fuel ingredients through plastic and plastic chemical production, shipping, use, and disposal” explained Erica Cirino, Communication Manager at the Coalition.

“The key is a mandated and significant reduction in plastic and plastic chemical production”.

“Signs of a strong treaty include mandatory caps on plastic and plastic chemical production, identification and further regulation of especially hazardous chemicals of concern, and including a full and strong range of actions that work to end plastic pollution throughout its endless toxic existence, starting with the extraction of its fossil fuel ingredients through plastic and plastic chemical production, shipping, use, and disposal” she further said.

“A binding commitment that reduces especially “problematic” plastic products and chemicals of concern would not be acceptable without a cap in overall production. All plastics pollute, and all plastic production must be reduced”, Cirino further explained.

The point raised by Cirino is one of the most contentious. “Those of special concern must especially be eliminated and regulated, but taking action to mitigate their harm should only be expedited—and not stand in place of mitigating harm of all plastics”.

Would it be still acceptable, in case there will be no breakthrough at all in the next round of negotiations, the most progressive nations, say the members of The High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, would come up with their own, alternative binding agreement, even if not a fully-fledged global treaty as we are envisioning now?

Could this “extreme” and until now unimaginable ‘last” option make sense even if plastic polluters would continue with their “business as usual approach”?

“It’s certainly not an ideal solution, as plastic pollution is a global issue perpetuated by a global set of governments; investors; and industrial players, activities and infrastructure. That said, it potentially would be better than nothing if more progressive nations were to devise their own binding agreement, so long as it focused on curbing plastic pollution”, Cirino shared.

“The main issue is, many of the biggest plastic producers in the world (namely, the US and China) are absent from the high-ambition talks for now. It’s crucial that levels of plastic production drop globally. It would be all for naught if some countries reduce production, only for other nations to increase it”.

Meanwhile having some countries going “solo” carries risks and these they are crystal clear.

Indeed, there are palpable concerns in places like Europe on this regard.

There, the plastic lobbying is worried that a decline of plastic production in Europe means that other nations like China are taking advantage by ramping up their production.

We are in a conundrum. At this moment, I can’t imagine how the petro states will change their key negotiating positions. “If passed, hopefully an agreement among progressive nations would push other nations to also reduce their plastic production or, such an agreement may not help at all” concluded Cirino.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Negotiations on a future global drought regime got underway at UNCCD COP16 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia December 2-13.

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Dec 4 2024 (IPS)

Courage and not compromise. That was the motto desperately launched by members of the civil society in the twilight of the negotiations of the Plastic Pollution Treaty in Busan, South Korea last week.

As we now know, the negotiations did not yield the results that would have helped Planet Earth set a groundbreaking target to reduce the amount of plastic being produced.

Meanwhile, the international community is onto another crucial meeting in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia to discuss global efforts against desertification. It is going to be another COP process, what is formally known as the 16th Session of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification or UNCCD. (COP16, December 2-13).

Apparently, this time, the host, Saudi Arabia, is going to lead a tremendous effort to ensure a strong outcome. Over the last two and half months, Riyadh, rather than being a global leader to ensure the survivability of our planet, a champion of sustainability, has been a disruptor.

The Saudis were among those who have been undermining the recently concluded Climate COP 29 in Baku and, to a lesser extent, the COP 16 on Biodiversity in Cali, Colombia.

But a review of what unfolded over the last two and half months, would also bring an indictment for act of omission not only to the Petro states but also to all developed nations.

Indeed, the eleventh-hour rallying cry– “courage, not compromise”– should have been embraced as the North Star by all those nations who were ready to take bold steps in the three recently concluded COP processes.

In Busan, as explained by the Center for International Environmental Law, CIEL, ” negotiators had several procedural options available, including voting or making a treaty among the willing”. Yet the most progressive nations, around 100 countries, including the EU and 38 African nations and South American countries, did not dare to go beyond the traditional approach of seeking a consensus at any cost.

Ironically what happened at COP 16 and COP 29 was equally a travesty of justice as developed nations did not budge from their positions. At the end, the final deals on biodiversity and climate financing, were in both cases extremely disappointing especially in relation to the former.

Indeed. in Cali, there was no agreement at all in finding the resources needed to implement the ambitious Kunming- Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

According to BloombergNEF (BNEF), in its Biodiversity Finance Factbook, ” the gap between current biodiversity finance and future needs have widened to $ 942 billion”.

The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), the financial vehicle to implement the Framework, is still very far from becoming a true game changer.

The millions of dollars that a small group of European nations have pledged during the negotiations in Cali, are still a miniscule contribution in relation to what was agreed two years ago in Montreal where the second leg of the COP 15 was held.

There, the final outcome underpinning the Framework, required the mobilisation of financial resources for biodiversity of at least US$200 billion per year by 2030 from public and private sources and identifying and eliminating at least US$500 billion of annual subsidies harmful to biodiversity.

What unfolded in Baku at the climate COP was also, in terms of financing, embarrassing for developed nations. The hardly negotiated agreement of tripling the US$ 100 billion per year by 2035 with a commitment to reach up to US$ 1.3 trillion by the same year through different sources of money, including difficult to negotiate levies, is far from what is required.

On this front, the embarrassment was not only on the traditional developed nations but also on countries like China and the Gulf Nations who stubbornly rejected their responsibility to play their part in climate financing.

At least, as part of a last minute compromise, the developed nations (G7 and few others like Australia) will now co-lead the responsibility of finding the resources. China and others wealthy nations that, according to an outdated UN classification are still officially considered as “developing”, will contribute but only on voluntary basis.

As we see, the final outcomes of these three COPs were far from being courageous. Compromising, epitomized by concepts like ” constructive ambiguity”, agreeing on something that can be interpreted differently by the nations at the negotiating tables, instead dominated.

At this point, considering the frustrations of these mega gatherings, what could be done? Is the existing model of the COP with its complexities and endless delays and bickering, still viable?

The influential Club of Rome, on the last days of COP 29, had released a strongly worded press release asking for a major reform of the ways negotiations were carried out. “The COP process must be strengthened with mechanisms to hold countries accountable”. The document went even further with calls to implement robust tracking of climate financing.

Also, with each COP, a series of new initiatives are always launched, often just for the sake of visibility and prestige.

The risk is having a multitude of exercises and mechanisms that drains resources that, are at the end, are neither productive nor meaningful but rather duplicative and ultimately, a waste of money.

We should be even more radical, I would say. For example, the international community should introduce the same peer to peer review process in place in the Human Rights Council that, frankly speaking, is hardly a revolutionary tool.

And yet, despite the fact that nations with a solid track record in human rights abuses remain unscathed in the Council, such a change would represent some forms of accountability in the areas of biodiversity and climate.

This could be envisioned as a reform that should accompany the implementation of the upcoming 3rd wave of Nationally Determined Contributions due by 2025. Getting rid of the consensus model is also something that should truly be considered.

Why not holding votes that would break the vetoes of even one single nation? Why being so attached to unanimity when we do know that it is not working at all?

As show in Busan, it is the traditionally developed nations that lack courage and farsightedness in pursuing a procedure that might backfire against them. This is, instead, a cause that at least the EU, Canada and Australia should embrace. Yet we are still very far from reaching this level of audacity.

Another fanciful thinking relates to tie nations’ actions to the possibility of hosting prestigious sports tournament. Why not forcing international sport bodies like FIFA to reward the hosting rights for its mega events only to nations which are climate and biodiversity leaders in practice rather than through empty but lofty declarations?

Unfortunately, there will never be consensus within the football federations that run FIFA governing body or say, within the International Olympic Committee. A more promising area, though also not easy to put into practice, would be to find ways in which non state actors would have a real say in the negotiations.

Both the COP 16 and the COP 29 reached some breakthroughs in relation to giving more voice, for example, to indigenous people. In Cali, it was decided to establish a new body that will more power to indigenous people.

It is what is formally known, in reference to the provision related to the rights of indigenous people of the International Convention on Biodiversity, as the Permanent Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j).

The details of this new body will be object of intense negotiations but at least a pathway has been created to better channel the demands of a key constituency who, so far, has struggled to gain its due recognition.

Also at COP 29 saw some wins for indigenous people with the adaption of the Baku Workplan and the renewal of the mandate of the Facilitative Working Group (FWG) of local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platforms.

Surely there can be some creative solutions to strengthen what was supposed to be the platform to incorporate and engage non state actors, the Marrakesh Partnership for Global Action.

The members of civil society could come up with new ideas on how to formally have a role in the negotiations. While it is impossible to have non state actors at the par of member states party to the conventions around which the COPs are held, surely the latter should be in a better place and have some forms of decision power.

Lastly one of the best ways to simplify these complex and independent from each other negotiations, would be to work towards a unifying framework in relation to the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

On this, the Colombian Presidency of the COP 16 broke some important grounds with Susana Muhammad, the Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia who chaired the proceedings in Cali, pushing for bridging the gap between biodiversity and climate negotiations.

None of the propositions listed here are going to be easy to implement. What we need is simple to understand but also extremely hard to reach.

Only more pressure from the below, from the global civil society can push governments to make the right choice: setting aside, at least for once, the word compromise and instead chose another one that instead can make the difference while instilling hope.

This word is called courage.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

In September 2024, world leaders will gather at UN headquarters in New York for the Summit of the Future, which aims to “forge a new global consensus on what our future should look like.” Credit: OpenAI’s ChatGPT Image Generator Via United Nations. Source: UN Foundation

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Aug 5 2024 (IPS)

Preparations are ongoing for the upcoming Summit of the Future, probably the most consequential initiative of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres so far.

The gathering, to be seen as a serious attempt at fixing some of the most intricate and enduring issues of our times, could help cement the Secretary General’s legacy as an idealistic architect of a stronger and more cohesive multilateral system.

To be held September 22-23, the summit will indeed provide a platform for the international community to discuss ways to strengthen and enhance global governance.

https://www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future

Building on the proposals of Our Common Agenda, the comprehensive blueprint that Guterres presented in 2021, the gathering will see member states trying to broker an agreement on how to enhance some of the key pillars of multilateralism, fitter for the purpose.

The list of propositions is in-depth and exhaustive, covering several policy areas, namely Sustainable Development and Financing for Development; International Peace and Security; Science, Technology and Innovation and Digital Cooperation; Youth and Future Generations; Transforming Global Governance.

Each of these domains contains proposals, from restructuring the way multilateral financing system operates, including ensuring resources for the realization of the SDGs to enabling a stronger global governance centered on stronger mechanisms to prevent conflicts.

In an age of growing division, misinformation, and polarization, a new challenge paper recommends informing and engaging global citizens through innovative structural changes to the multilateral system. Credit: OpenAI’s ChatGPT Image Generator. Source: UN Foundation

They are now under intense negotiations and the final decisions will be contained in the Pact for the Future that is to be approved during the Summit. Yet while the aims and overarching goals of the Summit are nothing but praiseworthy, we should wonder if the proposals being discussed are truly transformational.

Moreover, linked to the above, is the international community engaged and invested enough in the discussions? What about the overall level of involvement and participation of the general public?

For sure, global civil society, from the South and the North, have been proposing a wide ranging of ideas that, if implemented, would represent a radical change.

While there is no doubt that Guterres is really trying to achieve something ambitious, at the same time none of the proposals up to discussion at the Summit for the Future represent truly game changers.

Rather they should be seen for what they are: important steps, potentially even incremental steppingstones towards much more radical and indispensable changes that the international community still unfortunately resists.

For example, the New Agenda For Peace, that is part of the package, should be considered as an entry point to start a conversation on how to tame future conflicts by promoting “whole-of-society prevention” strategies, doing a better job at protecting civilians during conflicts.

But also in this case, the Pact resembles more a list of principles, like the commitment, one of many, of “advancing with urgency discussions on lethal autonomous weapons systems” rather than truly actionable proposals.

It also focuses on strengthening mechanisms to manage disputes and improve trust, something that never can be discounted. Yet, it is harder imagining how to advance consensus on this contentious area in a time where geopolitical tensions and rivalries are rising.

But there is one priority domain for which Guterres deserves praise: putting youths first and at the center of his plans. What is noticeable is an attempt at re-thinking and re-booting the whole decision-making system by involving and engaging youths.

But, at the same time, also in this case, it is difficult to envisage any real changes beyond the semi-tokenistic proposals of Guterres like reinforcing the UN agencies ‘current modalities of working with youths. The Declaration on Future Generations, a sort of charter of rights for youths, is, unquestionably and symbolically significant but is still far from being a truly bold and transformative and lack enforcement.

Instead, what the global civil society that, to the credit of Guterres, has been fully involved and engaged in the negotiations of the Summit of the Future, is proposing is not only inspiring but also what the world is desperately in need of.

Indeed the People’s Pact for the Future, brought together by a wide ranging coalition of civil society organizations, The Coalition for the UN We need, is rich of daring ideas. It is exciting to read about establishing not only a UN Parliamentary Assembly but also other audacious solutions like creating mechanisms to involve citizens in the decisions making related to the UN, including a UN World Citizens’ Initiative.

In comparison, the propositions being discussed by the member states in the Pact for the Future are substantially too timid and, in no way, are transformative nor radical as they should be. But to me the most problematic aspect is not the inevitable lack of ambition of Guterres’s project.

After all, it was unavoidable that many details in implementing his vision, would have been constrained and limited by the complexities of international relations. What instead is disappointing is the fact that that any global meeting of such importance for the future of humanity, should have also been radical in involving the citizens of the world.

The truth is, instead, grim: despite the good intentions and a real effort at involving the civil society, there is a widespread unawareness about the whole initiative among the people. In plain terms, amidst the public, there is total lack of knowledge and information about the Summit and its agenda.

The vast majority of youths who should be leading the discussions, have not been involved as they should have been. Most of them do still ignore the Summit of the Future and the negotiations around it. I do not doubt that, all over the world, the UN Country Offices might have tried to engage and consult some of them in some discussions.

But the magnitude of the initiative and the topics to be discussed, no matter how, at the end of the day, are dealt with weakened and flaw propositions, should have deserved much a stronger participation of youths.

The United Nations, in partnerships with civil society organizations in the South and North of the world, should have planned and carried out a much more robust exercise in terms of consulting and engaging young people.

Imagine how transformative would have been to organize consultations at school levels where students could have discussed their priorities and come up with their own solutions. With the proper political will and preparation, such exercises could have represented a new benchmark in terms of innovative ways of consulting and engaging with youths.

The hope is that the efforts being put to organize the Summit of the Future and the energies being spent to negotiate the Pact for the Future, will at least open a new chapter not only at nudging nations to deal with complex issues but at doing so through a completely novel bottom-up approach.

Indeed, the Summit of the Future might be remembered not for what will have achieved. Instead, the whole process that had started with Our Common Agenda, could be remembered for heralding an era where tough issues are tackled differently and more inclusively.

Engaging and involving those who, at the moment, are excluded from the decision making, the people and among them, especially the youths, should become the moral imperative to overcome the biggest challenges faced by humanity.

This is what the immense and far-ranging agenda being pushed by Guterres should be probably remembered for.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The theme of the 2024 High Level Political Forum (HPLF) is “Reinforcing the 2030 Agenda and eradicating poverty in times of multiple crisis: the effective delivery of sustainable, resilient and innovative solutions”. The first meeting will be held from 8 July, to 12 July, and the second meeting, from 15 July, to 18 July, under the auspices of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jul 8 2024 (IPS)

A High-Level Political Forum – described as one of the most important events of the year for discussing the implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—will take place at the United Nations through July 18.

Will this year edition be covered by global media? Will the international community and the people in general pay attention to it?

The HLPF was envisioned as an exercise in accountability, the only way to hold the member states of the United Nations, accountable to the Agenda 2030, the global blueprint in force since 2015 with its actionable SDGs.

Taking stock of the lack of serious commitment towards the implementation of the SDGs’ predecessor, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the international community came up with a different, tighter approach.

After strenuous negotiations, the member states managed to hammer out a stronger mechanism to keep a check on nations would fare in implementing their SDGs.
Despite the divisions, the idea of the HLPF emerged as an acceptable compromise for both sides.

On one side, there was those countries who wanted a loose, “bottom up” approach where the governments would be in charge to set their own plans and targets without legally binding provisions.

These nations would sign up to the Agenda 2030 on condition that they would remain their own masters in devising the plans to achieve the SDGs. In doing so, they also wanted no real and meaningful oversight on their work, accountability was established to be light by purpose during the negotiations.

On the other hand, other nations wanted a much more vigorous enforcing mechanism with real accountability powers. This explains how the HLPF ended up to be a peer-to-peer mechanism where member states would be invited, every two years, to present their national reviews, the so called National Voluntary Reviews or NVRs.

In a concession to those calling for a strong accountability framework, it was agreed that, every four years, the HLPF would entail two official sessions, one of which would be branded as the SDG Summit at the level of the Heads of State and Governments.

Despite the good intentions, the HLPF never achieved the aims it was devised for.

It struggled to get traction and garner the visibility it was hoped it would be able to garner and basically it has become a very technical mechanism for a relatively limited circle of experts and civil society activists.

Most seriously, it was never be able to register with the governments that would see it either as a minor inconvenience or as a missed opportunity. Both sides still saw worthwhile giving the HLPF a pretense of an being an important event.

There is no doubt that having member nations voluntary presenting their VNRs would be better than having no platform at all to understand what nations are doing to implement the SDGs.

Moreover, the HLPF with its rich program of side events has established itself as an important learning and capacity building platform.

Yet it is high time the international community started to rethink the whole exercise.

As it occurred when drafting a new plan replacing the MDGs, also in this case, the degree of ambition must rise.

The recently released Sustainable Development Goals Report 2024, the only official UN publication tracking the status of implementation of the goals, once again portrays a very challenging scenario.

The entire international community is falling well short of their responsibilities and whole humanity is far off in ensuring the wellbeing and sustainability of the planet in the years to come.

Perhaps we should not only fault a weak framework that allows governments off the hook in upholding their pledges.

The whole international system based on cooperation among states is under stress with several ongoing geopolitical crises and perhaps others, even more serious and consequential, are about to emerge.

Despite this worrying scenario, the international community must rise to the challenge

That’s why it is essential to start devising an even more audacious post Agenda 2030 plan.

It needs to have much stronger enforcing mechanisms while maintaining some of its innovations, real improvements relatively to the MDGs.

For example, we should not hesitate at reaffirming the validity of having the 17 SDGs in place.

Over the years, important steps were met in terms of devising the indispensable data for planning their execution and tracking the outcomes.

Plus, the idea of the SDGs somehow got traction in the people’s imagination even though now it requires some brand revamping. The real problem now is the way SDGs should be reported and tracked and the HLPF is simply unfit for the job.

A bold proposal: the international community should work on devising an international binding legal instrument, in simpler terms, a treaty. Such a tool would do a better at creating, among the member nations, more ownership, accountability, and a sense of urgency compounded by a new legal responsibility towards the implementation of the SDGs.

It is now imperative to have much robust oversight mechanisms and such radical changes would be at the foundation of a revamped future post Agenda 2030 process. We need new instruments in order to ensure that governments will really do whatever they can to achieve the SDGs.

The current national reviews cannot continue to be the way they are: voluntary exercises that are implemented and presented just because of a moral obligation of the signatories of the Agenda 2030.

Instead, they must be transformed into real accounting on what each government is doing according to fixed mandatory parameters, including the type and quality of data and information to be included.

Moreover, what I called the future Mandatory National Reviews or MNRs, should also make space to insert data and information of what local governments are doing. Basically, the new MNRs should also contain what are now the unofficial and almost informal Local Voluntary Reviews or LVRs that are still conveniently seen as “add-ons”.

Such reporting should be made on annual basis with no option of derogation nor any flexibility.

Yet in designing it, the unique circumstances of the member states must be taken into account, with significantly simplified reporting obligations for, say, small island developing nations.

All these would require enhanced capabilities on the part of the same governments and with them, substantial resources.

The UN Regional Commissions, the UNDP country level offices and the UN Resident Coordinators who now have bigger authority and responsibilities, should play a bigger role in supporting their host countries in fulfilling the requirements that the treaty would entail.

Such new responsibilities on the part of the nations can only be met by allowing the UN to have a much-strengthened role, a real “mandate” at assessing and evaluating their efforts or dearth of them.

At the moment, the UN agencies and programs at country levels, wherever they operate, are essentially partner of their host governments and it is the way it should be. They fund many of their programs and they are themselves co-implementers of others.

In all fairness, they cannot play the function of evaluators and trackers of what the national government are doing. This is the reason why a treaty would establish a new UN entity entirely focused on assessing and tracking the governments’ work.

Such entity should operate entirely independently and be de facto separated from the UN work on the ground. Shielded by design from any political interferences or influences by national authorities and donor agencies, the new UN entity must be free to issue forthright and impartial assessments with a list of recommendations if due.

A would-be treaty must also entail provisions about financing as well. In practice it would mean putting into a legal signature to the pledge to fulfill the SDGs Stimulus as envisioned by the UN Secretary Antonio Guterres.

This is estimated to be $500 billion a year, an amount that, if you also considering the financing required to fight climate change and biodiversity loss, would be considerably bigger. Like for any treaty consultations, it will be up to the officials to reach a compromise on the technicalities of the financing, for example, deciding if existing multilateral entities and programs would be fit for the purpose to deliver such funding.

