ReportWire

Tag: Simone Galimberti

  • A Bigger and More Relevant Role for Youth Within the UN System – Part II

    A Bigger and More Relevant Role for Youth Within the UN System – Part II

    [ad_1]

    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
    • Opinion by Simone Galimberti (kathmandu, nepal)
    • Inter Press Service

    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 IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Wanted: A New Local Oversight Structure to Achieve SDGS, Climate Action & Biodiversity Preservation

    Wanted: A New Local Oversight Structure to Achieve SDGS, Climate Action & Biodiversity Preservation

    [ad_1]

    Credit: United Nations
    • Opinion by Simone Galimberti (kathmandu, nepal)
    • Inter Press Service

    KATHMANDU, Nepal, Sep 29 (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 IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Reality is Governments Not Truly Held Accountable to Implement SDGs

    Reality is Governments Not Truly Held Accountable to Implement SDGs

    [ad_1]

    The SDG Summit gets underway in the General Assembly hall at UN Headquarters in New York. September 2023. Credit: UN Photo/Cia Pak
    • Opinion by Simone Galimberti (kathmandu, nepal)
    • Inter Press Service

    KATHMANDU, Nepal, Sep 22 (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 IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Urgency for a Global Fund for Media & Journalism

    Urgency for a Global Fund for Media & Journalism

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Simone Galimberti (kathmandu, nepal)
    • Inter Press Service

    KATHMANDU, Nepal, May 30 (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 IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Localizing SDGs Means Truly Empowering Citizens

    Localizing SDGs Means Truly Empowering Citizens

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Simone Galimberti (kathmandu, nepal)
    • Inter Press Service

    KATHMANDU, Nepal, Apr 18 (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

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • The Need for a Strong Legal Treaty on Business & Human Rights

    The Need for a Strong Legal Treaty on Business & Human Rights

    [ad_1]

    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.
    • Opinion by Simone Galimberti (kathmandu, nepal)
    • Inter Press Service

    KATHMANDU, Nepal, Mar 31 (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

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Can the UN do a Better Job with Democracy?

    Can the UN do a Better Job with Democracy?

    [ad_1]

    Credit: United Nations
    • Opinion by Simone Galimberti (kathmandu, nepal)
    • Inter Press Service

    KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jan 06 (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 IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Volunteerism: Path to Achieve UNs Agenda 2030

    Volunteerism: Path to Achieve UNs Agenda 2030

    [ad_1]

    Achim Steiner, UNDP Administrator
    • Opinion by Simone Galimberti (kathmandu, nepal)
    • Inter Press Service

    KATHMANDU, Nepal, Dec 06 (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 AdministratorWho am I talking about? Who are these persons? Think of those who selflessly and silently and far from social media do something for the place where you live.

    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 IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link