I am fully aware that many governments would balk at the idea of another binding treaty.

There will be a lot of pushbacks but, after all, this is always what occurs when bold plans are unfolded.

It took many years, for example, to agree on the need of a plastic pollution treaty whose difficult negotiations are reaching the last mile at the end of the year in South Korea even though the road ahead is still very bumpy.

Yet a treaty is the only way forward if the international community is serious to revert and change direction from the dangerous path that humanity is taking. With no action, it is impossible to envision a better, more sustainable and just world. The viability of future generations is at risk.

To assuage those nations that won’t embrace this idea, those governments that, without doubts, would pull a lot of roadblocks on the way to reach a consensus on the need of a binding legal instrument, a reminder: a treaty is always the result of compromises that must be agreed by all the sides.

Even the SDGs are far from being ideal.

Fundamental issues like the rights of LGBTQ+ communities and the same concept of democracy are remarkably absent from the Agenda 2030. I even got a name that could be considered for such bold milestone: the Treaty for a Sustainable and Just Future.

Working only on extending the SDGs to a longer framework, possibly 2045, is simply no more sufficient. It has become totally inadequate.

We need better tools to ensure that governments around the world take the post Agenda 2030 plan seriously. We need some bold thinking and some nations championing such ambitious approach to start a conversation. What at the moment counts is to start a conversation about a treaty.

Hopefully the civil society would push for it. Perhaps, what would be really a global multi stakeholder coalition of hope, would take shape and starts demanding what the planet and humanity truly require.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A view of Antigua and Barbuda, the host of the fourth International Conference on Small Island Developing States (SIDS4), 27-30 May 2024. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jun 3 2024 (IPS)

“We are facing unenviable decisions, between the recovery of today or the development of tomorrow”. These were the words of Fiamē Naomi Mataʻafa, of Samoa at the opening of the 4th International Conference on Small Islands Developing States (SIDS4).

Few can deny the true of the powerful message of the Samoan Prime Minister who is also the leading the international group representing the small island states, formally the Alliance of Small Island States, AOSIS.

Yet who is listening? The small island states conclave that was hosted by Antigua and Barbuda between the 27 and 30 of May had two central goals.

On the one hand, once again raise awareness on the moral responsibility that the industrialized world, together with the petrostates have towards the most vulnerable, most fragile nations in the world.

On the other hand, the gathering was centered on charting the way forward with a new global plan that would replace the SAMOA Pathway, the blueprint that guided the priorities of these nations in the last decade that was built on the Barbados Plan of Actions, the first ever global plan for small island nations.

The new framework, entitled The Antigua and Barbuda Agenda for Small Island Developing States or ABAS like its predecessors, does not like ambition. It sets key and vital priorities and strategies upon their implementation the real survival of these nation islands will depend on.

It is also predicated on the indispensable and unnegotiable role that rich countries should play to support small island nations while they navigate climate warming.

Unsurprisingly, the problem is that, as always, developed nations struggle to walk the talk while claiming doing their part in supporting the island nations. Perhaps we should not question their good intentions but the problem is that the means put at disposal are not nearly close to what is needed: trillions and trillions in American dollars.

Certainly, the entire world was not focused on St. John’s, the capital of Antigua and Barbuda. No matter the hype that the United Nations tried to give to the event, unfortunately the world was not watching.

No matter the passionate speeches given there, including the pleas by the Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres “SIDS can make an almighty noise together to deliver meaningful change to benefit the whole of humankind”, Guterres said during his opening address.

He went further. “Small Island Developing States have every right and reason to insist that developed economies fulfil their pledge to double adaptation financing by 2025”.

While there was plenty of heads of governments from within the SIDS and senior officials within the United Nations, the gathering was mostly a no-show for many of the top players.

For example, Ajay Banga, the President of the World Bank was not there. The same could be said of Masatsugu Asakawa, the President of the Asian Development Bank and for Nadia Calviño, the President of the European Investment Bank.

These are the biggest multilateral lenders and it is hard to understand why they did not show solidarity with the most threatened nations in the world. You can now understand why no major funding initiative exclusively focusing on SIDS was launched during the SIDS4.

Yes. both the United States and the EU made some announcements but none was specifically designed for small islands nations. The States announced a scale up of international public finance to over USD 11 billion annually by 2024 while the EU committed to step up its Global Gateway by mobilizing EUR 300 billion in public and private investments by 2027 in sustainable development.

These are important commitments but will they really materialize? Out of them, how much SIDS nations will get? These are genuine questions that are feeding a well justified sense of skepticism for what the so called North is going to do for vulnerable and in danger nations.

In all truth, agencies like the UNDP and UNICEF stepped up their game.

The former announced an array of initiatives, including the Blue and Green Islands Integrated Program (BGI-IP), a $135 million joint initiative with the Global Environment Facility.

The program “emphasizes the crucial role of nature and expand nature-based solutions to combat environmental degradation in three key sectors: urban development, food production, and tourism”.

UNDP also produced an important policy brief, “Breaking through the disaster-response cycle in SIDS: aligning financing to urgent climate action” that offers an analysis of what is needed for the island nations to win over the battle against climate change.

UNICEF instead led the organization of SIDS Global Children and Youth Action Summit held before the official governments led forum. It is a symbolically important manifestation on how young people should be in the driving seat when leaders and global institutions talks about policy formulations that will directly impact the future generations.

Once again, another action plan or as called this time a Commitment to Action, was issued by the youths but we do know that such documents, despite the noble intention and efforts putting in preparing them, do not count.

That’s why we should ask ourselves when young people will be really allowed to take part in the real discussions, when the real decisions are taken. Unfortunately, we are still far from that moment.

The ABAS plan itself contains some interesting proposals but they are mostly technicalities that still need full endorsement of the international community. These include the SIDS Debt Sustainability Support Service and Multidimensional Vulnerability Index (MVI), that are going to be tools tailored made for island nations to be able to have better deals in terms of getting the resources needed not only to cope with their vulnerabilities but also thrive despite of them.

After the closing of the summit, we can say that, despite the rhetoric, SIDS nations are on their own. They should all learn from some of their peers like Vanuatu and Barbados who both have been punching above their weigh with global initiatives to defend their own strategic interests.

The former has been taking the lead with a petition to the International Court of Justice for the so-called Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States relevant to Climate Action.

The latter instead create a buzz in the international financial systems with Bridgetown Initiative that is supposed to free considerable financial resources for developing nations endangered by the climate crisis.

The new Maldivian President, Mohamed Muizzu, that so far came to be known to the international community for his strong anti-India stance, tried to mobilize the global attention on the St John’s summit with an op-ed essay for The Guardian.

He and the host of the event, Gaston Alfonso Browne, the PM of Antigua and Barbuda, are behind the SIDS Debt Sustainability Support Service and indeed have been relentlessly advocating for the rights of the small island nations.

One of the outcomes, important though hardly a gamechanger, will be the creation of a SIDS Center of Excellence in Antigua and Barbuda that, among other things, will be focused on data.

Interestingly enough on the 21st of May, UNIDO, probably one of the weakest UN entities, announced a similar imitative in partnership with the government of Barbados.

I would call all these initiatives “Add-Ons”, nice but not what is required.

An analysis by UNCTAD brings even more clarity on the daunting needs of SIDS.

While only contributing to 1% of global carbon dioxide emissions, they only had access to $1.5 billion out of $100 billion in climate finance pledged to developing countries in 2019.

Perhaps the most important recent news related to small island nations did not come from the gracious St. John’s but from the opposite side of the Atlantic. In Hamburg, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, delivered an Advisory Opinion on the request submitted to the Tribunal by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change, a new SIDS led body, itself an interesting developed created just few years ago thanks to the leadership of Tuvalu and Antigua and Barbuda.

The conclusions of this opinion are fundamental because, slowly, step by step, we are building legal cases against green houses big emitters. First the tribunal ruled that “Anthropogenic GHG emissions into the atmosphere constitute pollution of the marine environment”.

Second, it said that “States Parties to the Convention have the specific obligations to take all necessary measures to prevent, reduce and control marine pollution from anthropogenic GHG emissions and to endeavor to harmonize their policies in this connection”.

Though non-binding, these statements will count on day.

The final press release issued by the UN at the closing of the SIDS4 summit, says that “The SIDS4 Conference has set the stage for the Summit of the Future taking place at UN Headquarters in New York from 22 to 23 September 2024”.

Do not count on that and the leaders of the SIDS nations that gathered in Antigua and Barbuda know it.

What perhaps is the most interesting aspects of the SIDS4 Summit might not be found in the official statements, a flurry of already well-known talking points. Rather what could matter the most is what the leaders of these nations have discussed among themselves behind the scene, far from the limelight.

The start reality is that they cannot rely on anyone to convince the world about their case.
That’s why only their determination, acumen and tactics will make a difference and what they know for sure is that they have to keep punching beyond their weight.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A boy sifts through the rubble of his earthquake-hit home in Rukum (West), Nepal, in November 2023. Credit: UNICEF/ Laxmi Prasad Ngakhus

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Mar 29 2024 (IPS)

If there is a place where the interlinkages and dependencies between the effects of climate warming and biodiversity loss are clearly at display, it’s Nepal. There is clear evidence on the impact of climate change on the country’s ecosystem considering the fact that Nepal is an important biodiversity hotspot.

Climate change and biodiversity loss, if unchecked, can activate mutually devastating loops of devastation that hardly can be offset by any plan and strategy. The only solution is a much stronger level of coordination and policy alignment, not only within countries like Nepal but also regionally.

This is one of the reasons why scientists and experts working on the upcoming IPBES Next Assessment that attempts to study the interlinkages among biodiversity, water, food and health with actions to achieve the Agenda 2030 while combating climate change, chose Kathmandu for their latest summit.

The linkages between climate warming and biodiversity loss were also one of the key hallmarks of COP 28 in the UAE where, for the first time, biodiversity preservation was recognized as a paramount factor to fight climate change.

In the first Global Stocktake, the main outcome document of the COP 28, there has been a strong reference to the implementation of Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF).

In practice, for nations, it means to work hard to converge the climate and biodiversity agendas as the new cycle of Nationally Determined Contributions, the key mitigations plans prepared by each nation party to the Paris Agreement, will also have to include elements related to biodiversity.

This can be proved to be challenging considering also the efforts that a country like Nepal must also put to implement its adaptation plans.

Coordination and alignment between the mitigation and adaptation is at least provided in what should be as the country’s “master plan” to fight climate change, its National Climate Change Policy whose latest iteration was approved in 2019.

It is a document that identified 12 areas, from agriculture and food security to forests, biodiversity and watershed conservation to water resources and energies to rural and urban settlement, tourism and transportation, just to mention few.

Yet ensuring such policy level harmonization is going to be daunting, considering the traditional fragmentations that characterize policy making in Nepal.

At governance level, there are two key mechanisms that have not been fully harnessed.
The first one is the apex body in matter of climate action, the Climate Change Council that is chaired by the Prime Minister.

Its convenings have been not only rare but also mostly symbolic and devoid of substantial decisions. If you think about the challenges faced by Nepal, this should be the most important bureaucratic body at policy level but you seldom hear news about it.

The second instrument at disposal is the Multistakeholder Climate Change Initiative Coordination Committee that should bring together the best minds in the field. So far, what potentially could be a great platform for dialogue has been wasted.

The fact that the Government has formally included the Nepalese Youth for Climate Action as a constituency, does not absolve the authorities from being lacking in terms of proactively enabling and putting in place a structured and formal mechanism in matter of climate.

Coordination is indeed held indispensable, considering the gravity of what is unfolding.
The latest IPBES Global Biodiversity Report, published in 2019, confirmed, once again, that unequivocally “nature and its vital contributions to people, which together embody biodiversity and ecosystem, functions and services, are deteriorating worldwide”.

“Nature across most of the globe has now been significantly altered by multiple human drivers, with the great majority of indicators of ecosystems and biodiversity showing rapid decline”.

The latest report by the World Meteorological Organization could not be even more daunting, once again, proving we are living in the hottest times ever. The key message from the IPBES Next Assessment’s meeting held in Kathmandu was equally daunting and unequivocal, declaring that the whole Hindu Kush Himalaya’s biosphere is “on the brink’.

Another event organized by ICIMOD, the international conference on Climate and Environmental Change Impacts on the Indus Basin Waters, stressed out the essentiality of coordination.

Highlighting key findings of a series of new reports focused on ensuring effective “integrated river basin management”, this gathering underlined how climate change becomes the “urgent catalyst for collaboration over three key river basins in Asia, the Indus, the Ganga, and the Brahmaputra”.

In a press release issued by ICIMOD, Alan Nicol from the International Water Management Institute that collaborated in the writing of the reports, affirmed that the “level of challenges facing the Indus Basin call for collective action across the basin”.

How can such coordination be turned into reality within Nepal and within the whole South Asia?

At national level, climate action should permeate and be embedded in each sphere of policy making. Mechanisms like Climate Change Council and Multistakeholder Climate Change Initiative Coordination Committee must be seriously and meaningfully activated and empowered.

Considering the deep connections between climate and biodiversity, the latter, normally overshadowed by the former domain, should also be included or at least taken into account when the decision makers deliberate on climate related issues.

Enhancing coordination exponentially must be a priority but not only at central level especially in a federal country like Nepal.

Though federalism is still very much a work in progress and where the seven provinces still lack powers and real autonomy, it remains paramount to empower local bodies as well.

Imagine the immense work that must be done in the field of mitigation and adaptation, the two key areas of action within the climate agenda alone. Only in relation to adaptation, the National Adaptation Plan 2021- 2050 aims to mobilize the staggering figure of US$ 47.4 billion of which Nepal will only contribute US$ 1.5 billion.

In the recent “National Dialogue on Climate Change” organized by Municipality Association of Nepal made it clear that local bodies must necessarily be empowered to fight climate change.

A case study prepared by Prakriti Resource Center, one of the most renown climate focused organizations in Nepal, revealed the failure in effectively implementing the Local Adaptation Plans for Actions (LAPA), despite being revised 2019 to reflect the new federal governance of the country.

Local governments should also be at the vanguard of mitigation efforts but reality tells us a different story.

A limited and distorted focus of mitigation mainly in terms of production of hydropower energy, a federal competence, compounded by lack of resources, is currently disempowering local governments from taking action.

Frustrating and disappointing remains the work in the field of biodiversity. Both centrally and locally, there is a lack of urgency here even though the country can count with some success story in local forest preservations by local communities.

Yet, also on this case, Nepal is at risk of falling into a complacence trap without additional strategic thinking.

There is the need not only of coming up with a new, revamped national strategy but it is also essential to evaluate the implementation of the latest National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2014 -2020, especially in relation to design and execution of Local Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans.

But, as we know, coordination and alignment by overcoming silos approaches, should not stop within the national borders.

Here there is an opportunity to put together some sort of regional cooperative framework that, as we saw, are strongly encouraged by the experts. New synergetic impetus at national level in both climate and biodiversity areas could spur the country to also take the initiative regionally.

It can happen in a way that could, at least revamp and give some scope to the almost defuncted South Asia Association of Regional Cooperation, SAARC. Cooperation in South Asia in a novel integrated fashion that links and combines climate efforts and biodiversity preservation, is a must.

Geopolitical rivalries cannot impede it even if, it means, in practice, effectively sidelining the SAARC.

What all this could mean for Nepal?

A joint, combined approach to preserve nature and fight climate warming, together with a revamped attention on pollution and sustainable consumption habits, other two essential aspects that must be tackled in the years to come with urgency, could bring about not only a better and more effective forms of governance in the country.

It could also enable Nepal to become a trailblazer in revamping regional cooperation, pragmatically in areas where traditional rivalries must be set aside for the sake of South Asian citizens’ common good.

A good way to start is to at least to get the “homework” well done in the country, preparing itself on how integrating biodiversity in its negotiations for the next climate COP 29 in Azerbaijan but also be serious about the upcoming biodiversity COP 16 in Colombia.

Simone Galimberti is co-founder of Engage a local NGO promoting partnership and cooperation for youth living in disability and of The Good Leadership, a new initiative promoting character leadership and expertise among youth.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

UN Volunteers Day is commemorated annually on December 5.

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Dec 4 2023 (IPS)

If there is an agency or program within the UN that I really admire and wish the best for, this is the United Nation Volunteers or UNV. Its overarching mission, mandate and key objectives are paramount for humanity.

Unfortunately, volunteerism is neglected worldwide and its transformative importance never fully understood. There are no single issues affecting our planet and the whole humanity that does not require volunteerism.

That’s why UNV that is technically part of UNDP, has a big role to play. Yet, to some extents, UNV is missing into action as it has been unable to raise to the challenges. It can be an issue of lack of availability of resources or it could be the complex red tape system bogging down the whole UN System.

It can be simply the fact that each agency and program within this galaxy of UN entities is simply not too adept at mainstreaming and embed volunteerism in their operations. For sure, UNV does not lack expertise nor very passionate and capable persons, some of whom I have been able to collaborate with in the past.

They really believe in the cause, in the promotion of volunteerism and they really want to push hard so that development can fully leverage its power. But somehow, considering its expertise, UNV is underperforming.

Probably one of the biggest challenges for an organization like UNV is the difficulty in engaging and involving stakeholders on continuous basis. There are actually some big success stories for UNV on this regard.

For example, the Global Technical Meeting held in July 2020 after months of preparations was a truly, groundbreaking initiative.

The end result was an important blueprint to embed volunteerism in the global development agenda, ensuring that volunteerism could really placed at the center of the pursuing the Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals.

Getting the Global Technical Meeting in place took months of preparation and several online discussion groups were created where stakeholders, practitioners and citizens passionate about volunteerism, could contribute. Enabling such forums was remarkable and a true achievement for UNV.

Yet after more than three years since then, no real follow up mechanism has been established. The initial excitement that a new level of global discussion on volunteerism had been achieved, then rapidly declined.

Now I am wondering why in the recently held SDG Summit, to my best knowledge, there was no serious debate on what volunteerism can do to support the implementation of the Agenda 2030.

It is not surprising, therefore, that there has not any apparent and inclusive exercise to revise the implementation of The Plan of Action to Integrate Volunteering into the 2030 Agenda.

Another example is the organization of the International Volunteer Day (IVD) that is celebrated December 5. This can be a great opportunity not only to raise awareness but should also be seen as a key platform to engage and mobilize people throughout the year.

So far, the practice, at countries level, has been to have a sort of coordination mechanism one or at the most two months before the celebrations. While it is important to bring practitioners and stakeholders together for IVD and while I always considered these engagements meaningful, I always felt that we were missing an opportunity.

I always believed that IVD should be not only a big carnival, a moment of joys where local volunteering champions are recognized and duly acknowledged. This component is essential and always needs to be on the front.

At the same time, the day should be used to talk about the less glorious and yet important nitty gritty of policy making. Many might not think of this aspect as strategic.

Yet, if we really want to elevate volunteerism at the center of the Agenda 2030, it is essential to discuss about policies and legislations that can truly empower volunteering efforts for social change.

Think for example about the process of localizing the SDGs? Can’t it be a phenomenal way of engaging and involving citizens? Participation is also a key aspect of volunteerism and a key tenant of the broader concept of civic engagement.

Yet the most important function for IVD is to rally together the whole “movement”, all those love volunteerism: academicians, practitioners, experts, representative of national and international NGOs, donors but also students and any citizens passionate about it.

This means coming forward with extensive planning and collective capacity to execute them, a process that requires months and months of preparation. By my own observation, it was way too late, towards the end of November, when UNV started sharing information about today’s main message.

Even deciding on the theme of IVD could become an exercise of participation with rounds of consultations, ideas contests to provide the best and more meaningful ideas for it. In a way, IVD, in the way I see it, should be seen as the pinnacle of a whole year coordination exercise, not only an end into itself but a catalytic event that stirs the movement to action throughout the year.

UNV has a unique role to help shape this whole dynamic. Conducive to it would be the creation of coordination mechanisms that bring together all the stakeholders. These could take different shapes and forms, from informal working groups to more formal networks and forums.

Based on my own experience, it is wise to start small and then build momentum gradually, step by step. These mechanisms would not only work as info sharing and coordinating platforms but also as groups that plan and execute joint events and activities all year long.

For example, running two or three of such activities, like discussion forums, or awareness trainings at school levels could precede and build excitement around the final big event, IVD. There is no other player that has the mandate and convening power like UNV to bring together such collaborations.

At the same time, I am fully aware that resources at disposal for UNV are not endless especially in times of crises and UNV local country offices have to balance many competing priorities.

That’s why better and more strategic coordination at local level could tremendously help UNV pursue its mission. Another one that deserves attention is the mobilization of UNV Volunteers.

I always felt something odd about such programs. In reality, the program, even if admirable, is basically a full-time paid job. If you compare its stipends or allowances with formal UN jobs, it is clear that a member of UNV just receives a decent remuneration.

Yet the reality is different and more complex. Compared with many local jobs offered by local NGOs, that same package disbursed to an UNV volunteer looks like an awesome salary.

But the compensation aspect is only one problematic side of the equation. The other is the fact that this form of full-time volunteerism promoted by UNV risks to create further confusion about some of the key tenants that are enshrined into it.

I am referring to the cooperative, solidarity driven and generosity filled self-conscious decision of helping, even in very organized forms, others. By no means, I am implying that full time volunteering is intrinsically and necessarily wrong.

It is one of the many ways to support a cause and act selflessly. Yet there are several other experiences of it that are better enabling positive change at grassroots levels, closer to the beneficiaries that can, more easily, become true partners in advancing social justice.

In these examples, international full-time volunteers do get some allowances that provide for their basic expenses and live safely and with dignity. Yet these “privileges” are not too detached from the reality of the hosting countries.

National and International UNV Volunteers are on many ways promoters of positive development outcomes and should be praised for their commitment. Yet there is something wrong when many join the UNV volunteer program, either nationally and internationally, because they know that this is a great launchpad to full fledged careers with the UN.

I have no doubt that UNV is uniquely positioned to enable systemic social and economic progress.Its mandate and mission are more important than ever. Yet from engaging in the global discussions to achieve the Agenda 2030 to rethinking the role of citizens in the delivery of essential services, including ways people can participate in the decision making, volunteerism is the hidden gem of the global development agenda.

In this International Volunteer Day, let’s praise the accomplishments so far realized by UNV. At the same time, let’s work together to ensure that a more agile, proactive organization can turn itself into a much stronger hub of activism, social change and dynamic discussions.

Volunteerism is a too important aspect of our humanity.Only a revamped UNV can leverage it and help it truly become indispensable dimension of our lives, not only in the South but also the North as well.

Simone Galimberti is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE and The Good Leadership. He is based in Kathmandu, Nepal.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

According to the UN, the world today is home to 1.9 billion young people, most of whom live in developing countries. Young people today continue to be disproportionately impacted by the multifaceted crises facing our world, ranging from COVID-19 to the climate crisis. Around the world, young people are taking ownership and initiating ideas and innovations to help achieve the 2030 Agenda and accelerate COVID-19 recovery efforts. Credit: United Nations

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Nov 15 2023 (IPS)

The UN Secretary General’s Policy Brief on Meaningful Youth Engagement in Policy and Decision-making Processes offers several ideas on how to ensure youths have a bigger and more relevant role within the UN System.

So far, initiatives have been fragmented with each agency and programs doing a bit on its own, mostly through symbolic and tokenistic ways.

Dr. Felipe Paullier of Uruguay, the recently appointed first Assistant Secretary-General for Youth Affairs, instead, has an opportunity to significantly change this current situation.

He could start from reviewing the role and functions of some existing mechanisms, proposing ways to strengthen them, bringing coherence, stopping overlapping and inefficiencies, revamping the way the UN works and making it more youth-centric as one of his major goals.

Then, there is another area where the Assistant Secretary-General can make a difference: ensure that youths have a role and voice on the table when we talk about localizing the SDGs.

This is a domain that could truly bring transformative changes in the way governments, at local and central level, works. Potentially this is where youths can take a role in how decisions are made.

The ECOSOC Youth Forum

Reflecting on the role and functions of the Economic and Social Council Youth Forum could help this brainstorming.

One key question that must be addressed relates to the links between a future Townhall mechanism and the reinforcement and strengthening of the Forum. The potential of the Forum is also highlighted in the Policy Brief and surely there is wide scope to strengthen it.

Certainly, the Forum could definitely be made more fit for its purpose as it only meets for few days every year and is just a consultation exercise without real power. Can it be turned into something truly permanent, a sort of parliament of youths with his own secretariat?

Besides trying to reform the UN governance system and making it more youth centric, Mr. Paullier should focus on effective mainstreaming of meaningful youth engagement and youth centered activities throughout each UN entity.

That’s why it is really indispensable assessing what each agency, program and department of the UN have been doing with and for youth.

What about IANYD?

On this part, a conundrum will be deciding on what to do with United Nations Inter-Agency Network on Youth Development (IANYD) that supposedly facilitates youth centered cooperation on youths.

Does it make sense to maintain this mechanism? How effective has been so far? Which major outcomes were brought and joint initiatives forged and facilitated by the IANYD?

Dr Paullier could initiate some consultation on the future the Network, possibly through an open process that would engage youths based civil society across the world. At minimum, the UN Youth Office should be leading this group that could be turned into a forum and knowledge creator on all matters related to young people.

It will also be interesting how he will work with The Major Group for Children and Youth or MGCY. This is a mechanism that supposedly acts as “a bridge between young people and the UN system”.

It has an extremely complex governance that lacks visibility and its levels of openness and inclusiveness should be analyzed. Related to this, Dr. Paullier should engage Children and Youth International, the legal entity behind the MGCY, towards a possible process of reform and organizational development.

A Global Board of Advisors that trickles down

I have no doubt that the new Assistant Secretary-General will prioritize the creation of a global board of advisors. This is a great idea but such mechanism should have linkages or spilled over effects and real implications on the ways the UN works with youths locally around the world.

The focus should be especially on how youths can interact and engage with the Resident Coordinators and all agencies and programs at country level.

The bottom line is that the value of any future work of the UN Youth Office is going to be judged in terms of how much transformational is going to be in changing the working paradigms of the UN around the world.

The new UN Youth Office can make the UN at local level more inclusive, open, accessible by enabling youths to have a role to play locally. That’s why it is going to be paramount to closely engage the offices of UN Resident Coordinators that should be asked to better share their best practices and new ideas and proposals to have local youths’ voice heard and visible.

Multilevel governance and localizing the SDGs

Ultimately the agenda of localizing the SDGs could be the gamechanger for meaningful youth participation. It offers the best pathway to ensure real youth engagement all over the world.

As far now the process of localizing the SDGS greatly highlighted the role of local governments, from cities to regional administrations.

There is no doubt that cities and regional bodies must have a much stronger saying, a voice on the table when discussions on implementing the goals happen. It is also unquestionable that having a saying also implies much more resources.

Yet, truly and effective localization won’t happen only with more budget allocation from the central governments and a better recognition of local governments.

That’s why all the talks about “multilevel” governance that has been proposed, though still in vague terms, require a clear blueprint on how youths must be enabled to be part of the policy formulation process.

Involving them in the NVRs and LVRs, the former used by central government and the latter by local governments, including municipalities, to report on their progress towards the SDGs is not enough.

These two reporting mechanisms should become planning exercise to whom youths have not only easy access to but they are welcome to participate in. That’s why we need to make the discussions on multilevel governance tangible and concrete.

Clear proposals, in collaborations with United Cities and Local Governments or UCLG and the Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments, must be tabled on forecasting how such multilevel governance can unfold in practice by involving and engaging youths.

It is really about re-imagining the way local governments work and youth should not only be part of the discussions. This is also one of the recommendations of the latest progress report on implementing the UN Youth Strategy that was published over the summer.

Any new template to make cities and local governments more effective and efficient policy making engines, must necessarily involve the citizens. It could start from finding new venues to bring on board the youth.

The fact that, the Mayor of Montevideo, Carolina Cosse has tons of influence in the UCLG (after all, she is its outgoing President) could help, considering that Dr. Paullier had several high-level positions in the government of the capital of Uruguay.

Conclusions

There is no doubt that there is a lot on the plate of Dr. Paullier. Not all the proposals made in this piece can be made easily actionable.

Mr. Guterres and the Ms. Amina J. Mohammed, the Deputy Secretary General, should become his most important allies. It will take time to build alliances but, one year from now, there will a unique opportunity: the Summit of the Future.

There it is where the new Assistant Secretary-General will have to make his case for truly radical reforms to meaningfully engage and involve youths. This should happen, not only within the UN level and other international institutions like multilateral banks but also within local and national governments.

Re-booting the governance systems around the world, making youth centric, is going to be one of the most consequential challenges we must tackle. That’s why the work of Dr. Paullier and his office could really be transformational.

This is the second and final piece on a series of op-ed essays focused on the recent appointment of Dr. Felipe Paullier of Uruguay as the first Assistant Secretary-General for Youth Affairs. The series offers some ideas and advice on how this new position within the UN System can truly be transformative.

Simone Galimberti, based in Kathmandu, is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE and The Good Leadership. He writes about reforming the UN, the role of youth, volunteerism, regional integration and human rights in the Asia Pacific region.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Besides the appointment of an Assistant Secretary-General for Youth Affairs, UN Secretary-General António Guterres has named seven young climate leaders who will form his next Youth Advisory Group on Climate Change. He has called on young people everywhere to ratchet up the pressure, acknowledging their vital role keeping the world’s climate goals alive. Credit: UN Photo

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Nov 14 2023 (IPS)

The recent appointment of Dr. Felipe Paullier of Uruguay as the first Assistant Secretary-General for Youth Affairs is a good news for the United Nations. Yet we need to ask ourselves the following question: Can such development also become a real hope, rather than just a symbolic change, for millions of youths from around the world?

There are many risks that this potential “gamechanger”, the opportunity of having young people better represented within the UN, would turn just into a gimmick, a tokenistic progress.

After all, the way that the whole UN system has been designed and evolved, is stacked against bold reforms and radical shifts are opposed. There is an overall staunching tendency to counter and refrain from undertaking any major reform. This is not because the resistance coming from the member states alone.

It’s also the way agencies, programs and departments within the UN tend to work and operate. Certainly, none of them are losing sleep over the appointment of Dr. Paullier, a medical doctor by training and currently the head of the youth agency in his native Uruguay.

The reason is that the position of Assistant Secretary-General for Youth Affairs in place is not a real breakthrough or at least, it is not yet a breakthrough. Certainly, it is a positive evolution, and Dr Paullier has definitely his work cut out. Yet he could, with some help, turn his new position in a powerful figure within the UN and beyond.

The positive factor is that, as an outsider of the UN, he can bring in fresh ideas and his ways of thinking won’t be conditioned nor limited by the structural constraints, procedural, administrative but also in mindsets, that are all imbedded in the system.

Resources will be needed and a lot of them

The first task for Dr Paullier is building, almost from scratch, the UN Youth Office. This is itself a recently new institution based on what was the Office of the Youth Envoy that was directly responding to the UN Secretary General.

Resources, a lot of them, will be needed to enable the Office to have its voice heard across the table of those who hold power and sway within the UN HQ in New York.

In relation to the finances, optimistically speaking, it should not difficult to find member states or even major philanthropic organizations like Ford Foundation, the Open Societies Foundation or Rockefeller Foundation, willing to step in.

Resources will be certainly needed to recruit a strong but agile team. Ideally Dr. Paullier could bring in some passionate young officers within the UN System, especially those who have a rare quality for the UN: an out of the box mentality.

With them, new members should also come from outside the UN orbit, from both the global civil society but also from the private sector. Only such a good mix could potentially create some positive disruptions in New York where the UN HQ is located.

A seat on the tables that count

In terms of influencing the decision-making process and have the voice of Dr. Paullier heard, Secretary General Antonio Guterres could do his bit. He should ensure that the new Assistant Secretary-General for Youth Affairs is nominated in the Senior Management Group (SMG) that consists of his most senior aides, all high-ranking officers.

In addition, Mr. Guterres should facilitate that the UN Youth Office gains a seat on the table with United Nations Sustainable Development Group that, serving as “a high-level forum for joint policy formation and decision-making”, brings together, twice a year, all the heads of agencies, programs and department.

A holistic and Broad Review Process

Second, if provided with power and resources, Dr. Paullier should start a serious process of review of the work done so far by the UN for and with the youths.

For example, Dr. Paullier should a undertake a major “system” review of the UN Youth Strategy. The process must be open, an inclusive, transparent process that assesses its progress and its setbacks.

This would be way beyond the existing practice of reporting on the progress of implementing the Strategy. Learning from the existing progress review exercises, that happens annually, makes sense but the scope of the work could be made wider, radically open and more inclusive.

In addition, the UN Youth Office could facilitate a major and more specific assessment exercise of each entity within the UN System. This would be surely a bold and radical undertaking that would go much deeper than simply reporting on implementation of the strategy as it happens now.

Building on The Youth2030 Scorecard for UN Entities that was prepared by the outgoing Youth Envoy, Ms. Jayathma Wickramanayake, the UN Youth Office should do something bolder.

Dr. Paullier and his team should go beyond providing guidance, the technical parameters through which agencies and programs should assess their work with youth.

They should do more: carrying out its independent evaluation in each agency and program within the UN System. Will the new Assistant Secretary-General for Youth Affairs muster the political skills for this massive exercise that that, probably, would necessarily require the involvement of third-party consultancies?

Implementing the Policy Brief

Any review and plans being charted out by the UN Youth Office also needs to make efforts to provide pathways to implement Meaningful Youth Engagement in Policy and Decision-making Processes.

This is one among the many Policy Briefs that are laying the ground for of Our Common Agenda, the ambitious plan of reforms proposed by the Office of the Secretary General that should discussed and finalized during the Summit of the Future next year.

Interestingly, this Brief already offers key principles on meaningful youth engagement, that could offer the parameters against which the work of each entity within the UN System could be assessed against.

The true is that while the Policy Brief comes up with some interesting ideas, none of them is truly transformative. Perhaps the most promising among them is creating a standing United Nations Youth Townhall that is supposed to be a platform where youths can be engaged with.

A key task of the new Assistant Secretary-General for Youth Affairs would be coming up with some practical proposals on how to “concretize” and make practical this idea.

This is a series of two opinion pieces focused on the recent appointment of Dr. Felipe Paullier of Uruguay as the first Assistant Secretary-General for Youth Affairs. The series offers some ideas and advice on how this new position within the UN System can truly be transformative.

Simone Galimberti, based in Kathmandu, is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE and The Good Leadership. He writes about reforming the UN, the role of youth, volunteerism, regional integration and human rights in the Asia Pacific region.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: United Nations

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Sep 29 2023 (IPS)

The links between Agenda 2030 and SDGs, including climate action and biodiversity preservation are clear and straightforward. Yet, leveraging them, and bringing them to together in a unified framework, remains extremely challenging.

The only way possible to create synergies would be to rethink the way governments are accountable towards these issues at national and local levels. After all, there are two whole SDGs, SDG 13 and SDG 15, respectively focus on climate and biodiversity preservation.

On the top of these two goals, there are plenty of additional elements, within Agenda 2030, that have a direct, impact in the double-edged fight against climate change and biodiversity loss.

Unfortunately, despite these profound connections and interdependences, climate action and biodiversity preservation have been discussed and dealt with through staggering separate and disjointed processes.

Proving this disconnection, hardly any news reports are covering the underlying interconnections that are indispensable to achieve a sustainable, just and fair planet. This is indeed, an overarching goal only possible if a new novel, holistic framework of action comes in place.

In an attempt to a common response to this siloes like system, UN DESA and UNFCCC, convened in May this year, a technical group of experts, focused at “analyzing climate and SDG Synergies and aiming to maximize action impact”.

During the recently held SDG Summit 2023, these experts released their first report entitled Synergy Solutions for a World in Crisis: Tackling Climate and SDG Action Together. As evident from its official title, the remit of this group neglected biodiversity.

Despite this weakness, the document is an important contribution to what I call the “Better Sustainability and Better World Global Agenda”. With this term, I imply the need to come up with a truly comprehensive blueprint that can turn around the global, UN led mechanisms intended to deliver a fairer, more just agenda for our planet.

The insights found in the document are not only important in terms of analyzing the “win-win” policies and related benefits from pursuing better joint policies.

Green infrastructures that follow the latest technological breakthrough in their design and construction modalities, sustainable consumption practices, including new approaches in the agriculture, all offer potent solutions to reduce emissions and preserve the environment.

Furthermore, the report explains how “the co-benefits related to health and agricultural productivity were found to globally offset the costs of climate policy and contribute to increased global GDP”.

As much as new evidence on the correlations of between the SDGs and climate action is essential, yet, the more fascinating aspect of the report is the focus on what are defined as the “political and institutional barriers and governance and institutional settings”.

An honest and frank assessment of the systems governing the implementation of Agenda 2030, the Paris Agreement and the Kunming- Montreal Biodiversity Framework, provide a frank assessment of the existing segmentation.

Climate change, with the legally binding framework approved in Paris commands, by vast margin, the highest level of attention and are perceived as the most important issue. Instead, much less is known or discussed about both the SDGs and the new biodiversity framework approved, thanks to the co-stewardship of China and Canada.

Among the three processes, no matter how much emphasis on the recently held SDG Summit, Agenda 2030 is where inaction and carelessness from the global leaders is most visible. The reason is simple: Agenda 2030 is not intergovernmental and therefore not legally binding.

Its enforcement mechanism, the so called Voluntary National Review, as it is self-evident from the name itself, remains purely up to the member states for its implementation. In an overly complex and fragmented landscape, it is unsurprising to know that bureaucrats and policy makers, especially in the developing world, do struggle in both planning and reporting because they have to deal with different and unrelated toolkits and frameworks.

The climate agenda is itself complex with multiple areas of work within the broad Paris Agreement. Governments have to prepare not only the so called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) in relation to the mitigation aspect of climate action but also separate planning and reporting for its adaptation dimension.

On the latter, states should, at least in theory, prepare National Adaptation Plan or NAP, geared for longer terms and National Adaptation Programme of Action or NAPA. Planning and reporting, as a consequence, is truly, a daunting job for national governments and for an utterly unprepared and unequipped global governance system.

The experts’ report could not be clearer.

“Complex governance arrangements and institutional structural rigidity can impede synergistic action and integration due to factors like overlapping authority, lack of mandate, department-specific jargon, unequal access to information, and lack”, the document explains.

The reality is that Agenda 2030, due to its weak legal dimension and its equally weak accountability mechanisms, is falling short of the expectations. It is doing so, especially in relation to its incapacity to include and bring together all the existing mechanisms and processes related to fights against poverty, climate and biodiversity.

Unfortunately, the ambitious agenda to reform the multilateral system, put forward by the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres is not ambitious enough. There is no joint or combined planning, neither globally nor locally, to achieve a real a new Global Deal for the future of our planet.

Indeed, at ground level, local governance mechanisms are, structurally unable of bringing coherence and unity among the three dimensions. Yet it is at local levels where we should place our best hopes to create a truly “anti-silos” system approach that unifies the three agendas.

Because of the way they have been designed and implemented so far, the Voluntary Local Reviews or VLRs, should be entirely repurposed. We are talking about the tools at the hands of local governments to monitor the implementation of the SDGs.

They should not only be strengthened in terms of accountability but should become real planning instruments able to engage and involve the people. The creation of the expert working group on the synergies between climate action and the SDGs was possible thanks to a number of reports generated from a series of UN convened conferences, focused on climate change and SDGs.

The latest of these global events, formally the 4th Global Conference on strengthening synergies between the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” was held on the July 16 this year. This series of events and the insights they generated, also backed, though vaguely and in general terms, the importance of revisiting the institutional mechanisms.

At very practical level, what could be done?

To start with, in terms of higher accountability standards, the UN Country Systems should be further empowered. The experts’ report calls for leveraging system wide changes and fostering policy integration.

Among its recommendations there is “promote institutional capacity building and cross-sectoral and international collaboration at national, institutional, and individual levels, especially for the Global South”.

Moreover, the document highlights the importance of “ensuring policy coherence and coordination among policy makers across sectors and departments for enhancing climate and development synergies at the national, sub-national, and multi-national levels”.

Here few ideas on how these principles could be put into practice.

In what could become an almost revolutionary evolution of the ways the UN works at local levels, the offices of the countries level UN Resident Coordinators should be transformed into watchdogs able to independently evaluate the work done by the governments

While the UN agencies and programs, at national levels, are mandated to support the governments to implement their international commitments for a fairer, greener and more just planet, the UN Resident Coordinators should embrace the role of impartial and independent evaluator.

Alternatively, these offices should become the guarantors of independently UN managed but country owned local mechanisms tasked with verifying and checking on the compliance of the governments.

This could be either a permeant mechanism of a new global accountability system put in place at local level to ensure the common good or, otherwise, a temporary one.

In the latter option, we could imagine a transitionary only solution that would remain in place till when national authorities would become capable of developing and running independent, fit for purpose, compliance instruments on the three issues of the SDGs, climate and biodiversity.

In either way, an equal number of international and local independent experts, under the leadership of an authoritative local national, a person of undisputed integrity, symbolically responding to the UN Resident Coordinator, would make up the mechanism with the support of local staff.

Only bold solutions will help achieve the “Better Sustainability and Better World Global Agenda”. Starting from the bottom, rethinking how UN works to ensure governments fulfill their responsibilities locally, could offer the best odds for success.

States must admit and accept that, in order to fight inequality and poverty while reducing and slowing climate change and biodiversity degradation, they need to work under enhanced scrutiny and within a much more tighter accountability system.

This new proposed approach, while very ambitious and radical, is not impossible to be negotiated and put in place.

We just need, imagination and tons of political will!

The Writer, co-Founder of ENGAGE and The Good Leadership, is based in Kathmandu.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The SDG Summit gets underway in the General Assembly hall at UN Headquarters in New York. September 2023. Credit: UN Photo/Cia Pak

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Sep 22 2023 (IPS)

What does transformative and sweeping really mean in the overarching efforts to achieve the Agenda 2030?

With the conclusion of the second edition of the SDG Summit, it is time for stocktaking on what was agreed at the United Nations HQ in New York this week. At the core of the Summit were not the several Leaders’ Dialogues that, as important as it can be to have heads of state and government reflecting on the Agenda, are just talking shops without any practical implications.

Instead, what deserves more scrutiny is the Political Declaration that was issued during the Summit after months of negotiations facilitated by the governments of Ireland and Qatar. The document has been heralded as truly significant, a “transformative and sweeping” game-changer that will be able to reposition sustainable development at the center of the global deliberations.

But is it really so?

Certainly, the Declaration contains some bold language that truly makes an attempt at securing the international community’s steadfast leadership towards the Agenda 2030. Yet would this be enough to command not only the commitment of the world’s government to achieve it but also a through follow up and implementation in the months and years ahead?

As we know, the SDGs are far from being on track and each report being published, confirms it. The fact that the Declaration is comprehensive because it covers the whole spectrum of policy making that is covered by the 17 SDGs contained in the Agenda, is hardly enough.

After all, the expectations were high as the document was supposed to be an actionable and provide impetus for change.

Real leadership means and implies actions and after the conclusion of the Summit, no one can be optimistic that the governments will concretely step up. The reality, no matter how much the UN is trying to portray it in a such a way, those expecting doable, concrete and detailed advances, are now feeling disappointed and frustrated and rightly so.

It is true that the final text does offer a lot of attention has been given to the inter-linked challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss. Yet for these two global issues, any figures estimated to address them, disappeared from the final approved document.

Indeed, any references to the goal of delivering 100 billion US Dollar by 2025 (yearly, let’s not forget it, even if this detail did not make even in one of the initial draft circulated) did not find space in the approved Declaration. The same could be said for the $700 billion biodiversity fund included in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

A consolation could be found in having the proposal of an SDG Stimulus, one of the key proposals being pushed by the UN Secretary Geneal, being mentioned. Unfortunately, also in this case, the number of $ 500 billion annually proposed by Mr. Guterres did not make the final cut.

With the industrialized nations struggling to deliver on their promises in the field of climate action, having a paragraph, even though a brief one on the Stimulus, can be seen as a victory especially for Mr. Guterres. The Secretary General might feel mixed emotions about the final Political Declaration.

It is true that his ambitious idea of the Summit of the Future, scheduled in 2024, got included even though apparently without much enthusiasm from the international community. Yet, on the other hand, the concept of a New Social Contract, so central to the reform agenda of Mr. Guterres, was completely ignored.

This might be unsurprising considered the political implications (and consequences) of what can be described as a bold attempt at reviewing and renewing the relationships and dynamics between the state and its citizens.

After all, at the United Nations everything that sounds too political (and truly transformative) is going to be strongly pushed back by the member states, especially those which have their own “unique” understanding of democracy and human rights.

Positively and probably unexpected was the attention that the Declaration gave to the latter. Indeed, human rights found acceptance in the document not only once but multiple times and this is praiseworthy, albeit, only symbolically.

A disappointment is the fact that no space was given to the importance of civic engagement, itself an element instrumental to bring forward the idea of a New Social Contract. Yet, even without any linkages to this overtly progressive idea, civic engagement and with it, one of its greatest manifestations, volunteering, did not find any space in the document.

Apparently UNV was not particularly active in the drafting process nor throughout the jamboree of side events organized around the SDG Summit and this is quite alarming. Even more is the fact that the Declaration does not offer any transformative plans or promises to empower youths.

It is as if the Policy Brief published in April by the Office of the Secretary General, Meaningful Youth Engagement in Policymaking and Decision-Making Process was not at all digested by the member states involved in the drafting of the final document.

On this regard, the establishment of an UN Youth Office, another key part of the reform agenda of Mr. Guterres, while significant, it is not at all transformative if tools and mechanisms are not created to enable youths to participate.

The issue of localization of the SDGs, probably, the best approach to involve and mobilize citizens, especially the youths in the pursuit of the Agenda 2030, also did not find due prominence. Likewise, the whole process of the Voluntary National Reviews or VNRs was not highlighted the way it should have been.

It remains quite incomprehensible why the member states are not so keen to translate the SDGs at local level. “We will continue to integrate the SDGs into our national policy frameworks and develop national plans for transformative and accelerated action” reads the Declaration.

“We will make implementing the 2030 Agenda and achieving the SDGs a central focus in national planning and oversight mechanisms”, the document further adds.

This acknowledgement is certainly welcomed but only a lot of political capital and commitment will be able to translate these lofty sentences in a truly revolution in the way policy making is currently carried out that is, far too remote and disconnected from the people.

Yet localizing the SDGs should have been seen as a true game changer and much more focus should have been devoted to. We should have gone well beyond the statement found in the Declaration, according to which, the Leaders says that “will further localize the SDGs and advance integrated planning and implementation at the local level.”

The Political Declaration is a positive document but, in no measure, a game changing one. The reality is that governments are not truly held accountable to implement their SDGs.

The VNRs mechanism is utterly inadequate and not only because it is voluntary but it is so also structurally speaking. Ultimately, there is no real watchdog with powers over the countries lacking their commitments in terms of delivering the SDGs nor the UN System has any real leverage to force the member states to submit their VNRs through a binding timeframe.

I wish the SDG Summit would resemble a COP Process like the annual one related to Climate Change with real pressure and real negotiations occurring. As per its current design, the leaders at the Summit just come to talk, preach, complain or condescending but there is no real high-level bargaining.

That’s why, for example, the wording on climate change, mentioned throughout the document, as significant as they are, do not touch the real debate of phasing down and phasing out fossil fuels.

In this context the fact that the Political Declaration did not mince a word on the ongoing but stalled negotiations on a legally binding mechanism or Treaty on Business and Human Rights, becomes, unfortunately, something superfluous and expendable.

The Writer is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE and The Good Leadership and is based in Kathmandu.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, May 30 2023 (IPS)

There have been an array of proposals to sustain journalism around the world– from tax incentives and subsidies to the idea of allocating 1% of governments’ GDP to a drastically increased ODA for independent journalism in the global South.

The debate has been intense and rightly so.

What is needed is a long-term project that would put together a global architecture supporting serious and reliable journalism regardless of the size and business model of the outlets producing it. Amid such calls for governments and philanthropies to do more, something finally is moving.

Yet the needs require real ambition and farsightedness that in practice means a coherent global governance to safeguard trustworthy media worldwide. The International Fund for Public Interest Media, initially announced by France during the Paris Peace Forum in 2022, is taking shape and an initial pilot cohort of media outlets already got selected.

Because of its hybrid form of governance, independent but backed by governments and major philanthropies alike, the IFPIM could become the biggest source of funds for media around the world.

As per the information provided on its website, it has already raised $50 million USD from more than 15 governments, philanthropies, and corporate entities but the ambition is much bigger.

The Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA), an initiative of the bipartisan National Endowment for Democracy, an entity funded by the American Congress, estimates that global spending to support independent media globally should be $1 billion a year.

The reality on the ground– considering also how many legacy media houses are struggling with revenues and a declining readership– might require a much bigger figure.

If the situation was already dire before the pandemic, COVID was the knockdown blow for many media around the world that were already assaulted by the damaging impacts of big tech companies and their social media platforms. And now we also have to deal with an even more threatening and disruptive use of artificial intelligence.

While AI-based technologies can offer some positive elements on how media engage with public, the risks are enormous. “AI-based technologies also have an enormous potential to harm our information ecosystems and threaten the fundamental human rights on which robust, independent media systems, and free societies” reads a resolution recently passed at the International Press Institute General Assembly just held in Vienna.

With this gloomy scenario, the public interest media landscape is rapidly turning into what experts define as “news desert. We should be all very weary of the perils associated with its consequences. After all, as explained by the World Trends Report published by UNESCO, it is a vital issue because journalism is a public good that must be protected at any costs.

In such a scenario the fact that the IFPIM aims to reach $500 million USD, itself a milestone in this quest, is a relief. Still, it is not enough.

An issue to be taken into account is the fact that we are dealing with a fragmented landscape in this line of sector. There are already a small but increasingly more visible and impactful ecosystem, still in construction that is made up of blended agencies supporting independent media around the world.

Some of the most significant among them are the Media Development Investment Fund, MDIF that takes a more investor like approach then what seems the still in construction approach of IFPIM, has been already able to provide a variety of funding options.

With also a mixed lineup of investors, MDIF has already invested $300 million USD in 148 media outlets from 47 different countries. In addition, there is an increasing number of “intermediary” organizations.

Some of them like Pluralis acts more like investors (among its own backers there is MDIF). Others offer a blended package, financial and capacity building like Free Press Unlimited IMS, International Media Support while United for News takes a market approach of linking ads with local online news outlets.

BBC Media Action and Internews, on other hand, are intermediary closer to the field.

Though each of these represent a different model of support, are different from each other, they are all aimed at enhancing the viability of robust, independent media.

Interestingly we are seeing a crosspollination of such initiatives because their backers are often interlinked to each other with a major philanthropic foundation or bilateral donor supporting multiple initiatives at the same time.

And we are not mentioning the mechanisms that several bilateral institutions in the West are putting together only exclusively to safeguard and protect journalists in danger.

For example, the recently announced Reporters Shield, an undertaking of USAID, is particularly designed on tackling SLAPPs, the strategic lawsuits against public participation.

Undoubtedly the IFPIM is going to be a standout catalyst but it is rightly showing commitment to partner with other key stakeholders.

The recent MoU signed with Reporters without Frontiers, RSF and the Forum on Information and Democracy, the latter itself a global initiative leading the debate on safeguarding journalism that is housed at RSF, is promising but it is not enough.

If the ambitions of IFPIM is to become a global fund for media and journalism support akin to the funding mechanisms being used to fight HIV and Tuberculosis, all the actors investing in independent media must truly come together.

The fact that some of the major philanthropic organizations are putting resources in different baskets could be a positive element in a yet to establish globally coordinated multilayered approach promoting journalism and media houses.

Such common intent would enable a truly global ecosystem allowing media to return to prominence they used to command and becoming, once again, a central pillar of public debate.

First governments with adequate fiscal capacity should do whatever it takes to support their own media industry. Some of them in Europe are already doing so and also in the USA there are discussions for a new legislation and other financial tools, including cash vouchers for the citizens to buy subscriptions.

Yet if we want to safeguard journalism and media around the world, it is essential to boost public and private media working with integrity in the North, including legacy newsrooms.

It is not just about providing incentives, rebates or other financial support or ensuring that big tech owned platforms pay what is due to the newsrooms like it is slowly starting to happen.

It is also about re-persuading people, including the youths, to read news, on and off line.
Massive awareness initiatives involving schools and universities should also be prioritized in a way that a common user of news, can also turn into a citizen journalist or opinion writer.

Second, a truly global and truly massive funding for media and journalism should be established even by merging existing entities. The result could become mega funder or donor of donors, a true Global Fund for Media and Journalism.

All major governments and philanthropic organizations would inject financial resources and know-how that would then trickle to other smaller actors in the supply chain.

In a potential ecosystem protecting media and journalism, there would be enough spaces for intermediary organizations like the ones already operating close to media houses on the ground, especially in the global South.

It might be that entities like IFPIM and MDIF, each with its unique identity and features but united in their intents, one day might come together or might themselves act as at the upper level of a pyramid sustaining journalism and media, just a step below what would be a Global Fund for Media and Journalism.

Journalism and the thriving of media should also become a central area of focus of the United Nations. Despite the obvious resistance that might come from certain camps, the United Nations Secretary General António Guterres should include it in its ambitious Our Common Agenda.

Two of its twelve strategic pillars, “promote peace and prevent conflict” together with “build trust” should be strengthened with initiatives focused on media. A global code of conduct that promotes integrity in public information, one of the milestones under “build trust” should be accompanied by other bolder actions.

Let’s not forget that UNESCO has been already involved in the promotion of media with two programs, like the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC) on the top of the narrower, journalist focused protection tool Global Media Defense Fund.

Positively, at the present, the momentum to save the media is gaining strength.
Yet it is indispensable to ensure that the focus is going to be on medium and long term measures rather than on a short term fixes.

Without a global design and ambition, it’s certain that the situation is only going to be worse. All global actors, together with the professionals and activists on the ground, must come together. The level and speed of discussions around the future of media must step up.

It is only with profound changes in the funding mechanisms of journalism that serious and reliable news outlets both in North and South, either legacy or startups thriving on internet, will be able to continue to operate and thrive.

There is no firewall to stop the journalism’s decadency. Only urgency and bold actions offer the best chance to ensure a “New Deal” for global media and journalism.

Simone Galimberti is the co-founder of ENGAGE and The Good Leadership. He writes mostly about youths’ involvement in the UN, social development and human rights.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Apr 18 2023 (IPS)

The Future We Want was the groundbreaking outcome of the Rio+20 Summit, the summit, held in 2012, where the idea of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was first conceptualized.

Amid the unfolding of several global crises, where geopolitics mixes with structural unbalances that are putting at risk the long-term viability of planet Earth, isn’t really high time we got serious about our future?

Can the SDGs be turned not just in a tool for global pressure and advocacy but also a planning tool that involves, mobilizes and empower the people? There is still so much to be done and the levels of urgency can’t be greater.

According to the recently released Asia and the Pacific SDG Progress Report 2023, “the region will miss all or most of the targets of every goal unless efforts are accelerated between now and 2030”.Can localizing the SDGs in the Asia Pacific region and also elsewhere, change the status quo?

In theory, localizing the goals can make a huge difference but we need to ensure that such process means the truly involvement and engagement of the citizens.

A recent online workshop tried to assess where we stand following the Rio+20 Summit whose ultimate scope was, twenty years after the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, to relaunch humanity’s commitment towards a different model of development.

One of the key points that emerged in the event, which also saw the participation of Paula Caballero, one of key architects of the SDGs, is the fact that these goals still remain a powerful but mostly unleveraged tool for change.

While it is essential to mobilize more funding for their implementation, the Secretary General is rightly pushing with the idea of an SDG Stimulus— a missed goal to see the SDGs as a tool to radically re-think the way governance works.

The best intentions and the many, often overlapping efforts now at play in terms of localizing the SDGs, do not even aim at such scope of ambition. At the best, localizing the SDGs is about planning local actions rather than new ways of governance.

Moreover, the UN is struggling to come up with anything effective at operational level. For example, the Local 2030 Platform remains still an unfinished job despite its ambitious objectives.

A December 2021 analysis about ways to strengthen it, authored by the Stockholm Environment Institute, did indeed confirm the need to an all-encompassing platform that brings the SDGs closer to the people.

Still, there is so much to be done to ensure that Local2030 Platform can become a catalyst for change. Unfortunately, we are still far from a global mechanism capable of turning the goals in a such a way that the people can use them as a tool of participation and genuine deliberation. The scattered, fragmented and often ineffectual way the UN System works certainly does not help the cause.

A similar initiative, the SDG Acceleration Actions, is supposed to be an accelerator of SDG implementation that is “voluntarily undertaken by governments and any other non-state actors – individually or in partnership”.

In the Asia Pacific region, we can find also a new partnership, ESCAP-ADB-UNDP Asia-Pacific SDG Partnership mostly focused on research creation and knowledge delivery.

As important as they are, such initiatives lack linkages and risk becoming not only overlapping but also a duplication to each other. Could local bodies do the job and truly democratize the SDGs?

Such entities, both local and regional governments (LRGs) have a huge role. For example, the United Cities and Local Governments, a powerful advocacy group based in Barcelona, is undoubtedly breaking ground in this direction.

With now a much user-friendly web site and with a new catchy messaging, UCLG is a global force pushing strong towards empowering local governments and cities so that they can truly take the lead in matter of localizing the SDGs. UCLG also runs the most updated database on local efforts to implement the SDGs, the Global Observatory on Local Democracy and Decentralization or GOLD.

For example there are the “Voluntary Subnational Reviews (VSRs), considered as “country-wide, bottom-up subnational reporting processes that provide both comprehensive and in-depth analyses of the corresponding national environments for SDG localization”.

In addition, the Voluntary Local Reviews could be even more impactful tools as they assess how municipalities, small and big alike, are implementing the SDGs. In Japan, the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, IGES, is doing a great deal of work to also track the implementation of the SDGs locally with its online Voluntary Local Review Lab.

Still there is a disconnection among all these initiatives despite the fact that UCLG has been championing the Global Task Force of Local and Regional Governments. As an attempt at bringing together a myriad of like-minded groups run by mayors and local governments around the world, it is a praiseworthy undertaking.

While it is essential to create coherence and better synergies between what the UN is trying to do and the actions taken by mayors and governors globally in the area of SDGs localization. But it is not enough. There is even one bigger and more worrying disconnection.

Even if local authorities are truly given the resources and powers to shape the conversation about the implementation of the SDGs and back it up with actions on the grounds, we are at risk of forgetting those who should be truly at the center of the debate: the people.

Localizing the SDGs should mean truly giving the people the voice and the agency to express their opinions and ideas rather than become an exclusive fiefdom of local politicians.

Finding ways to truly allowing and enabling people to take central stage in implementing the SDGs implies a rethinking of old assumptions where local officials, elected or not, have the sole prerogative of the decision making. This is fundamentally a question of reinventing local governance and make it work for and by the people.

But it is easier saying it than doing it!

It is a real conundrum because, if it is certainly possible to come up with symbolic initiatives, all tainted by forms of fake empowerment, a totally different thing is to devise new forms of genuine bottom up, inclusive governance indispensable to achieve the SDGs.

The Global Platform in its Vision 2045 refers to genuine and better democracy practices leading the planning of local governments.What are they going to do to translate these words into real deeds?

There are other ways to involve people in the global discussions but they are just tokenistic. For example, UNESCAP recently organized in Bangkok its 10th Asia-Pacific Forum on Sustainable Development (APFSD).

It is an important event and the regional commission has been striving to be more inclusive and each year the summit also counts with a People’s Forum and even a Youth Forum. The problem is that, while integral part of the discussions, they are officially considered just as “associated and pre- events”.

Changing the protocol and the way the UN works is not easy but why should we keep holding such important engagements as just nice “add-ons”?

Even with the release of comprehensive Call to Action by the youths of the region before the APFSD summit, what real difference are their opinions and voice making? As simplistic as it sounds, much more should be done in making these conclaves really inclusive even though the real game won’t happen in these fora but at grassroots levels.

It is there where the challenge of localizing the SDGs must be won. It is where citizens really need to be listened to and where their power should be exercised.

In imaging the future, we really want, is to put citizens at the center of it. And it is high time we truly democratized the SDGs. After all, there is no, better form of localizing them.

Simone Galimberti is the co-founder of ENGAGE and of the Good Leadership, Good for You & Good for the Society.

The opinions expressed in this article are personal.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights was established in 2014 in response to Human Rights Council resolution 26/9 with a mandate to elaborate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises.

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Mar 31 2023 (IPS)

The ongoing discussions on an internationally treaty, described as a “legally binding instrument” on business and human rights, remains one of the most neglected issues that should instead command the attention of the public.

Such a legal tool would bind companies to uphold high standards and most importantly, it would entail mandatory guarantees for accessible and inclusive remedy and therefore, clear liabilities for victims of alleged abuses perpetrated by companies.

It all started in 2014 when two nations of the South, Ecuador and South Africa successfully pushed for a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council on the establishment of a so called “international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights”.

By reading the title of the resolution you can immediately realize that one of the conundrums being discussed is the overarching scope of such treaty especially in the reference of the nature of the companies being subject to it.

In practice, would only multinational or also national private corporations come under its jurisdiction?

Interestingly, at the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) created to draft the text of the treaty, many developing nations, for example, like Indonesia, were strongly advocating for only multinationals to be included.

This is a position of convenience that would exclude local major operators involved in the plantations business from coming under scrutiny of the treaty.

Other complex issues are centered on the liability especially in relation to instances where a corporation is “only” directly linked to the harm rather than cause.

As explained by Tara Van Ho, a lecturer at the University of Essex School of Law and Human Rights Centre, if “a business is only “directly linked to” the harm, it does not need to provide remedies but can instead use its “leverage” to affect change in its business partners.”

The difference between causing or contributing to harm and instead being only liked to it can be subtle and remain an exclusive debate among scholars, but its repercussions could or could not ensure justice to millions of people victims of corporate abuses.

Another point of attrition is the complex issue of the statutes of limitations and the role of domestic jurisdiction over the future treaty.

With all these challenges, after 8 years of negotiations, the drafting is moving in slow motion amid a general disinterest among state parties, as explained by Elodie Aba for Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

An issue that should capture global attention has instead become a realm of technical discussions among governments, academicians and civil society members without generating mass awareness about it.

The need for a treaty related to abuses of corporations is almost self-evident, considering the gigantic proofs that have been emerging both in the North and South.

Despite nice words and token initiatives, the private sector has been more than often keen to close its eyes before abuses occurring through its direct actions or throughout its supply chains.

Amid weak legislations, especially in developing countries, the hard job of trying to keep companies accountable, until now, has depended on a set of non-binding, voluntary procedures formally known as the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

The Principles, prepared by late Harvard Professor John G. Ruggie in his capacity as UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights, proved to be a useful but at the same time inadequate tool.

It has been useful because it was instrumental in raising the issue of human rights within the corporate sector, something that was for too long and till recently, a taboo.

In order to further mainstream it, for example, a UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights has been established as a special procedure within UN Human Rights.

Along the years, this independent group, composed by pro bono academicians, has carried out considerable work to strengthen both the understanding of and the adherence to the Principles.

There is no doubt that there have been attempts at going deeper, especially from the legal point of view on the Principles, especially on their articles related to right to remedy, the thorniest issue.

In this regard, the Accountability and Remedy Project have been providing a whole set of insights through multiple consultations and discussions, a process that still ongoing with the overall purpose of making a stronger cases on “the right to remedy, a core tenet of the international human rights system”.

Yet principles, UN Global Compact, are toothless tool and showed considerable limitations, starting from the most obvious element, the fact that they are not binding.

In the meantime, in 2021 the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, on occasion of their 10th anniversary of the Principles, launched road map for the next 10 years.

It is actions, despite their intrinsic limitations due to the nature of the Principles, should be supported but more financial resources are indispensable. Yet finding the financial resources or better the political will to do so remains an issue.

A recommendation from late Prof. Ruggie to create a Voluntary Fund for Business and Human Rights did not go anywhere.

“The Fund would provide a mechanism for supporting projects developed at local and national levels that would increase the capacity of governments to fulfill their obligations in this area as well as strengthen efforts by business enterprises and associations, trade unions, non-governmental organizations and others seeking to advance implementation of the Guiding Principles”.

Even more worrisome is the fact that till now a new Special Representative for Business and Human Rights has not been appointed yet.

Having an authoritative figure, especially a former head of state rather than an academician, could help bring more visibility to the ongoing “behind the curtain” discussions related to the need for a strong Treaty.

Such a political figure could not only command a stronger attention on the issue but also provide “cover” to the delicate work of the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, complementing and strengthening its mandate.

Engagement with the education sector, law and business schools, as advocated by a report published by Business and Human Rights Asia, a UNDP Program, can be essential.

Together with a stronger media coverage, students and academicians can help elevate the issue of human rights and its linkages with the private sector.

We could imagine competitions among students at national and international levels on how the principles can be better implemented as a “bridge” tool towards a binding legal mechanism.

Students could also have a major say on the opaque drafting process of this treaty.

At the end of the day, there will be compromises and shortcomings, but with a bigger bottom-up approach, a strong Treaty could become a “global” Escazu’, the first ever binding environment agreement in Latin America and the Caribbean.

UNDP with its Business and Human Rights Asia unit that recently organized in Kathmandu an excellent 4th UN South Asia Forum on Business and Human Rights. But it could also be bolder.

The forum did a great job at giving voice to indigenous people, one of the key stakeholders in the global negotiations for the treaty.

A lot of discussions were rightly held on the impact of issues like climate change and migration and their links with businesses’ attitudes and behaviors towards local populations.

Yet, there was no conversation nor on the treaty nor on the future evolution of the principles. It might certainly be an issue of a limited “mandate” but UNDP could, together with UN Human Rights, be a neutral enabler on a global discussion on the treaty and on how the Principles can further evolve while we wait for such a legal tool.

The Principles should also be better linked with the UN Compact, creating more synergies and coordination between the two.

The fact that nations like France, Germany and the Netherlands have been stepping up with new vigorous legislations in the field of business and human rights is extremely positive.

Equally important is the commitment of the EU to come up with Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) or the OECD to revise its Guidelines on Responsible Business Conduct but the nations behind these initiatives must commit to the drafting process of the Treaty.

Otherwise, we run the risk that discussions will continue without anyone caring about them. Such an unfortunate situation must truly be “remedied’ with the right smart mix, political will, starting from the Secretary General and a powerful alliance of progressive nations in the both South and North driving the process and involving other peer nations.

Ultimately civil society must also step up beyond their technical and legal recommendations and truly engage the people.

Simone Galimberti is the co-founder of ENGAGE and of the Good Leadership, Good for You & Good for the Society.

Opinions expressed are personal.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Pakistani women peacekeepers in the audience at the National University of Science and Technology in Islamabad, where Secretary-General António Guterres delivered an address on the topic of peacekeeping. Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten
 
On the one hand, the special procedures under UN Human Rights focused on women should be re-organized and on the other hand, country level programs supporting women should become more unified. Meanwhile, a new global platform, building on the Generation Equality Forum, could bring these two complementary but vastly different realm of works, together to engage the global public and the leaders.

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Mar 6 2023 (IPS)

If you want to have a good reading on women and young girls’ activism, there is a high chance that you have missed an incredibly interesting report.

Entitled Girls’ and Young Women’s Activism, the publication is a product of the UN Working Group on Discrimination against Women and Girls, formally a special procedure mechanism within the United Nation Human Rights, officially the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The blueprint offers a real and practical guidance on about how the direct involvement and engagement of women and young girls is essential if governments are serious about achieving gender equality and ends, once for all, any type of gender-based discriminations.

The Working Group is composed by five experts, mostly academician but also practitioners, on women’s rights and despite the low profile, it maintains a real busy annual schedule that makes its work incredibly relevant and valuable.

It does not only meet three times a year for planning and coordination and but also holds a dialogue at the Human Rights Council in June in addition to reporting to the General Assembly in October/November and also participates at the annual March meeting of the Commission on the Status of the Women.

On the top of all these tasks and consider that their commitment with the Working Group proceeds along their official and equally demanding full-time jobs, the members also conduct annual visits to member states to monitor and assess their work to protect women and girls against discrimination.

The problem is that its work does get neither visibility nor recognition.

One of the reasons is that the UN human rights architecture promoting and defending the rights of women is too complex and fragmented and requires a drastic overhaul.

There are too many mechanisms often with an almost overlapping mandates tasked to protect women’s rights, perhaps also a reflection on the inevitable rivalries at the UN and the consequent compromises that are always struck by the member states.

In addition to the Working Group, there is also the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, currently Ms. Reem Alsalem, who started her tenure on August 2021.

Her mandate is stronger and certainly more visible than those of the members of the Working Group even though she operates within UN Human Rights.

Though the former mechanism is focused on fighting discrimination and the latter is instead exclusively aimed at assessing cases of violence against women, you might wonder if it could be more effective and value for money to devise a more united approach, a more effective modality to monitor and defend the rights of women around the world.

Certainly, we cannot discount the fact that we are talking about special procedures mechanisms within the Human Rights Council, an intergovernmental body within the UN that is actually the only forum where the member states of the UN discuss, share and peer reviews their human rights.

The special procedures are important because they uniquely involve top experts in matters of human rights and their contributions provide even more legitimacy to the important work that the UN System is doing to uphold the rights of vulnerable persons around the world.

A possibility to strengthen their work could be to imagine a different “governance” that maximizes their opinions and reviews, even with the possibility to provide full time tenures and adequate resources to support their work and give it the visibility it deserves.

Let’s also bear in mind that in matter of women’s rights, there is also the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women that should be considered as the guardian of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women known as CEDAW.

It is composed by twenty-three experts and one of its main tasks is to “assist States parties in the preparation of initial and subsequent periodic reports” and holding constructive dialogue with them and issue the so called “concluding observations” on what the member states present to show their commitment to CEDAW.

To help with coordination among mechanisms, there is actually, at least on the paper, a very lean and weak coordinating mechanism called Platform of Independent UN and Regional Experts Mechanisms on Elimination of Discrimination and Violence against Women, or EDVAW Platform.

Officially started in 2017, the platform aims to “promote thematic and institutional cooperation between the UN and regional expert mechanisms on the elimination of discrimination and violence against women and girls with the view of accelerating domestication of international and regional standards, achieving gender equality and empowering women and girls”.

The reality is that this mechanism never got traction nor got the mandate to truly coordinate among UN and external, autonomous regional mechanisms outside of the purview of the UN system.

Mentioned earlier, the Commission on the Status of the Women is the oldest of all these mechanisms that, while proved to be indispensable over the last decades to mainstream women rights within the universal human rights agenda, is now outdated.

Till now we have been only focusing on mechanisms to uphold, monitor and protect the rights of women.

We have not yet discussed the “program” side of the equation, the work to prevent violence and discrimination against women and promote their empowerment being done by UN agencies and programs, including UN Women the agency that provides the secretariat of the Commission on the Status of Women.

In this respect, there is also, always within the UN System, the Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality or IANWGE, bringing together all the main women focal points of all UN agencies and programs.

Under responsibility of UN Women, the Network appears weak and just a formality though we should assume that at country level, all the work related to women’s empowerment is coordinated under the United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework (formerly named United Nations Development Assistance Framework).

This is a process that itself could require a further upgrade to truly maximize cooperation and avoidance of overlaps between and among agencies and programs.

It is evident that in both domains, on the one hand, the human rights accountability mechanisms and on the other hand, the actions and programs on the ground to change the status quo, there is need of a much stronger synergy and coordination, something that might be objected by several members of the UN that are unlikely to support anything akin to strengthen mechanisms upholding human rights.

Even the Commission on the Status of Women itself, whose upcoming session will be held between the 6 and17 March, should be re-thought.

With a multiyear thematic plan, the Commission, is a toothless and unnoticed advocacy and knowledge creation institution that each year comes up with a topic up for analysis and discussion.

This year, for example, the focus will be on “Innovation and technological change, and education in the digital age for achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls” while last year’s theme was centered around climate change, environment and disaster prevention.

There are no doubts that it is important to have a global convening forum that brings together the top experts on issues that are so relevant to achieve SDG 5. Yet it is not hard to imagine how a stronger, more coordinated women centered architecture in the UN could achieve and produce more while spending less.

Let’s remind ourselves that the Agenda 2030 and the SDGs brought some institutional innovations in the way the UN operates, primarily the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, that is the major SDGs focused platform promoted by the UN.

Besides its usual gathering in July, this year the Forum will also host another SDG Summit in September, the biggest format to discuss about and review the SDGs at the highest levels of political leadership worldwide.

Yet, while we are referring to a strong advocacy and review mechanism with a considerable amount of convening power, the High-Level Political Forum is simply what it is, a review mechanism of countries’ performances towards accomplishing the SDGs and important vehicle for debating them.

A reform of a stronger UN System that is better positioned to truly achieve SDG 5, should acknowledge an existing deep gulf between promotion and defense of human rights focusing on women (as well other human rights issues) and, on the other end, actions on ground at legislative, judiciary and economic and social levels to change the status quo.

For example, UN Human Rights has no formal role in hosting the High-Level Political Forum that is instead organized by ECOSOC and has a very limited presence at countries level.

A better chance at ensuring that the rights of women are defended while their living conditions improve, could be based on two complementary internal reforms within the UN System: an improvement on how Human Rights operates and a drastic rethinking of how the women focused service, advocacy and delivery-oriented agencies of the UN work.

On the former, the UN Human Rights could undertake, with the aim of giving them more voice and authority, a major reform of its “accountability” mechanisms that rely on the professionalism, integrity and expertise of world class activists, advocates and legal scholars.

The role of the Commission on the Status of the Women should also be reviewed. As per now, its outreach and voice are limited within the development sector and it has become almost irrelevant and unknown to the global public opinion.

On the latter, in terms of programs and initiatives supporting women and their rights around the world, only a true One United Nations approach at country level could do the job with ultimately a much better coordination and one unified “delivery” channel.

Both processes of change and their respective spheres of work, accountability and program, could then be promoted through a united “Global Women” platform that could end up with the same visibility that COP process gained for climate action.

A recently created multi partnership forum could, potentially, become such main vehicle to achieve SDG 5. I am talking of Generation Equality Forum, a joint initiative of Mexico and France that has been facilitated by UN Women.

It holds a great potential to facilitate new collaborations that so far has been convened twice in 2021, first in Mexico City and then in Paris, paving the way for an ambitious global program of action, the Global Acceleration Plan.

The interesting part of it is that the Forum is truly action oriented with its members committing to take action through six sub areas groups, branded as Generation Equality Action Coalitions that include the entire spectrum of areas that would ensure achieving SDG 5.

From gender violence to economic justice, to bodily autonomy and sexual reproductive rights, to climate justice to technology and innovation, to leadership, the coalitions, made up by hundreds of civil society organizations, global foundations and private corporations, can really facilitate partnerships with private sector and civil society, a capacity that the UN System has never mastered.

Can this new and bold attempt to catalyze efforts and investments for the rights of women and girls around the world become the epicenter of a new women focused development architecture?

Can a hybrid vehicle to rally global investments and actions for women help galvanize global attention on their rights and at same time do the job of meeting the targets of SDG 5?

Finally, would a new women focused “governance” of development assistance also force the UN System to change for good its working modalities?

Even if the accountability mechanisms under UN Human Rights would remain formally separated by this process of renewal for women ‘rights, nevertheless the banner of the Generation Equality Forum transformed into a “Global Women” platform could be used to highlight and “empower” their work.

The fact that this year there will be another gathering of the Generation Equality Forum could offer additional new momentum to the initiative though last year only a very low key event celebrated its 1st year anniversary.

Yet it was still an important gathering because it was where the Forum’s first accountability report was unveiled.

In few days from now the Forum will actively participate in the upcoming session of Commission on the Status of Women but with some insights, perhaps, the opposite process should occur.

The Commission and all other women focused mechanisms and programs, at minimum, could become part of a much larger and more institutionalized institution that should also be fully aligned to and possibly become the central pillar for SDG 5 of The High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development.

We know from the latest Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: the Gender Snapshot 2022 that there is still so much to be done in the field of gender empowerment that urgency and radical thinking should not be discouraged nor set aside.

Rather they should be truly embraced head-on. Meanwhile another great publication on women and young girls’ activism will be read by too few people.

Simone Galimberti is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE and co-initiator of the Good Leadership, Good for You & Good for the Society, both active in Nepal. He writes on volunteerism, social inclusion, youth development and regional integration as an engine to improve people’s lives

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

UNDEF was created by UN Secretary-General Kofi A. Annan in 2005 as a United Nations General Trust Fund to support democratization efforts around the world. It was welcomed by the General Assembly in the Outcome Document of the 2005 World Summit (A/RES/60/1, paragraphs 136-137)PDF. UNDEF funds projects that empower civil society, promote human rights, and encourage the participation of all groups in democratic processes.
 
The large majority of UNDEF funds go to local civil society organizations. In this way, UNDEF plays a novel and unique role in complementing the UN's other, more traditional work -- the work with Governments -- to strengthen democratic governance around the world. UNDEF subsists entirely on voluntary contributions from Governments; in 2021, it reached almost 220 million dollars in contributions and counts more than 45 countries as donors, including many middle- and low-income States in Africa, Asia and Latin America. In 15 Rounds of Funding so far, UNDEF has supported over 880 two-year projects in more than 130 countries Credit: United Nations

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jan 6 2023 (IPS)

The UN Democracy Fund, also known as UNDEF, is an interesting tool but it is too small and lacking resources to mark a difference.

How can the UN do a better job at promoting democracy? This is a key question that high-ranking policy makers at the UN should ask themselves.

It is a subject that makes many uncomfortable because democracy still remains a contested topic within the UN due to the resistance by some of its member states which have not adopted standard democratic practices in their way of governing.

Yet, it is worthy for the UN to try to play a bigger role in its promotion as democracy itself is too important an issue to be neglected despite the high sensitiveness around it.

If you think well, it is almost a miracle that the UN is celebrating International Day of Democracy that falls every year on the 15 of September.

It is, without questions, one of the most undeterred and less prominent celebrations endorsed by the UN and the lack of visibility of the day might not be a mere coincidence. Finding ways and tools to elevate democracy at the UN is a conundrum that is hard to untangle.

For example, how can the UN Democracy Fund also known as UNDEF be more effective and more inclusive?

https://www.un.org/democracyfund/news

Credit: United Nations

UNDEF is one of the most flexible programs promoted by the UN and probably one of the best, if not the most suitable to reach out members of the civil society that often are working in dire conditions under dire legislative and regulatory environments and, consequentially, are starving for funding.

From gender empowerment in politics to press freedom to dialogues about democracy and fights against corruption, we have a program that could do wonders if expanded and enhanced.

UNDEF recently closed its annual round of applications (its 17th since its foundation) and once again as every year, it gained some spotlights before returning to the shadows of international development.

While its application process is relative straightforward for being a UN program, its review process is overly complicated and based on multiple vetting layers that, at least apparently, seem to be overlapping each other and unnecessary.

Yet, even when a project is selected, the most difficult part comes when, as the web site of UNDAF explains, “shortlisted applicants are now required to complete the final stage of the selection process: negotiating a formal project document with UNDEF. Only upon successful conclusion of this process will the project be approved for funding”.

This last procedure is simply unhelpful and certainly does not make life easier for any organization that gets selected.

Perhaps such a complex governance structure exemplifies the exceptionality of the UNDAF that, it is important to note, is not embedded in any official programs nor is led by any UN agency but it is rather something on its own standing.

It’s autonomy is not itself a negative factor, actually it can even bring more effectiveness by leveraging its nimbleness but only if this approach comes with intention and an overall purpose to allow it to be more agile and independent.

Instead, I am afraid the way UNDAF is run just the result of a difficult environment, a sort of expedient that allows to “manage” something strategically meaningful but that, at the same time, is also something that is seen critically by those members of the UN that have not embraced democracy as their system of government.

The fact that the fund and the money it manages is just a drop in the ocean might confirm the latter option. According to its web site, UNDEF “receives an average of about 2,000-3,000 proposals a year and only some 50 are selected”.

It is not surprising that only 7 full staff are managing the entire fund with the precious support of an equal number of interns.

Moreover, the UN should also not shy away from supporting innovative practices in the field of democracy. For example, it should embrace deliberative democracy or any other forms of bottom- up policing aimed at giving a voice and, importantly, an agency to the citizens.

It is certainly something less controversial than liberal democracy that is put in question by countries like China.

Indeed, even a country like China with its one-party system of governance has in the past (especially in the pre-President Xi’s era) embraced, at least partially, bottom-up participation through deliberation.

One way for the UN to play a bigger role in supporting democratic practices is to champion them from the angle of good governance and deliberative practices can be very useful on this regard. This was the main task assumed in the past by the UNDP.

What is this program, one of the biggest and most resourceful, doing at the moment to advance democracy? What are its plans for the future?

In its attempt to enable transformative changes across all the SDGs, something that as the UNDP also points out, requires structural transformations, there is the risk to lose the focus on good governance, once a strength of the program.

In its new Strategic Plan 2022-2025, governance is one of the six so called “Signature Solutions” and it is at the center of holistic, whole of the government “systems approach” that is supposed to ensure structural changes.

Still. if you read the definition of governance in the plan, you might wonder how important democracy and human rights are.

“Helping countries address emerging complexities by “future-proofing” governance systems through anticipatory approaches and better management of risk”.

This is a definition that might come from the blueprint of a top global consultancies that has to do business with autocratic regimes rather than the “formula” to promote true democratic change.

It is not, therefore surprising that in the entire document, the word “democracy” does not appear even one. Unsurprisingly UNDP almost never runs civil society or democracy enhancing funding directly benefiting local grassroots organizations.

Perhaps only the UNDP Governance Centre in Oslo, currently in search of a new strategic direction, could help its “parent” organization to re-discover an interest on democracy.

Another key agent within the UN system for the promotion of democracy via the strengthening of human rights is, obviously, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights.

The new High Commissioner, Volker Türk, a veteran of the UN and a national of Austria, initially was thought to be the unassuming candidate that would not make much noise in the international community.

Instead from his initial statements, Türk is taking head on some of the most controversial and sensitive and yet very important files.

Perhaps, OHCHR as the organization is known, could take a very important role in working more directly with the civil society to advance human rights and with them, democracy.

UNDAF’s role and mandate could be boosted and supported through a strategic partnership with OHCHR or even through multi-funding arrangements from other agencies and programs within the UN system.

Let’s not forget that it was then UN Secretary-General Kofi A. Annan that back in 2005 came up with the idea of a special thematic fund promoting democracy.

The fund remains within the mandate of the current Secretary General, Antonio Guterres who leads the Advisory Board of the UNDAF.

Guterres should explore all the options to strengthen UNDAF as currently it is structured, a United Nations General Trust Fund but with much broader resources or as a standing alone entity something that hardly can materialize.

Paragraphs 135 and 136 of UNGA Resolution 60/1. 2005 “World Summit Outcome” welcoming the creation of UNDAF, reinforce its rationale:

“Democracy is a universal value based on the freely expressed will of people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives”.

Surely, UNDAF should complement and reinforce the work of UNDP and OHCHR as it explained in its TOR.

What at the end can make the difference can be the willpower and commitment of Guterres to include democracy in his ambitious reform agenda of the United Nations.

The writer is the co-Founder of ENGAGE, a not-for-profit NGO in Nepal. He writes on volunteerism, social inclusion, youth development and regional integration as an engine to improve people’s lives.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Speaking on International Volunteer Day, UNDP Administrator Achim Steiner said over one billion volunteers work in service of their communities every day. It is one of the clearest expressions of solidarity: a recognition that our global community must work together to tackle our common challenges as outlined in the Global Goals: everything from driving down poverty to confronting climate change.
 
So far in the year 2022, he said, over 11,000 UN Volunteers have served with over 56 UN entities as part of the UN Volunteers programme, which we are proudly hosting in the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Ranging from 18 to 81 years of age, this is the largest number of UN Volunteers ever.

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Dec 6 2022 (IPS)

The International Volunteer Day, a worldwide event commemorated every year on the 5th of December, comes at the end of a long line of special commemorations, each of them relevant and paramount to achieve the UN’s Agenda 2030.

The commemorations included the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on November 25, World AIDS Day on December 1, the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery on December 2 and the International Day of Persons with Disabilities December 3.

After many years of work in the volunteering sector, I feel it is high time for some sort of evaluation of where we are in terms of promoting and fostering what I call the BIG V, a terminology that I feel better express the potential and dynamism of volunteerism.

Focusing on the potential of the BIG V is probably the best place to start such review.

On the one hand, all the achievements carried out by the country in the last two decades could not have been possible without the thousands and thousands of citizens involved and engaged, with passion, drive and zero economic interests, in trying to make the country better and more inclusive.

Achim Steiner, UNDP Administrator

These are the persons who are always at hand and ready to help when there is an urgent need within the community. These are the persons who take the lead in liaising with local authorities and try to find small but essential solutions in our daily lives.

I am not fantasizing them, these are real persons though perhaps their number is shrinking especially in the urban areas. I am also talking about activism, a form of volunteerism, where simple citizens and members of tiny NGOs are pushing for a just and noble cause, be it a better public health, a stronger education system, the preservation of the soil or the defense of the rights of those who are the most vulnerable.

So, considering this vast multitude of engaged and active citizens, we would not be surprised if a country like Nepal has a huge potential in terms of leveraging its social capital, the element that provides the foundations above which civic engagement, of which volunteerism is one of the greatest expressions, thrives on.

From this perspective, there is no doubt that whole country should really be proud of their volunteers, even if many of such unsung heroes, do not even bother to define themselves in a such way because what they know is that actions, at the end, are the ones that count.

On the other hand, if there are plenty of volunteers everywhere, we also need to pay attention at the dynamics unfolding within the society especially the ones affecting youths. One hour on social media is one hour taken away from studies, sports but also it is an hour stolen away from a possible volunteering action.

This is a problem because we must be clear that volunteerism is not just good for the society but it’s also good for ourselves. The reason is simple: volunteerism helps becoming better persons, more emphatic and altruistic, qualities that are now proven to be also indispensable for a successful career.

In a way volunteerism is path to personal leadership and mastery because we can learn so much from it. It is a school of humbleness that teaches to value the small things that we often take too much for granted and also helps us appreciate the work of others, especially those who are not in close to us, those are different from us.

In short volunteerism can really bring us together and enhance national cohesion and cohesiveness. That’s why it is so important that the Nepal puts a whole of nation effort to really elevate volunteerism and perhaps we should start with rebranding it, making it easier to talk about it and easier for the youths to connect with.

That’s why the term BIG V could be a better way to spread the message and convince more people to get involved. It is also essential that we work at system level and the new Federal Government should at the earliest discuss and review the draft national volunteering policy that is taking dust since more than two years.

On this regard, it is extremely encouraging that some of the Provincial Governments like Gandaki have already a volunteering policy in place.

Yet approving a document is going to be meaningless if there is no political will to act upon it. The point is that the BIG V should really become a priority, that essential factor that can support and help locally elected officials to perform their duties.

Think about it: federalism is built on the premise that citizens will be more active and engaged and volunteering, in all its diverse ways and forms, can be the indispensable ingredient to help achieve a better form of governing, one centered on the citizenry.

Around the world, mayors have been leveraging the power of volunteerism, harnessing the commitments of their citizens to supplement and strengthen the implementation of local publicly funded interventions.

We need a strong coordination system to promote and implement volunteering efforts, an issue that the draft national policy already partially covers. On this point, it is essential to ensure the creation of adequate “’volunteering supporting structures” at federal, provincial and local levels, that can really help mainstream volunteerism across all the areas of national governance.

It might be a coincidence that this special commemoration falls after so many other equally important special “days” but perhaps it was all intentional because volunteerism is the platform and the means through which the humanity can solve some of its most obstinate and hard challenges, including climate change.

The latter is an issue that, without the activism of millions of youths across the world, would not have come to commend the public and the leaders’ attention.

In short volunteerism is a force of good and Nepal needs it. But we can’t keep take it for granted. We need to highlight it, we need to truly make an effort to make it easier for persons of all ages and groups, to give their time and skills and help the society become a better, more inclusive and sustainable place to live.

The Author is the co-founder of ENGAGE and of the ‘Good Leadership, Good for You & Good for the Society.’

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: UNICEF

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Sep 13 2022 (IPS)

If we truly want to re-imagine the role education can play in the decades to come, it is going to be indispensable to take drastic measures to elevate the role of teachers in developing countries.

The upcoming Transforming Education Summit in New York — September 16-19 — has the ambitious task to re-draw the traditional boundaries of learning, helping imagine how children of today can truly become equipped with the best tools to overcome the increasing challenges faced by the world.

It is clear that teachers in developing nations are the key agents for enabling such personal journey of growth and transformation and yet teachers are too often neglected and overlooked.

The issues the planet is facing– from income inequalities to climate change to geopolitical tensions– are all interlinked to each other.

An enhanced learning experience alone especially in the public schools around the developing world is a must, but it is something that has been pursued at best with very mixed results for decades.

Yet, the gap between private education and public school system in many emerging countries is not closing but rather getting bigger and bigger. At the same time, achieving better educational outcomes must be accompanied by a strong drive to embed a sense of civic engagement among the students.

Civic engagement is a sensitive issue that can be misinterpreted and used for the wrong purposes, including in the cases when politics enter in the fold by inculcating the mind of students with elements of hyper nationalism and chauvinism.

Instead of being a tool to allow students to step up for their communities, a tool that acts as civic glue, we can get the opposite results, with the formation of indoctrinated cadres with a closed mindset rather than an open one.

Teachers should be the ones who are able to bring in the tools that allow a student to grow with a positive desire to do better at a personal level but also for the enhancement of the society, creating the conditions for a quality learning that is not self-centered but rather aimed at the public good.

Therefore, all stakeholders involved in the educational sector have to reckon on how it will be possible to raise the profile of local teachers, creating the conditions for them to act as true agents of change.

Let’s not forget that we are talking about individuals who often have no other options in life than starting a teaching career and often do not have neither the qualifications nor enthusiasm nor passion for the job.

It is an enormous challenge for any developing nation, a challenge that it is not extremely costly but also difficult to design especially in terms of career development of the teachers.

If it is simply unrealistic to raise the bar in terms of mandating higher education specialization for all teachers in public schools while at the same time ensuring the inclusion of more strident accountability measures for them.

It is certainly positive that an exponential increase of funding for public education is going to be of the major topics to be discussed at Transforming Education Summit but funding alone won’t suffice.

We need to focus at micro level and imagine new pathways for those public teachers who are really passionate about their jobs, to obtain the indispensable tools they need to step up in their jobs, and help their students to “holistically” and unselfishly succeed at life.

For the many who are hanging around without love nor a commitment for their job, it is inevitable that governments must muster the courage and the resources for them to slowly transition out of their profession, a proposition, that, considering the already high level of unemployment plaguing most of the developing countries, is neither easy nor “politically” convenient.

Yet, if we truly want to rethink the way education work for the most vulnerable children, we really need to sketch out new paths for making teaching one of the most attractive professions in the developing world.

Programs like Teach for America and its affiliates around the world are, with no doubt, doing a great deal of good job by trying to include young graduated recruits in the profession for two years but though admirable, it is not enough.

We need to truly create an enabling framework for young graduates to embrace teaching for the long term, allowing them to make a precise choice in picking a career as a teacher.

That’s why the upcoming Summit should dedicate enough energies to think big about the teaching profession from a perspective of the South where teaching is not held in high esteem.

Why not then provide the resources, especially technical, to create national and local academies for building the teaching profession of tomorrow?

Sooner rather than later, it is going to be indispensable to set higher qualifications in order to teach at school but at the same time, governments could start changing the landscape of the teaching profession by setting up Leadership Academies for the Teaching Profession.

Imagine centers for learning, where the best teachers and the best principals from all public schools, can enhance their skills and knowledge throughout a holistic pathway of professional and personal growth.

Such academies could offer both full time intensive but also executive mode type of courses with the best experts working as faculties.

In the USA, the late billionaire Eli Broad committed a tremendous amount of resources in equipping schools’ executives, including principles through cutting edge capacity building trainings.

His philanthropic work also made it possible the creation of The Broad Center at Yale School of Management, a center Transformative leadership for public education.

This is the vision required to transform the education in the still developing and emerging world. It is not just about the commitment of the international community to fund public schools through multiyear plans.

What is required is tailored made plans to transform the teaching profession locally.

It is paramount we focus on leadership rather than just simply career development of the teachers. Leadership, after all, is what is required, to bring the quality of education to another level while promoting the virtues of civic engagement.

The upcoming Summit should devote tangible time for a conversation on how we can transform the teaching profession.

An inclusive quality education capable of building the skills for the 21st century can be realized only if the international community and developing nations work together to innovate in the field of educational leadership.

They need to find new ways to award the best local teachers and while helping those in the profession but disengaged and disinterested to find their own vocation.

Let’s not forget that truly transforming education in the developing world requires big and bold national plans but also a unique focus at micro level, working alongside those teachers who believe in their professions.

Finding novel ways to support their work can be the best legacy of the Transforming Education Summit.

Simone Galimberti is Co-Founder of ENGAGE, a not-for-profit NGO in Nepal. He writes on volunteerism, social inclusion, youth development and regional integration as an engine to improve people’s lives.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: United Nations

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Sep 5 2022 (IPS)

There are many ways the UN can have a sizeable role in promoting the engagement and participation of youth and helping them becoming a central pillar of a new way of doing policy-making.

After all, if we want to rethink the relationships between the state and citizens, the foundation of a new Social Contract as envisioned by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, youths must be enabled to have a voice and an agency powerful enough to directly influence decision making, locally and globally.

At the former level, the UN can set up UN Youth National Forums or Assemblies wherever it operates. Such entities would be more then tokenistic forums where meetings happen on “off basis” but instead would be structured as permanent mechanisms with a power of not only advising but also monitoring the work being carried out by the UN Country Teams.

Having in place such forums locally would pave the way for bolder action at the higher levels, on the international arena.

It is here where there is a great deal of scope for the UN to model a truly radical change in terms of youths’ participation globally, raising the bar in terms of what youths’ involvement means and what it can imply.

If we truly create pathways for youths to play a more central role and we generate a structure or mechanism for them to fulfill such responsibilities, international politics, while would not drastically change overnight, surely would be impacted.

This is the reason why Guterres should strive for something that, though discussed in the past, was never close enough to be fully considered nor implemented.

I am referring to the idea of creating a permanent UN Youth Assembly that would autonomously act alongside of the established General Assembly and would become a forum where youths from around the world can discuss and set the policy course.

This permanent mechanism could either be linked up with the assemblies or forums that the UN could establish at national level or could simply have a completely different, standing alone nature with its members being selected at national levels through transparent and competitive process.

While we cannot imagine at the moment that such body would yield any veto power, it could, for example, have a symbolic, though powerful role especially in making its voice heard by the major global powers.

For example, it would have access, on consistent basis, to the UN Security Council, the most consequential institution within the international community.

While the official positions of its members, results of government-to-government negotiations behind the curtain, won’t be altered, at least they could be openly challenged.

Imagine some representatives of the UN Youth Assembly addressing, after their own deliberations, the sessions of the Security Council: this would be a powerful reminder to the world leaders that youths can dare to think differently.

The working modality of this envisioned UN Youth Assembly could become a template for participation and transparency where inputs and feedbacks from youths around the world could make such assembly truly owned by all the youths from across the world.

Thanks to the progress of digital work, a permanent online platform could offer themes of discussions for the UN Youth Assemblies in a way that everyone, even those not formally part of the UN Youth Assembly, could participate.

Ensuring a strong connection between this assembly and the youths around the world is as vital as daunting.

The risk is that any bold attempt of creating a new world body for youths to be involved in the decision making could become an elitist platform where only the most connected youths would participate.

Instead of bringing in youths from disadvantaged groups, the “usual suspects”, youths from well off families with access to opportunities, would “capture” their new “toy”.

That’s why it is vital that UN agencies and programs around the world do a better job at promoting civic engagement and participation, enabling innovative pathways for also the less advantaged youths to participate and deliberate.

Setting up national mechanisms for the UN to engage youths at national level could offer a pipeline for a more diverse crop of youths to have a chance to be involved and participate.

Investing in capacity building of youths is more and more critical.

Thanks to innovative partnerships with civil society, trainings, courses, institutes or academies could offer a way for the UN to create a sort of “upward mobility” in terms of opportunities to participate for many youths now excluded.

In addition, the members UN Youth Assembly should be chosen on rotation basis and exercise their duties for short periods like six months or at the longest, one year as such short mandates would give chances to more youths to be in the Assembly.

Moreover, a way to ensure a deep link between this new body and the ground reality, each of its representatives would be supported by a deliberative group at national level, a further connection between local youths and the international arena.

Imagining such body comes with risks.

In relation to its duties and responsibilities, the UN Youth Assembly could be easily become object of derision.

It would be seen as another tokenistic tool that governments could use to promote some forms of reforms that in reality, instead, would continue to legitimize the current status quo in terms of decision making and power relations.

That’s why it is important that UN Youth Assembly is provided with the analytical and research tools that would make it an authoritative source of insights and proposals from a youths’ perspective.

Youths led deliberations should be based on a proper process of accessing to the best available information and through a very structured exercise of deliberative process that would, ultimately, end up with recommendations or proposals, also in forms of policy briefs.

Setting up a UN Youth Assembly won’t preclude other forms of youth’s activism and participation.

For example, we have seen with climate activism, how forceful youths’ actions have to be in order to become visible and noticed.

The Assembly would be just another way, now completely missing, for youths to properly channel their opinions and voices, overcoming the multitude of improvised consultation mechanisms that are often created for major global leaders ‘gatherings whose impacts are close to nil.

Moreover, like the UN Youth National Forums or Assemblies locally, the UN Youth Assembly could be given some limited binding powers in steering the course of the UN agencies and programs, having a clear voice and power in deciding their global strategies and priorities.

The future of youths’ participation aimed at setting the global agenda will be a mix of different and yet complementary actions from the ground and from the top alike.

Peaceful manifestations, including those of civil disobedience, have a place together with other forms of youths’ involvement.

Having a new global platform to express their voices should not be seen as a way to stifle bottom-up initiatives but, rather, as another way to help transform the way political power is exercised.

Simone Galimberti is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE, a not-for-profit NGO in Nepal. He writes on volunteerism, social inclusion, youth development and regional integration as an engine to improve people’s lives.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: United Nations

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Aug 10 2022 (IPS)

The upcoming summit on Education, part of the UN Secretary General’s ambitious agenda, can truly bring accountability and participation to the inevitably new ways education will be imparted in the future.

With scorching temperatures, uncontrolled flames and floods devastating our planet, millions of people are realizing that we are all going to pay a high price for climate inaction.

The current climate crisis is furthering compounding the other emergency that is still affecting all of us, a public health crisis fully exposed by the Covid pandemic.

Amid this gloomy scenario, the international community cannot forego its duties not only to strengthen the global education system but also its moral obligation to re-think it and re-imagine it.

While it is easy to criticize the UN as a system incapable of effectively tackling these multidimensional challenges, we cannot but praise Secretary General Antonio Guterres for his far sighted vision encapsulated in his global blue print, Our Common Agenda.

It’s a bold statement that contains multiple proposals including the ambitious goal of reinventing the global education.

In this context, and on September, the UN will host the most important forum to discuss how education can emerge as the thread that can equip the citizens of the world with the right tools to thrive in a truly sustainable and equitable planet.

The Transforming Education Summit, scheduled to take place at the UN September 19, should be seen as a stand-alone effort while it is intended to be the beginning of an ambitious global brainstorming. It is also the culmination of several other major events in the past few years.

In 2015 the Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action provided the vision for implementing the SDG 4, the global sustainable goal focused on inclusive and quality education.

We know how brutal the effects of the pandemic were on learners worldwide especially in developing and emerging nations.

In face of these challenges, with the global headlines focused on the public health emergency and the futile attempts at negotiating a breakthrough climate change agreement at the COP 26, few noticed that the international community tried to take action.

In November 2021, it gathered in Paris for a Global Education Meeting’s High Level Segment hosted by UNESCO and the Government of France. The outcome was the Paris Declaration that building on the work of a previous summit, the Extraordinary session of the Global Education Meeting (2020 GEM), held in October 2020, provided a clear call for more financing and a stronger global multilateral cooperation system.

The fact that our attention was totally focused to other existential crises should not deter us from reflecting on how such events were neglected by world media and, as a consequence, how little discussion about the future of education happened.

I am not just talking about discussions among professionals on the ground but also a debate that involves teachers and students alike. The upcoming Transforming the Education Summit will try to revert this lack of attention and overall weak engagement among the people.

The Secretariat of the event, hosted by UNESCO, one of the agencies within the UN system that lacks financial support but still proves to be real value for money, is trying its best to enable a global conversation on how the future of education should be.

It is in this precise context that UNESCO has set up an interactive knowledge and debate hub, the so-called Hub that, hopefully, will become a permanent global platform for discussing education globally.

Imagine a sort of civic agora where experts, students, parents, policy makers alike can share their best practices and bring forwards their opinions on how to follow up on the decisions that will be taken in September.

It is also extremely positive that a Pre-Summit event at the end of June in Paris, laid out some grounds for the September’s gathering especially because youths also had a chance to speak and share their views.

It is not the first-time youths are involved, but the full involvement of the Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth in the preparation of the Transforming the Education Summit could be a turning point, shifting from mere and tokenistic engagements to real shared power with the youth.

That’s why the existence of a specific process within the preparation of the summit, focused on youth, is extremely important and welcome not just because it will generate a special declaration but because it could potentially become a space where youths can have their voices and opinions heard permanently.

Let’s not forget that the ongoing preparations were instrumental to revive the outcomes of the “Reimagining our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education” developed over two years by the International Commission on the Futures of Education, a body chaired by President Sahle-Work Zewde of Ethiopia, and published in 2021.

It is truly transformative because the title itself is aligned to the aspirational vision of Secretary General Guterres to establish a new social contract.

A new social contract in the field of education really needs to rethink the domains of learning and its established but now outdated goals. Learning should become, according to this report, a holistic tool to create personal agency and sustainable and just development.

For example, education for sustainable development and lifelong education together with global citizenships should stopped being considered as “nice” but burdensome adds on.

Today’s challenges, the report explains, must be focused on “reinventing education” and the knowledge it provides must be “anchored in social, economic, and environmental justice.”

Wisely, Guterres intends the summit in September to be the starting point for a much longer conversation that will build on the insights and knowledge emerged in these last few years.

Governance of the global education system will also be central and with this, we will have an opportunity to find creative ways, ways that just few years ago were imaginable, to include people, especially the youths.

No matter the efforts now put in place to create awareness and participation for the summit, no matter how inclusive the Youth Process will be, the fact that there is still a very long way before creating spaces where persons on the ground can truly participate.

Too few are aware of the existence of a Global Education Cooperation Mechanism led by the SDG4-Education 2030 High-Level Steering Committee that also includes representatives of youth and teachers and NGOs.

While there is no doubt that such inclusive format is itself innovative, the challenges ahead require a much more accessible and holistic set-up.

The existence of a global accountability mechanism was one of the key points discussed and emerged in the Youths Consultations during the Pre-Summit in Paris.

The High-Level Steering Committee needs not only more visibility because of its “political” aim of galvanizing global attention and energizing and influencing global leaders so that education can become a global priority at the same levels of climate action and public health.

It should also have a stronger representation of youths, teachers and NGOs and it can evolve into a real permanent forum for discussions and even decision making.

As difficult as it to imagine a new global governance for education, what we need is a space, virtual and as well formally established as an institution, where not only experts and governments’ representatives gather and decide.

A space for accountability but also for enhanced participation.

There is still a long way before reaching a consensus on how education will look like in the years to come but there is no doubt that bold decisions must be taken also to reimagine its governance.

The Transforming the Education Summit can herald the beginning of a new era.

Media will have a special role to play: not only on reporting on the summit and its following developments but also for giving voices to the youths and for bringing forward the most progressive ideas that should define how education will shape this new era.

Simone Galimberti is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE, a not-for-profit NGO in Nepal. He writes on volunteerism, social inclusion, youth development and regional integration as an engine to improve people’s lives.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A residential building in Nairobi, Kenya. According to UN estimates, by 2050 about 68 per cent of the world’s population will be living in urban areas. Credit: UN-Habitat/Kirsten Milhahn

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jul 7 2022 (IPS)

When we think of urbanization we often end up referring to the increasing number of megalopolises that are sprawling around the world.

Yet less thoughts are given on the fact that the future patterns of urbanization will be centered on secondary cities or semi urban spaces, now becoming extensions of these gigantic cities.

It means that the world will continue to urbanize even though the world share of population living in this new urban continuum is forecasted to slow down, reaching 58 per cent in the next fifty years according to data from UN Habitat.

Yet, especially in the developing world, such reduction will still bring in a whopping increase of 76% of the number of cities in low income nations that in practically terms will mean a rise of 2.2 billion residents mostly in Africa and Asia.

These are some of the key findings of the World Cities Report 2022, the flagship publication of UN Habitat that was recently launched in occasion of the 11th World Urban Forum, the biannual event that was held last week in Poland, bringing together top policy makers, experts and activists working in the area of urbanization.

The insights and discussions enabled by these publications and events are indispensable to activate the so called New Urban Agenda, a strategically important though overlooked agenda to rethink sustainability from the perspectives of those living in the cities.

Unfortunately there is still so much to be done here and unsurprisingly there are huge constraints in terms of funding to implement this vision even though more recently, several financial commitments have been done, including a massive boost in resilient infrastructures during the recently held G7.

The international community should be indeed worried and not only in terms of bridging the resource gap for a sustainable urbanization.

Global leaders need to seize the opportunity and reconsider the ways cities are governed.

While it remains paramount to think in terms of the future of the millions of people living in big cities, the trends and patterns are pointing to the urgency of systematically thinking about governing urban spaces in terms of multilevel governance.

It means we need to work on a future system of policy making and decision making that is able to function and deliver beyond a single administrative jurisdiction.

Such a model must be capable to address the needs of the people living within and in the peripheries from three key dimension, spatial, social and economic.

The opportunity here is not only about re-thinking the existing boundaries, merging existing administrative units, creating bigger and more extended centers of power with the tools and resources of governing entire metropolitan regions.

This, in itself, would be a mammoth task because it will eat away power to different, often overlapping and certainly inadequate local bodies of governance now in existence.

The real chance we need to seize is to re-think, holistically, the way local governance works and take action on the general ineffectiveness of local bodies in terms of social inclusion.

Securing stronger and more resilient cities, able to withstand the more frequent shocks and hazards, will require a new social compact, a re-distribution of powers between local governments in charge of urban spaces and the citizenry, especially those left behind.

This latter group is at the core of the recommendations World Cities Report 2022, highlighting how vulnerable citizens must shift from being “passive victims” of current patterns of urbanization to “active urban change agents”.

Such pivot towards the downtrodden can be successful if we go beyond the traditional recipe made only by stronger social policies.

This is a formula that tends to largely be centered around, on the one hand, more sophisticated and generous social protection schemes like universal basic income and, on the other, around health coverage and housing.

These three social areas of interventions, together with quality and affordable education, are extremely important but we need to imagine a new social contract in terms of participation and engagement.

Indeed, according to the so called Urban Resilience Principles, the guiding pillars for a different vision for the future of cities, it is essential to ensure a meaningful participation of the people, especially those disadvantaged, in the planning and governance of any future urban governance system.

“With ever larger cities, the distance between governments and their citizens has increased” explains the World Cities Report 2022 report.

“Effective communication, meaningful participation opportunities and accountability structures built into integrated governance relationships are all necessary responses for addressing the trust equation”.

The document goes even further, calling for new forms of collaborative governance that involve different stakeholders joining the decision making process.

That’s why deliberative democracy, often at the fringes of the political science studies, is now being rediscovered as a possible remedy to the distance between traditional decision makers and citizens.

Obviously there is one particular group that, not only has huge stakes in the future of urban spaces but also can play a vital role to re-animate the debate about more bottom up, participatory forms of democratic decision making: the youths.

Some attempts are being made in this direction.

Over the UN General Assembly High Level Meeting held on the 27th of April to review the progress taken so far in implementing the New Urban Agenda, the Youth 2030 Cities initiative brought together youths from Ecuador, Colombia and Ghana to discuss about their role and their contributions for a better urban future.

The event was a culmination of trainings and discussions in six different countries around the world, an exercise that led to the preparation of “DeclarACTIONS”, roadmaps and at the same time real blueprints for youths driven changes around sustainable urbanization.

These are not just aspirational documents but they contain concrete and practical proposals, result of a long raging series of interventions supported by UN Habitat and the Foundation Botnar.

The Youth 2030 Cities program is an example of how it is possible to enable youth to convene and discuss.

Potentially, it can be seen, as a bold attempt at expanding the decision making process at local level.

The challenge will be on how to shift from pilot mode to an approach that systematically includes all citizens, including the youth, in the policy and decision making processes.

An institution like UN-Habitat has a very important mandate to mainstream participatory processes across the developing and emerging world, enabling new transformative ways for people to be involved and engaged.

System ways partnerships, starting from within the UN System, can harness the potential shown when youths are allowed to discuss and debate.

The dynamics facilitated by Youth 2030 Cities, can truly bring transformative changes but with them, we need bold and farsighted vision from the world leaders.

Let’s not forget that, real change will happen when people, especially the youths, are empowered, not just to be consulted and be able to express their opinion, but when are enabled to take binding decisions.

The fact that also the World Urban Forum 11 saw the same Youth 2030 Cities youth to gather for a global “DeclarAction”, is promising but the road ahead is still indeed very steep.

Simone Galimberti is co-Founder of ENGAGE, a not-for-profit NGO in Nepal. He writes on volunteerism, social inclusion, youth development and regional integration as an engine to improve people’s lives.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

UN Resident & Humanitarian Coordinator in Lebanon, Najat Rochdi, visited refugees’ camps in Bekaa and UNDP Home farming projects in Ablah-Bekaa on 25 August 2021. Credit: Twitter/ UN Lebanon

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jun 3 2022 (IPS)

Few deny the huge role the United Nation plays in global multilateral system especially in the area of poverty eradication, sustainability and climate change.

As enabler of the Agenda 2030, the UN system has the ability, stemming from its extraordinary convening powers, to bring around the table global leaders and key stakeholders for the most consequential decisions humanity must take.

Its agencies and programs do make a difference, uplifting millions of people out of poverty.

Yet, at the same time there is no doubt that the system is too complex and fragmented with too many overlaps and duplications that often make its work, using a development jargon, not of much “value for money”.

Short of a complete overhaul that would revolutionize its governance and shut down many of its operations around the world, including the merging of many of its agencies and programs, there is an ongoing attempt of reforming the system from the inside.

Recognizing the urgency for improvements but unable to undertake this needed drastic shift, Secretary General Antonio Guterres is doing what he can.

The focus is on better cooperation and coordination among the agencies and programs around the world and, while not as ambitious as the situation would require, it is still a mammoth operation that has been tasked to UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina J. Mohammed.

Based on Resolution 75/233, adapted on 21 December 2020, the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system, this is the formal name of the ongoing efforts, is attempting to create a new working culture within the UN.

Such change is desperately needed. The focus is going to be on ensuring a “new generation of United Nations country teams working more collaboratively and according to a clearer division of labor, driving greater alignment with country needs and priorities”.

Some key updates on the progress being made, the so-called Report of the Chair of the UNSDG on the Development Coordination Office and the Report of the Secretary-General on Implementation of General Assembly resolution 75/233 on the quadrennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system, are offering some perspectives on what being achieved and what is still missing.

The UN Resident Coordinator in Thailand, Gita Sabharwal (3rd from right), talks to migrants in Tak province on the impact of COVID-19. Credit: UNSDG/Build back better: UN Thailand’s COVID-19 strategy.

At the center of this broad reform is the revitalization of the role of the UN Resident Coordinators, now full-time positions on their own and no more tied to job of the UNDP Representatives.

The idea is to enable and empower a “primus inter pares” figure, someone who has the authority to also look after and monitor the work being done by each single agencies and programs whose work, so far, has been infamously uncoordinated.

As a consequence, planning mechanisms like the United Nations Development Assistance Framework, UNDAF, the planning matrix listing all the contributions of each single UN entity in a given country, has been turned into a stronger tool, the Country Cooperation Framework.

The name shift from ‘assistance’ to “cooperation” is symbolically indicative of the different role the UN system aims playing: an enabler and facilitator rather than a static, top down “bossy” partner.

There is also a new common assessment, the UN Common Country Analysis (CCA), “an integrated, forward-looking, and evidence-based analysis of the country context for sustainable development”.

Now, the Resident Coordinators have a stand-alone structure supporting their tasks, including different advisors, economists, data specialists and very importantly, partnerships and communication experts.

Technically, their job now also foresees “supporting governments mobilize financing for the SDGs”, as they are going to be “focused on innovative SDG financing approaches with Governments and key partners”.

The ambitious goal is to turn the Resident Coordinators in connectors and to some extent, “fund raisers” for the local governments they are supporting.

With also a new Accountability Framework in place, the common vision is as self- evident as much required but as daunting to achieve as it can be: create a “path forward for the system to work collaboratively under robust and impartial leadership, building on the strengths of each entity but moving away from the ‘lowest common denominator’ that prevailed in the previous architecture”.

The new approach is based on the much needed “dual reporting model in which, at least on the paper, the Resident Coordinators have a role in monitoring and assessing the work of each head of agencies/programs and the latter, on their end, would also asses the work of the Resident Coordinators.

That such system, far from being revolutionary, was never put in place earlier, clearly tells of the substantial ineffectiveness and lack of coordination that stymied the UN System for decades.

Having stronger coordination system makes total sense especially if the empowered Resident Coordinators, of whom, positively, now fifty-three per cent are women, can truly scale up joint pooled funding, bringing together different agencies and programs.

It is already happening but it would be really a game changer if most of the programs supported by the UN would be implemented through this modality.

In this regard the Joint SDG Fund, “an inter-agency, pooled mechanism for integrated policy support and strategic financing that acts as a bridge”, can be promising and if wholly embraced, truly transformative.

Mechanisms like the Joint SDG Fund should become the standard working modality at country levels with more and more power centered on the Office of Resident Coordinators.

Such development would mean much leaner agencies and programs in the country offices because otherwise the risk is to create another coordinating structure without simplifying and “slimming down” the system on the ground.

The scale of work to accomplish in this reform is still significant.

An internal survey, part of official report of the SG General, is emblematic.

Answering to “what extent have the following measures improved the UN Country Team’s offer to the country in the last year”, among the respondents, there was still a considerable percentage indicating that only “moderate change” had occurred so far.

Therefore, there is not only the risk that the well-intentioned reforms being pursued are simply not up to the gigantic needs of change that the UN must achieve but that it will take lots of time and energies to even bring around minimum change at country level.

Moreover, a stronger and better UN system on the ground means also a UN able to do a much better job at engaging and working with the people and civil society.

Being mandated with working with and supporting national governments does not imply as it happened so far, that the UN keeps insulate itself from the society.

You will always read about tokenistic measures that make appear like the UN is always open for collaborations and always striving to reach out the commoners but the reality is very different.

All this means one thing: the revamped offices of the Resident Coordinators have a huge role in enabling a transformation in mindsets and working culture inside the UN.

The report of the Secretary General could not have been clearer on this aspect.

“We must continue our efforts to ensure the reform of the United Nations development system brings about the changes in behavior, culture and mindsets that can maximize the collective offer of the United Nations”.

The Author, is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE, a not for profit in Nepal. He writes on volunteerism, social inclusion, youth development and regional integration as an engine to improve people’s lives.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A rescued boat woman and her two children eat some welcome food at a centre in Kuala Cangkoi, Indonesia. The UN urges 'people-centred' approach to migrants and refugees in Southeast Asia. Credit: UNHCR

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Apr 29 2022 (IPS)

The recently disseminated Zero Draft Ministerial Declaration of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF)– the main UN event to track the member states’ progress to achieve the Agenda 2030 slated to be held in the first half of July– is a disappointment.

For all its comprehensiveness, the document neglected to mention one of the most significant elements that could help the world navigate the next pandemic while successfully tackling climate change and biodiversity loss and excruciating levels of inequalities.

It was in July 2020 when the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres delivered the 18th Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture, an important speech focusing on eliminating inequalities and injustices.

It is also where the idea of a New Social Contract emerged strongly.

Seen as an indispensable antidote against raising inequalities and injustices that the pandemic both exposed and further expanded, the Secretary General was not only remarkable for recalling the sins of colonialism perpetuated by Europeans like him in the past.

He was also bold for proposing a “New Social Contract, between Governments, people, civil society, business and more, must integrate employment, sustainable development and social protection, based on equal rights and opportunities for all”.

The concept of reinventing the social contract wasn’t’ particularly new in truth.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Oslo Governance Centre (OGC), the Friedrich-Ebert- Stiftung (FES) in Berlin and New York, the Julian J. Studley Fund of the Graduate Program of International Affairs at The New School had been working on a global research study on resilient social contracts.

The outcome of this research was “Forging Resilient Social Contracts: Preventing Violent Conflict and Sustaining Peace, an11-country research and policy dialogue” that looked at the drivers that can either lead to stability and shared prosperity or the opposite, more insecurity and a continued state of violence.

The OECD has been also looking at the issue of state’s legitimacy with a groundbreaking report in 2010, The State’s Legitimacy in Fragile Situations unpacking complexity, a document that highlighted the risks of thinking from a western only perspective while supporting the extremely complex process of nation building.

Hybridity forms of governance that rely on local contexts and traditions, were highlighted as promising, though certainly not perfect, spaces of decision making, able to effectively hold together elements of bottom up decision making.

With the idea of top down nation building projects disintegrating following the Afghan’s debacle, strengthening local legitimacy is turning again to the fore.

Without it, it is impossible to shape and deliver effective and inclusive institutions that are so important now more than ever and, as to speak, not only in traditionally fragile political systems.

That’s why Guterres’s lecture in 2020 was so transformational because he was able to shift the focus on the social contract from a narrow peace building frame related to developing nations emerging from conflicts to a much broader context that significantly affects also more established democracies.

The stress and tensions that democratic systems have been experiencing in the last decade are supporting dynamics that risk to tear apart the fabric of many prosperous nations founded on a liberal political system.

Yet the Zero Draft Ministerial Declaration seems to totally forget the day-to-day relevance of establishing a new social contract, a new model based on civic engagement and people’s participation where citizens co-own the process of policy making.

Is this happening because the matter in discussion is so sensitive that some members of the United Nations might feel uneasy about getting engaged in a serious discussion about people’s involvement in shaping the public good?

For example the draft just mentions the role of Voluntary Local Review, the central process around which the SDGs can be localized, a dynamic that has been recognized as central to advance the overall Agenda 2030 and instrumental to build a new civic rapport between the citizenry and the state.

On the positive side, at least there is a mention of the UN Youth 2030, the global youth blue print that is supposed to play a big role in advancing a UN system that is more youth centered.

It is not that there is not enough discussions on partnerships, an essential element if we are serious about rethinking the process of decision making from the ground up.

For example, The Mexico Partnership Forum held in Merida on 17-18 March 2022, served as a “platform to strengthen engagement and relationships across all relevant stakeholders and sectors, while building back better from COVID-19, leading to more transformational whole-of-society approach to partnerships for advancing SDGs in Mexico”.

In another instance, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the International Development Law Organization, and the Government of Italy are organizing the SDG 16 Conference 2022, People-Centered Governance in Post Pandemic World that was held from 21 to 22 April.

In addition, we should not forget that the UN Habitat promoted New Urban Agenda is based on stronger level of collaborations and partnerships to redefine, through the lens of shared prosperity and equity, our existence in cities across the world.

Perhaps it is just easy to talk about partnerships and collaborations among different stakeholders but ultimately the SDG16 that embraces partnerships at its core, should be seen in a much broader and progressive way.

In Pathways for Peace Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict, a joint publication between the World Bank and the United Nations released in 2018, it is remarkably clear the fundamental role of inclusive decision making.

First, “societies that offer more opportunities for youth participation in the political and economic realms and provide routes for social mobility for youth tend to experience less violence”.

Second “Inclusive decision making is fundamental to sustaining peace at all levels, as are long-term policies to address economic, social, and political aspirations”.

The reports continues: “Fostering the participation of young people as well as of the organizations, movements, and networks that represent them is crucial”.

Good governance does not happen with a stroke of raise in international aid to fragile nations.

International aid could enable and support certain dynamics especially if resources reach out effective non state actors but it is a very tricky business that could also result in more corruption and lack of accountability and perpetuation of exclusive power generation.

Genuine localized good governance instead is all about a local leadership able to nurturing through a self-strengthening loop, resilience and inclusion on the ground, though, in many cases such loop is too weakened to bear fruits.

Social protection policies, difficult to design and hard to deliver and certainly very expensive, are the key ingredient capable of enabling a sense of agency for those who have been the most neglected in the society.

Yet intervening in the economic space, as difficult as it is, along won’t suffice.

We need to offer real and meaningful opportunities for people to participate regardless of the political systems in place.

If one party nations do hesitate to foster this new sense of participation, then their entire foundations upon which their legitimacy is based, could crumble while dealing with any future crises and by now, we know well that we will experience more and more of them.

That’s why that speech of Antonio Guterres in 2020 was so important and should not be left forgotten.

It is also not enough to talk about the New Social Contract from a perspective of volunteerism as valuably done by UNV with the State of the World Volunteering Report 2022.

We need to deeper into discussing effective ways to empower the citizenry, starting from those left behind.

Hopefully this challenge, one of the biggest of those we face as humanity, would be adequately discussed by the United Nations.

The upcoming conference on Power, Politics and Peace, scheduled for May 31 by the UNDP Oslo Governance Centre, could offer an opportunity to do so.

Power, politics and peace, are, after all, the defining treats of the New Social Contract and if we forget it, it would be at a very high cost for all of us.

Simone Galimberti is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE, an NGO partnering with youths living with disabilities. He writes on civic engagement, development and regional integration and politics. Opinions expressed are personal.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: UNESCO

By Pawan Ghimire and Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Apr 1 2022 (IPS)

The International Day of Sport for Development and Peace, which will be commemorated on April 6, is a day that celebrates the positive effects that sports can have on the society.

The humanity needs to confront existential challenges but few remember that in September 2019 the United Nations declared the then upcoming decade as the ‘Decade of Action”, ten precious years where the world would act at unison to achieve the Agenda 2030.

Then the international community could not imagine that a devastating pandemic was about to come and the consequences of Covid-19 are still being experienced throughout the world.

The suffering and painful experiences that many of us have been going through in the last two years show that the vision enshrined in the Agenda 2030 is still a far cry from being realized.

The United Nations Secretary General’s response to these daunting challenges is called “Our Common Agenda”, a blueprint for a stronger, fairer and more inclusive multilateral world.

In this special day we need to ensure that sports can play a significant role in putting such bold plans into action, turning ambitious goals into a real opportunity to mobilize millions of people.

This is the power of sports and it is key that we think of sports for development and peace not as a standing alone sub-area.

Rather our efforts should be to turn the entire sports industry into a tool for social change.

Credit: United Nations

Certainly, when we talk about sports for development and peace, we refer to thousands of not-for-profit organizations, the vast majority of whom, despite their small in size and budgets, are active on the ground, trying to offer solutions to myriad of problems at local level.

For example, sports can bring people together and be an enhancer of a society that is more equal and just where women, vulnerable groups can have a stronger voice and agency.

If we think about disability, we know that millions of persons with disabilities in the developing world, still face multiple problems that deny them their rights to have a dignified life.

Investing in inclusive sports practices can be a powerful tool that can bring people together, persons with disabilities but also persons without disabilities.

It can be an important advocacy tool for a better level playing field, allowing people without disabilities to think and reflect about their privileges and the lack thereof for their disable peers.

In short sports can be a glue that connects people but it can also be a potent platform where disadvantaged persons can train their skills and fulfill their ambitions.

Let’s call this the uniquely transformative power of sports.

We know many stories of sports celebrities, champions admired throughout the world that could find their path to glory because of their achievements in the field of sports.

That’s why this special day should not be just celebrated as a day for committed advocates and practitioners alone but rather as an opportunity to push for a better leveraging of sports to help those left behind and at disadvantage to find a way forward in life.

For this to happen, we need a comprehensive strategy able to attract the interest of all stakeholders involved in sports.

The true is that, while sports for development and peace is more and more recognized worldwide as a social innovation, there is still huge divide between such practices and the mainstream sports industry.

Many global sports clubs with resources and phenomenal outreach are doing their bit to promote a positive use of sports within local communities but we need to be more ambitious.

What it is indispensable is to reach a new global understanding on the transformative role sports can have.

That’s why the United Nations Secretary General needs to elevate sports at the core of his Our Common Agenda, ensuring that sports can be, not only the unifying factor, the glue but also the toolkit that can bring the required change.

United Nations agencies should do a better job not only at mainstreaming sports in their programs but also enabling partnerships with professional sports as well, engaging and working with clubs and leagues to truly harness sports for the common good, not as just a nice “add on”, through the usual CSR projects, but as a key strategy for their success.

The Our Common Agenda envisions a series of global gatherings and initiatives focused on different themes, including education and the future of job market and gender equality.

Interestingly, within this blueprint, there is a commitment to do more to involve and engage youth meaningfully.

The ideal goal for Secretary General Guterres would be a different United Nations that can do a much better job to prioritize youth’s needs and aspirations, putting them in the driving seat.

It will certainly take a lot of effort to shift gear and move from words to deeds in making the United Nations more youth centric.

Starting truly investing in sports, bringing them at the center of the development and social agenda in the developing as well higher income countries, is certainly one of the best ways to implement the Agenda 2030.

It will bridge the generational divides and allow more and more youth to be in the “game” not as spectators but as key protagonists.

If you think about, there is really no better way to get into actions in this decade.

Pawan Ghimire is chairman – Cricket association of the blind Nepal and treasurer of World Blind Cricket Limited, UK

Simone Galimberti is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE. He can be reached at simone_engage@yahoo.com

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: UN Women

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Mar 29 2022 (IPS)

The 10th edition of the World Happiness Report was recently published and once again the findings raised an array of mixed emotions with many questioning the real foundations underpinning the most discussed aspect of the Report, the World Happiness Ranking,

For example, according to the ranking, Nepal appears to be the happiest place in the South Asia but is it really the case? Many experts from the country doubt about it as it was reported by The Kathmandu Post on the 22nd of March.

In the article, Dambar Chemjong, head of the Central Department of Anthropology at Tribhuvan University simply asks “What actually constitutes happiness?”

This is a complex question to answer but certainly it is fair to wonder how come each time this report gets published, it is inevitable that the richest nations, especially the Nordic ones come up on the top while the poorest and more fragile ones instead are hopelessly at the bottom.

There is no doubt that material prosperity determines a person’s quality of life and the World Happiness Report looks at GDP and life expectancy. In addition, the report also explores other factors like generosity, social support, freedom, and corruption.

These six variables, put together, are central to depict what the report calls “life evaluations” that “provide the most informative measure for international comparisons because they capture quality of life in a more complete and stable way than emotional reports based on daily experiences”.

The ranking is based on the Gallup World Poll, that asks “respondents to evaluate their current life as a whole using the mental image of a ladder, with the best possible life for them as a 10 and worst possible as a 0”.

One of the key findings is that social connections in dire times, especially if we think about what the entire world had to endure following the pandemic, do make the difference.

“Now, at a time of pandemic and war, we need such an effort more than ever. And the lesson of the World Happiness Report over the years is that social support, generosity to one another, and honesty in government are crucial for well-being” says Jeffrey Sachs, one of the major “architects” behind the entire concept of measuring happiness worldwide.

This statement further validates the need to further think more broadly about the importance these social relationships and social bonds have in developing nations.

That’s why analyzing happiness across nations should be considered as a working progress and the goal should be to better picture the complex situations on the ground in many parts of the developing world.

These are all nations that have been experiencing hardships consistently, even before the Covid pandemic outbreak and, therefore, they should be acknowledged for having developed unique forms of social bonds and solidarity.

Instead, these social factors, these connectors and the levels of reliance stemming from them in these “unhappy” nations”, are overshadowed by some of the variables determining the life evaluations.

People in developing nations have less access to public services and they are more exposed to corruption and bad governance. Lack of health infrastructures or unequal job market do have a strong incidence in determining a person’s human development and quality of life.

Yet does the fact that their lives are tougher automatically means people are there are unhappy?

Moreover, should not we consider the stress and mental health often affecting the “prosperous” lives of the citizens living in the north of the world?

Probably the problem is the idea of having a ranking itself. Though desirable and useful, measuring real happiness is a daunting and complex job.

Trust, benevolence, real generosity (not just the extrapolated, like in the report, based on donations during the last month) are all key determinants of happiness.

Yet these same factors have always been strong in developing societies where people rely on mutuality and self-help rather than depending on governments unable to fulfill their duties.

As it is now, the World Happiness Ranking risks to become just a “plus” version of the Human Development Index.

There is still a long way to better decipher and understand the meaning of happiness in the so called South of the World.

There is also a great need for the authors to better explain in simpler terms their methodology of calculating the ranking especially the relationships between the six key variables analyzed and positive and negative emotions that are also taken into consideration.

The fact that the ranking and the science behind the report is still a working process, it is recognized in the report itself.

An option would be to re-consider the variables of “life evaluations” that, by default, underscore the concept of wellbeing from a western perspective.

On the positive side, it is encouraging to see how the report includes also a part on “cross-Cultural Perspectives on Balance/Harmony”, central if we want to have a less westernized approach to happiness.

The 2022 edition of the Report devotes also considerable space to the biological basis of happiness, the relationships between genes and environment, what the report calls “Gene-Environment Interplay”.

Such nexus, affecting a person’s feelings and emotions and all the intricacies coming from these interactions, should make us reflect if it is really worthy to continue pursuing the goal of having an annual global ranking on happiness.

The idea of a ranking on happiness risks defeating the purpose of the gigantic and noble effort of better understanding how we can be happier and how public policies can have a role or not in these unfolding dynamics.

Simone Galimberti is Co-Founder of ENGAGE, an NGO partnering with youths living with disabilities. Opinions expressed are personal.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Feb 10 2022 (IPS)

The global consensus about an international treaty on pandemic prevention is certainly a milestone towards the creation of a global health security framework.

A new treaty is likely to bind the member states to higher standards of compliance, especially if a global accountability mechanism is also enforced.

Consider the disregard towards the International Health Regulations (2005), IHRs, the only tool available to control what in jargon is referred as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).

Despite numerous review exercises, some of which taken more than a decade ago in the aftermath of the first SARS outbreak in Asia and again after EBOLA hit Western Africa, the vast majorities of these regulations were not enforced in the following years.

The consequence is that we are still paying the price and very dearly.

Though the negotiations on the treaty details, especially the complex aspects of its binding legality, won’t be a cakewalk, such tool can offer a strong bulwark against future lethal cross border infections.

Yet a global treaty won’t be nearly enough alone to guarantee a pandemics free future.

What missing is the willpower to truly link preparedness and basic health care, something that is complex and very expensive at the same time.

A real breakthrough in the global health system will be seen when a new willingness is found unprecedented levels of basic health financing around the world, especially in the developing nations.

We need massive investments in building national health systems able to provide what it is normally referred as Universal Health Coverage, defined by the WHO, as access to a broad range of services, which would include the services that contribute to preparedness to future pandemic

If new resources are essential, the capacity of managing them properly is equally important so that the weakest member nations of the United Nations can strengthen their health system.

Unfortunately, for most of them, there is still a long way to go.

The WHO has a huge responsibility and duty to support such process but so far it failed and with it, the international community.

A different organization, starting from its governance, might instead radically change the status quo and enable the creation of trust that essential if we want more money to build national public health system based on equity.

In the case of the IHRs, it is true that primary responsibility of enforcing them lays with the member states, the WHO is the guardian and at the same time a key enabler in their implementation.

A stronger WHO could have done more not only to compel governments towards the implantation of the IHRs but also to be more effective in partnering with developing countries in rebooting their national primary health care centers and hospitals.

Instead, the agency’s reputed failures since the first outbreak of SARS in early 2000s showed the inability of a too complex and too political organization without adequate means.

That’s why we need to ensure that the WHO can play a much bigger role: not in replacing the ministries of health in the developing world but in supporting them in building equitable health systems.

For this to happen we do not need the WHO to be re-tooled and re-purposed but also re-founded.

The focus on the new treaty should not prevent drastic changes in how public health services are delivered in the developing nations and a lifting any “red line” in re-thinking the WHO.

Since 2017, Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus, its current Director General, embarked the organization into a process of key changes but these improvements, important as they are, do not go far enough.

What we need is a radical turnaround.

Following the Covid-19 pandemic, again new proposals have been made to strengthen the organization.

A lot of emphasis has been laid on increasing the predictability and availability of unmarked resources, so called of “Assessed Contributions”, rather than having, as happens now, a WHO totally relying on voluntary contributions from donors that so far constitute the vast majority of the resources it manages.

Such contributions are driven by interests and priorities of the donors rather than those of the agency.

A balancing in the budget contributions of the organization might surely help but at the same time it might be worthy reflecting that some of the most results-oriented agencies within the UN System are entirely dependent on such voluntary contribution.

This for example is the case of UNDP and UNICEF, the strongest and richest agencies within the UN System. Perhaps the real problem is not the lack of resources in itself but the politicization of an organization that is basically owned by its member states, the governments.

The same could be said for UNESCO.

It is not a coincidence that both agencies share low budgets and are among the weakest among their peers.

At UNICEF, for example there is nothing akin to the role played by the World Health Assembly that effectively controls the WHO.

The governance there is totally different and it is led by an Executive Board representing the member states that though, have considerable sway over the management of the agency (that’s why the Executive Director is always an American), it is less politicized and less controlling than an assembly of member states.

Perhaps what we should have is a global fund for public health more similar in its governance and delivery to UNICEF.

Such radical transformation, improbable at the moment, might be instrumental in truly rebuilding from scratch the WHO and instrumental in turning it into a much more effective agency with less competing centers of powers like is happening now with what are de-facto semi-independent regional offices.

As consequence a new organization branded as the Global Fund for Public Health could attract the huge investments that developing countries need to build strong and resilient health system, insuring Universal Health Coverage for all their citizens.

So far donors have been too narrow and selective when focusing on public health.

For example, the focus has been on prenatal and postnatal care, reproductive health, all very important domains of public health.

Yet such narrow focus on these areas through a silos approach prevented investing into creating, in partnership with the developing countries, reliable and equity-based health systems at disposal of the public.

Let’s not forget what the Secretary General said back in 2016 Seventieth session Agenda entitled “Strengthening the global health architecture” dedicated on strengthening of implementation of the recommendations of the High-level Panel on the Global Response to Health Crises Report, one of the several published so far to retrofit the health system to deal with global pandemics.

“I believe that WHO needs to reposition itself as an operational organization, clarifying its reporting lines and adjusting its business processes so that it can perform its operational role most effectively during times of health crises”.

Moreover in 2016 the Commission on a Global Health Risk Framework for the Future argued that “public health is the foundation of the health system and its first line of defense”.

For this to happen we need a new WHO and such a new organization could create the trust for an unprecedented mobilization of funding in public health, resources that World Bank and other regional banks and donor agencies should disburse.

Both Indonesia and Germany, respectively guiding this year the G 20 and the G 7, expressed a strong commitment to reform the global health system.

A narrow focus on a pandemic preparedness treaty would be a miss opportunity to truly revolutionize global health governance and with it, reset and transform the WHO.

Simone Galimberti is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE, an NGO partnering with youths living with disabilities. Opinions expressed are personal.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A woman, accompanied by a child, casts her vote during the general elections in Mozambique. Meanwhile, the United Nations marked the annual International Day of Democracy last September calling on world leaders to build a more equal, inclusive and sustainable world, with full respect for human rights. Credit: UNDP/Rochan Kadariya

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jan 14 2022 (IPS)

There is no doubt that the building the magnificent Women’s Pavilion at the Dubai World Expo 2020 deserves unconditional praise and admiration, a bold landmark that projects the concept of gender empowerment and gender equality.

Yet at the same time I am wondering why the organizers of the World Expo didn’t come up with a different kind of pavilion, one focused on democracy and people’s participation in policy affairs.

On many ways, celebrating women but overlooking democracy and with it, one of its prerequisites and at the same time, byproducts, human rights, is a contradiction that, unfortunately should not shock us considering the overall state of democracy and human rights around the world.

In this context the Summit for Democracy organized by President Biden in December was an important undertaking.

It wasn’t because United States of America was behind it, a country that, as we know, it is dealing with some deep fractures in terms of in issues related to voting rights and universal franchise.

It was but because the Summit was a symbolic gesture, a statement about, on the one hand, the relevance and resilience democracy still has for millions of people around the world and, on the other hand, almost paradoxically, about its vulnerability and fragility.

If many people still can exercise their franchise and freely express their opinion, global reports like the Global State of Democracy 2021 Report published by the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, IDEA, it is clear that democracy is under assault both in traditional liberal democratic settings as well as in regions with emerging democratic practices.

Unfortunately, the ongoing geopolitical dynamics are preventing a neutral debate about the future of democracy and instead a clash of perspectives and with it, different political systems, is prevailing, hampering an important conversation.

On the one hand, there is the liberal democracy model based on periodic elections and on the other side of the spectrum, we find the one-party ruling system.

In the between, a mix of hybrid models that, while formally embracing electoral democracy, act more like authoritarian regimes.

Yet perhaps there is another way to look at this equation, a possibility that would put universal human rights at the center of any political system being embraced, regardless its voting practices.

“The response to the pandemic, and to the widespread discontent that preceded it, must be based on a New Social Contract and a New Global Deal that create equal opportunities for all and respect the rights and freedoms of all.” – UN Secretary-General António Guterres. Credit: United Nations

You might not be able to periodically elect your representatives but still in practice, you could enjoy freedom of opinion, the liberty to express your judgement on the current status of affairs in your country.

It is unclear how criticism and divergent opinions are continuously seen as such a lethal arms that can put at risk the survival of nations but this is what is happening almost on daily basis.

For example, while Dubai is celebrating its mesmerizing Expo, the U.A.E. are still jailing human rights defender Ahmed Mansoor detained since March 2017.

Whatever the charges against him, the authorities are showing contempt for the most basic human rights and this is not just an isolated episode but rather a consistent pattern of abuses.

Undoubtedly, it can be certainly be better in relation to basic human rights and that’s why the Summit for Democracy could become an opportunity to press nations like the U.A.E. to show leadership rather than fear and insecurity in matter of democracy and human rights.

The U.A.E. like many other authoritarian or totalitarian regimes are a success stories in so many extents.
Events like the Expo or the upcoming World Cup in Qatar, another democratic outcast despite the recent election of the Shura Council or the soon to happen Winter Olympics and Paralympics Games in China, are showing how such countries have found their own path to excellence and prosperity.

There are risks associated with a nation like the USA pushing the democracy agenda but still the follow up summit that will be organized by the Biden Administration in 2022 could offer a way for more nations to step up and show some commitment at least to human rights.

Will those nations who did not get invited to the summit this year, nations like the U.A.E. and Qatar do more in this area or simply will they carry on with business with a “business as usual” approach?

To be clear, there is no doubt that it would be a mistake to just promote the liberal democratic model based on elections and representation as the only blue print to be followed universally.

There are, indeed, other ways to reinvigorate democracy and human rights and for example, the ongoing conversation on the New Social Contract being promoted by the United Nations could offer such venue to rethink the relationships between people and their governments.

That’s why it is so relevant to be as inclusive as possible in building on the momentum opened by the UN Secretary General with its push for a New Social Contract because such discussions could enable nations like the U.A.E. to also join and contribute, on their own ways, to the formulation of a better and just, not just more efficient, governance models.

Involving youth is going to be paramount.

Recently during the World Youth Forum organized by the Egyptian Government, another nation falling well behind in human right standards and practices, Secretary General Guterres, invited youth to “keeping speaking out”.

I am not entirely sure how such invite would be digested by President El-Sisi, the convener of the Forum but Guterres is right in asserting youth’s right to speak up and share their voice.

More than ever, the United Nations have an enormous responsibility to keep focusing on human rights and freedom of expression and such an effort can help move forward, even indirectly, the global agenda being embraced by President Biden.

While Guterres might not be able to explicitly talk about democracy and elections, he is well positioned to further enhance the debate around the New Social Contract and with it, bring up inconvenient topics to those leaders uncomfortable to talk about democracy and human rights.

And such leaders from states like U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Brunei, China or Nicaragua, just to mention few nations certainly not trailblazers in human rights, should not only listen to but also get engaged with such issues.

Will Biden tactically find a way to allow the United Nations, with its proclaimed neutrality, to be involved in such difficult conversations?

Human rights abused cannot be condoned anywhere and this is also a standard applicable to everyone, including to those states who proudly burnish strong democratic credentials, for example, nations of the E.U. or the U.S.A. itself.

We hope that one day not too far from today, the U.A.E. and other likeminded nations might be able to tell their own success stories in terms of human rights protection and people’s participation to local affairs.

They do not lack the creativity and resources to find their own solutions that, while meeting the highest human rights standards, at the same time, can be localized enough to offer novel ideas to make their societies more inclusive, more open and just.

After all, a social contract just based on economic prosperity, while doing the job now, won’t go too far nor will be resilient enough to navigate future crises.

Simone Galimberti is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE, an NGO partnering with youths living with disabilities. The opinions expressed here are personal.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Dec 2 2021 (IPS)

The International Volunteer Day, on December 5, is not just one of the many internationally observed days that the United Nations commemorates annually.

Its significance is much broader especially because volunteerism can truly become one of the most important tools at our disposal to promote a different development paradigm and overcome all the challenges that the ongoing pandemic has exacerbated.

It is also central to one of the top priorities set by the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, the creation of a new Social Contract that can re-draw the relationships between governments and citizens, finding new venues for the people to participate in the public life, especially from the perspective of novel ways to think about policy making.

In this sense, volunteerism is an agent for change because it one of the best expressions of civic engagement and therefore it will deserve much more attention and with it, much more resources in order to help solving the most substantial issues the humanity is facing.

That’s why the role of United Nations Volunteers, UNV is going to be central. As a semi-independent agency, formally part of the UNDP, UNV can really become an engine to promote volunteerism, a concept that includes several activities from mutual help to advocacy to direct service provision.

Over the last two years UNV has undertaken a major exercise in rethinking the role of volunteerism. In July 2020, UNV, in partnership with the International Federation of Red Cross/Red Crescent, IFRC, galvanized the global volunteering community with a major exercise to discuss and frame the role volunteerism has in achieving the Agenda 2030.

Entitled “Re-imagining Volunteerism”, this event, formally known as a global technical meeting, led to the definition of the Plan of Action to Integrate Volunteering into the 2030 Agenda, a “framework under the auspices of the United Nations (UN) through which governments, volunteer-involving organizations, UN agencies, private sector, civil society and academia come together to strengthen people’s ownership of the 2030 Agenda and integrate volunteering in national strategies and policies”.

One of its most visible outcomes is the Call for Action, an inspiring document that is guiding the international community on harnessing the power of volunteerism for the common good.

As part of this ambitious process, UNV also opened up several community groups to discuss about key issues, including, the most recent one, just concluded, over the ways that volunteerism can become more inclusive and accessible.

The fact that UNV is opening up and asks for suggestions and ideas is a very important development, an effort that must acknowledged and praised. It is also something that holds much potential in order to create a global community of practitioners engaged over the ways volunteerism can be promoted and scaled.

With the end of this year, UNV is also set to launch a new multi annual strategic plan and, while the details of the new plans still remain undisclosed, it is key that the leadership at UNV makes such process as open and as transparent as possible.

Open, accessible consultations are one of the best ways to let practitioners and social scientists alike to contribute in shaping the next milestones for UNV.

The future strategic goals of this semi-autonomous agency must be aligned with the comprehensive blueprint that Secretary General Guterres launched in September, Our Common Agenda that is an ambitious set of plans to re-energize multilateralism.

One of key aspects of this plan is the strengthening of the UN system of its work and engagement with youth and as result, the Office of the United Nations Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth will be strengthened in the coming years and a new office for youth will be established.

This is an important development because in the past UNV also played an important role as a sort of youth focal point within the United Nations, an interesting proposition but also complicated one because we know that volunteerism transcends age groups.

So, one of the key questions in the new strategic plan of UNV will be how to contribute to reinforcing the youth agenda within the UN system without alienating other key stakeholders that still can play a huge role in promoting and implementing volunteerism around the world.

For sure, youth can be a vehicle, a bridge to reach out other age groups, an insight that surely is being taken into account by UNV in its strategic planning process.

At the same UNV needs to be strengthened and provided with more resources in order to help achieve the SDGs and play a crucial role in defining the boundaries and features of the New Social Contract.

More resources would allow UNV to open more country offices. For example, a country like Indonesia, with a strong volunteering culture and major international player, still does not count with a UNV office.

Additional resources will allow UNV to experiment with new programs that can promote inclusive forms of volunteering, especially because it is now widely recognized that volunteerism can be an equalizer and tool through which a youth can develop personal leadership.

It is also indispensable that UNV is enabled to play a much stronger role as advocate and champion of volunteerism wherever the UN is active, with the technical expertise and resources to support governments to implement volunteering actions on the ground, even though policies or specific legislations.

An empowered, more vocal, stronger UNV won’t only be in need of much stronger support by the international community. The stakes at play will also require UNV to modernize and become more and more agile, flexible, faster and open to local communities.

This will require a change in the working culture as UNV reflects many of the positive aspects of the UN system in terms of professionalism and high standards but it is also inevitable that it also incorporates the less positive sides that typically characterize huge international organizations.

The changes made in terms of setting up community groups to talk and discuss about policies can be scaled up and made it easier and more user friendly. But this is just one aspect that need to be improved.

In order for UNV to scale up its role, we need an organization that is able to get out of the “balloon” typically and to some extents, inevitably associated with the UN. To some extents, it needs to embrace a sort of startup culture symbolized by more informality and openness to fail and risk.

In short, a t-shirt culture rather than the traditional “McKinsey & Company” dress that almost ended up characterizes the entire UN system.

The UN plays a tremendous and vital role everywhere it operates but it is also known for its complex, often opaque working structures, and an inclination to be not exactly what the concept of “value for money” implies.

In short, bureaucracy and red tape can distort and diminish the important work being done globally and UNV could become a trend setter within the wider UN community for a much more dynamic working culture.

The upcoming launch of the State of the World’s Volunteerism Report will be another important milestone for UNV. With it, we will have even a more comprehensive understanding on what volunteering could help achieve if strengthened and embraced worldwide. UNV is a force for good within the international development community.

Still its potential is untapped and in order to do so, we need a bolder, more creative and fast agency, one that can be set the standards for a more effective development system.

Simone Galimberti is a Co-Founder of ENGAGE, a not-for-profit NGO in Nepal. He writes on volunteerism, social inclusion, youth development and regional integration as an engine to improve people’s lives.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau