CIVICUS speaks with Martin Butcher, Policy Advisor on Arms, Conflict and International Humanitarian Law at Oxfam, about the UK’s partial ban on arms sales to Israel and Oxfam’s role in supporting a judicial review of the decision.

In response to civil society campaigning and litigation, the UK government recently imposed a partial ban on arms sales to Israel. However, it only cancelled 30 out of 350 licences, which civil society saw as largely symbolic and insufficient. Civil society organisations (CSOs) had challenged UK arms exports to Israel at the High Court, arguing that many of these exports contribute to war crimes and human rights abuses in Gaza. While the ban is a step in the right direction, it falls short because it doesn’t apply to other key exports, such as parts for F-35 jets that are being used to drop bombs on Gaza.

Read more

CIVICUS discusses Sudan’s humanitarian crisis with a Sudanese women’s rights activist with extensive experience in peacebuilding. She has asked to stay anonymous for security reasons.

Sudan has been home to a civil war since April 2023. The country is now facing a severe famine affecting millions of people. A cholera outbreak has worsened the situation, further straining a health system already on the brink of collapse, and recent floods have displaced thousands. Women and girls are disproportionately affected by the conflict and humanitarian crisis. With aid access severely restricted and relief efforts hampered, the crisis continues to deepen.

Read more

CIVICUS discusses the recent Twitter/X ban in Brazil with Iná Jost, lawyer and head of research at InternetLab, an independent Brazilian think tank focused on human rights and digital technologies.

Brazil’s Supreme Court recently upheld a ban on Elon Musk’s social media platform X, formerly Twitter, after it repeatedly refused to comply with orders to moderate content. The court ordered tech companies to remove X from app stores and imposed fines for continued access via VPNs in Brazil. This appeared to cause users to switch to alternatives such as Bluesky and Threads. Musk condemned the ban as an attack on free speech, but has since backed down and complied with the court’s orders. Debate continues over the controversy’s implications for democracy and accountability.

CIVICUS discusses the potential of artivism with Ezenwa Okoro, a playwright, poet and Programme Director of the Street Project Foundation, a Nigerian organisation that promotes youth political participation and active citizenship.

Artivism combines art and activism to address social issues, using creative expression as a tool to inspire change. Art helps stimulate reflection, raise awareness, foster empathy and inspire action. In Africa’s diverse cultural landscape, artivism plays an important role in drawing attention to pressing issues such as climate change, human rights and social justice.

Read more

CIVICUS speaks with Hope Azeda, a playwright, director and founder of Mashirika Performing Arts and Media Company, about her use of art as a tool for peacebuilding.

Artivism combines art and activism to address social issues, using creative expression as a tool to inspire change. Art helps stimulate reflection, raise awareness, foster empathy and inspire action. In Africa’s diverse cultural landscape, artivism plays an important role in drawing attention to pressing issues such as climate change, human rights and social justice.

Read more

CIVICUS discusses recent protests following the Indonesian government’s attempt to change election rules with Alvin Nicola, Democratic Governance Program Manager at Transparency International Indonesia (TII). As part of the Transparency International network, TII works to expose corruption and hold those in power to account.

Protests erupted in August 2024 after outgoing President Joko Widodo’s ruling coalition attempted to change the electoral law to lower the minimum age for political candidates. The move, seen as an attempt to benefit Widodo’s son Kaesang Pangarep, came in defiance of a recent Constitutional Court ruling. Protests were held in several cities, including the capital, Jakarta, where police arrested protesters and used teargas and water cannon to disperse crowds.

Read more

CIVICUS discusses the recent Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) meeting in Tonga with Jacynta Fa’amau, Pacific Campaigner at 350.org, a global civil society organisation campaigning for climate action.

Representatives from 18 countries gathered in Tonga for the 53rd PIF Leaders Meeting from 26 to 30 August, seeking to address issues including the climate crisis, socio-economic challenges and political conflict in New Caledonia. A key agenda item was securing funding for the Pacific Resilience Facility, a climate finance mechanism aimed at supporting communities affected by climate change. Civil society called on Australia, the world’s third largest fossil fuel exporter and a co-founder of the Forum, to demonstrate real climate leadership by phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable energy.

Read more

CIVICUS discusses Austria’s parliamentary election with Andreas Kranebitter, Director of the Documentation Centre of the Austrian Resistance research institute (DÖW).

Austria’s far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ) is gaining significant support ahead of the election on 29 September. Its poll numbers have jumped from 20 to 30 per cent, making it the most popular party. The FPÖ’s rise follows its deepening of anti-establishment rhetoric, including opposition to COVID-19 measures and scepticism about support for Ukraine. It has also adopted culture-war tactics that target transgender people and migrants and refugees. Despite past scandals, it appears poised for electoral success.

Read more

CIVICUS discusses the upcoming election of new members of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council with Madeleine Sinclair, New York Office Director and Legal Counsel at the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR).

The Human Rights Council plays a crucial role in addressing global human rights issues and serves as a platform for activists and victims of violations. Its 47 members represent different regional groups. In October, 19 states will stand for 18 seats, with the Asia-Pacific region the only group with more candidates than seats. Many of the candidates have poor human rights records, and one – Saudi Arabia – stands out for its extremely serious rights violations. Civil society calls on UN member states to reject Saudi Arabia’s candidacy and uphold human rights standards when selecting members of the UN’s top human rights body.

Read more

CIVICUS discusses the state of civic space with Gina Romero, United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.

In her first report as rapporteur, Romero highlights the harmful effects of the growing stigmatising rhetoric against civil society. The report warns that this trend could lead to an increase in human rights violations and impunity, and an erosion of civic space and democracy. It urges governments to take steps to fulfil their obligation to create an environment that protects and promotes the exercise of fundamental civic freedoms.

Read more

CIVICUS discusses far-right successes in recent regional elections in Germany with Viktoria Kamuf, research associate at the Institute for Democracy and Civil Society, a research organisation based in the German state of Thuringia.

The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party made significant gains in state elections in Saxony and Thuringia on 1 September. In Thuringia, the AfD won over 32 per cent of the vote, overtaking the Christian Democrats (CDU) and becoming the first far-right party to win the most seats in a state election since the Second World War. In Saxony, the AfD almost matched the CDU with around 31 per cent of the vote. The results signal growing support for nationalist, anti-immigrant policies in eastern Germany. Other parties have ruled out forming coalitions with the AfD, but even if excluded from government it will have political influence.

Read more

CIVICUS discusses online disinformation and hate speech, and the role of civil society in combating them, with Imran Ahmed, founder and CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).

CCDH is an international civil society organisation dedicated to combating online disinformation and hate and holding social media companies accountable for their role in perpetuating them. As a result of its work to expose harmful content on X/Twitter, it was unsuccessfully sued by the platform’s owner, Elon Musk.

Read more

CIVICUS discusses the recently approved United Nations (UN) Cybercrime Convention with Pavlina Pavlova, a cyber policy expert and a #ShareTheMicInCyber fellow at New America, who took part in the negotiations.

After three years of negotiations, on 8 August UN member states agreed by consensus a draft Convention on Cybercrime, which now goes to the UN General Assembly for adoption. Civil society and technology companies warn that the convention’s broad scope and lack of human rights safeguards could expand surveillance, threaten privacy, restrict freedom of expression and enable government repression. Many in civil society see the convention as the result of concerted Russian efforts to shift global online norms in a more authoritarian direction, while the convention’s supporters believe it will harmonise global efforts and align the cybercrime laws and investigatory police powers of states.

Read more

CIVICUS discusses the recently approved United Nations (UN) Cybercrime Convention with Deborah Brown, deputy director of the Technology, Rights and Investigations division of Human Rights Watch, who took part in the negotiations.

After three years of negotiations, on 8 August UN member states agreed by consensus a draft Convention on Cybercrime, which now goes to the UN General Assembly for adoption. Civil society and technology companies warn that the convention’s broad scope and lack of human rights safeguards could expand surveillance, threaten privacy, restrict freedom of expression and enable government repression. Many in civil society see the convention as the result of concerted Russian efforts to shift global online norms in a more authoritarian direction, while the convention’s supporters believe it will harmonise global efforts and align the cybercrime laws and investigatory police powers of states.

Read more

CIVICUS discusses a ban on protests in Ghana with Eunice Agbenyadzi, Head of Programmes at STAR-Ghana Foundation, a Ghanaian civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes active citizenship and supports civil society to engage with government.

A Ghanaian High Court banned protests planned in the capital, Accra, between 31 July and 6 August, at the request of the police, who cited a lack of available officers due to election-related duties. Civil society groups had planned demonstrations against corruption and the high cost of living, and expected more than two million people to take part. Protests against rising prices and bad governance have taken place in several African countries recently, often facing harsh repression.

Read more

CIVICUS speaks with Nicola Haskins, a choreographer, dancer and lecturer at South Africa’s Tshwane University of Technology Performing Arts Dance Stream, about her approach to climate activism through the arts.

Artivism combines art and activism to address social issues, using creative expression as a tool to inspire change. Art helps stimulate reflection, raise awareness, foster empathy and inspire action. In Africa’s diverse cultural landscape, artivism plays an important role in drawing attention to pressing issues such as climate change, human rights and social justice.

Read more

CIVICUS discusses the human rights situation in Azerbaijan as the country prepares to host the COP29 climate summit with Emin Huseynov, an Azerbaijani journalist and human rights activist in exile. Emin was forced to flee the country and stripped of his citizenship, and has been living in political exile since 2015. He’s the lead campaigner for the Climate Observers Partnership, a coalition of local and international civil society organisations (CSOs) raising awareness about the situation in Azerbaijan.

CIVICUS discusses the role of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) and the implications of the agency’s new leadership with Juressa Lee, Deep-Sea Mining Campaigner at Greenpeace Aotearoa, New Zealand’s national office of the global environmental organisation Greenpeace.

The ISA’s incoming Secretary-General, Brazilian oceanographer Leticia Carvalho, will be the first woman, oceanographer and Latin American person to lead the international organisation, which is responsible for ensuring that the marine environment is protected from the harmful effects of deep-sea mining activities. Carvalho has vowed to increase transparency and restore confidence in an agency that has been accused of mismanagement and siding with mining companies. The ISA is about to make a crucial decision on its first seabed mining licence, and civil society hopes it will apply stricter environmental standards under its new leadership.

Read more

CIVICUS discusses a new wave of closures of civil society organisations (CSOs) in Nicaragua with the team from the Central American Association for Development and Democracy (ACDD).

ACDD was formed in Costa Rica in 2021 as a continuation of the Federation Nicaraguan Network for Democracy and Local Development, a platform established in 1994, with legal personality since 2006, which was cancelled by the authorities in February 2019.

In recent weeks, the Nicaraguan government has forced a mass closure of CSOs, including foundations, schools and churches. This means over 5,500 organisations have closed since 2018. President Daniel Ortega has accused civil society and the Catholic Church of supporting opposition protests that he describes as part of a coup attempt.

Read more

CIVICUS discusses anti-corruption protests in Uganda with Mohammed Ndifuna, Executive Director of Justice Access Point (JAP), a civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes human rights and the rule of law.

Inspired by recent mass demonstrations in Kenya, young Ugandans are taking to the streets to protest against corruption. President Yoweri Museveni, in power since 1986, warned that they were ‘playing with fire’ and said their actions wouldn’t be tolerated, accusing some of working with foreigners to cause chaos. Citing their constitutional right to protest, organisers went ahead with a demonstration despite being denied a permit to march. More than a hundred protesters were arrested and there were allegations of assaults on detained protesters.

Read more

CIVICUS discusses deteriorating women’s rights in Afghanistan with Mohammad Mohmadi, the director of the Afghanistan Human Rights Center, a civil society organisation working to promote and defend human rights.

Since coming to power in August 2021, the Taliban have systematically rolled back women’s rights, banning girls from education beyond 11-to-12 years old and stopping women working, being in public places or leaving their homes without a male guardian. The latest restrictions include a ban on women speaking in public. The international community has condemned these measures, but western governments have struggled to take effective action and some have continued to maintain informal diplomatic relations with the Taliban. Human rights groups are calling for a stronger global response to support Afghan women and hold the Taliban to account.

What are the main challenges women face under Taliban rule?

Since the Taliban regained power in 2021, women have faced immense challenges. They have been denied education, employment, healthcare and even the basic freedom to move around independently.

The Taliban’s latest decrees have placed even more restrictions on Afghan women. Women aren’t allowed to take part in any activities outside their homes. They cannot go to beauty salons or parks, or attend public recreation areas. They must cover their faces and bodies completely to avoid being seen by men and cannot speak, sing or read aloud in public. The Taliban have effectively silenced women’s voices, which can now only be heard in the home.

This systematic persecution of women is a clear manifestation of gender apartheid. Women’s status as human beings has been degraded. The deeply condescending and deplorable language of the new Law for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice is simply unacceptable by any standard in the 21st century. It’s also a major setback for Afghanistan, which for 20 years made significant progress towards equality, often at great personal and collective sacrifice.

How have the latest restrictions further affected the daily lives of Afghan women?

These new restrictive measures added another layer of oppression to the already long list of restrictions Afghan women face. This relentless attack on their rights affects their personal and social lives and their mental health, putting them under immense psychological pressure as they struggle to comply with the new laws.

In addition to these restrictions, women are subject to increased surveillance. The new law gives authority to Sharia inspectors to enforce provisions that go beyond previous rules and regulations. For example, the definition of hijab requires women to cover all parts of their body, hide their face to prevent sedition and restricts women’s voices. It’s not just about Sharia inspectors – there’s a whole infrastructure of control over women freedoms. Drivers are forbidden from providing services to women travelling alone and transport companies are forbidden from assisting them, making it almost impossible for women to leave their homes without risking punishment. Even women who are allowed to work in sectors such as education and health face challenges when it comes to transportation and communications as well as discrimination and abuses such as discrimination in payments and salaries.

But Afghan women are showing extraordinary courage in the face of oppression. Since the beginning, they’ve bravely stepped forward to demand their rights and freedoms, although they’ve felt abandoned by the international community and some parts of the Afghan population. But many Afghans stood with them, showing solidarity even at risk to their lives.

Resistance has taken various forms, including protests in provinces such as Balkh, Herat, Kabul, Parwan and Takhar, where people have rallied against the Taliban’s restrictions. Social media has become a means of amplifying women’s voices, as they have turned to online platforms to protest against the restrictions and run awareness campaigns. International forums, written articles and reports, clandestine educational networks and online schooling systems have also been crucial in resisting the Taliban’s policies.

How do these restrictions affect the work of civil society?

Under Taliban rule, the work of civil society and human rights organisations has become almost impossible. We were already working in a difficult environment, with restrictions on employing women and carrying out basic activities, but the situation has continued to worsen. The dismantling of key institutions, such as the Afghanistan Human Rights Commission and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, has severely undermined efforts to promote and protect human rights.

Some organisations have attempted to continue their work from abroad, using resources within Afghanistan, but the current circumstances are extremely restrictive and dangerous. These new restrictive measures have further reduced the already limited space for these organisations, severely affecting their logistical and operational capabilities. It has become almost impossible to engage with communities, particularly women, leaving little or no space to address human rights issues. Those working in the field now face extreme risks.

What should the international community do to support women’s rights in Afghanistan?

The international community must act decisively against gender apartheid. The time for statements and declarations is over. We need strong action. For three years, the Taliban have systematically violated the rights of half the population and committed widespread human rights abuses. The recent meeting in Doha, which many hoped would lead to progress, instead resulted in the Taliban imposing an even more repressive law.

The international community must take a more united and decisive approach. It must implement the recommendations of the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, Richard Bennett, and use all available tools and mechanisms, including accountability measures, judicial procedures and sanctions, to hold Taliban leaders to account and end their tyranny.

The UN Human Rights Council and the international community have a responsibility to refer the case of Afghanistan to the UN Security Council, possibly leading to action by the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. Universal jurisdiction should be exercised and resources made available to prosecute those responsible for human rights abuses.

The international community must avoid engaging with the Taliban and should instead increase its support for civil society and human rights organisations, as well as women’s education, both inside and outside Afghanistan. The Taliban’s use of social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to spread propaganda and intimidate women must also be investigated and sanctioned.

The international community has a critical role to play in supporting Afghanistan’s transition to democracy. This includes ensuring the active participation of civil society in shaping Afghanistan’s future, promoting political freedoms and helping to build a legitimate economy that provides security for all Afghans.

While Afghans are determined to fight for their rights and freedoms, they need the support of the international community to reduce the costs of this struggle.

Civic space in Afghanistan is rated ‘closed’’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

CIVICUS discusses a recent court victory that held multinational banana company Chiquita accountable for human rights violations in Colombia with Gabriela Valentín Díaz, a member of the EarthRights International legal team that represented victims in the case.

After 17 years of litigation, a Florida court recently found Chiquita responsible for funding the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), a paramilitary group responsible for numerous massacres that was declared a terrorist organisation by the US government. The court awarded US$38 million in damages to the families of eight victims involved in the lawsuits. The verdict was an important step forward in civil society’s efforts to hold corporations legally accountable for human rights abuses. Many more cases are expected to follow.

What was Chiquita found liable for?

The jury concluded that Chiquita Brands International, a major banana company with farms in Colombia, didn’t act like a ‘reasonable business person’ when it chose to fund the AUC.

The AUC was a violent, far-right paramilitary group that was active during Colombia’s 50-year civil war. It was known for its many human rights abuses, including killings, massacres, kidnappings and forced displacement. This had a devastating impact on Colombian society, particularly in areas where large companies operated.

Despite being aware of the AUC’s violent activities, Chiquita regularly paid them for years in exchange for what were described as ‘security services’. Although Chiquita claimed to have been forced to make the payments, the jury concluded that the testimony revealed they were not simply a response to extortion, but were made voluntarily. This financial support contributed to the AUC’s violent actions, resulting in numerous deaths and atrocities, and was found to have contributed to the deaths of the victims represented in the trial.

Why is this ruling important?

This ruling has important implications beyond the Chiquita case. For many Colombians, it confirms that Chiquita exploited the civil conflict and exacerbated the violence by financially supporting the AUC. Globally, the verdict serves as a warning that multinational companies can be held accountable for their complicity in human rights abuses, even when those abuses occur outside their home country.

How should the Colombian justice system respond to similar cases of human rights violations?

Colombia has taken steps to address crimes committed during its long civil conflict, including the establishment of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace and other transitional justice systems. These efforts aim to establish the truth and provide justice. However, we also support the demands of Colombian civil society that corporate actors should also be held accountable for their role in fuelling social conflict in Colombia.

To address this, the Colombian justice system should focus on investigating companies that played a role in human rights abuses. If these companies are found guilty of supporting or profiting from violence, they should face the same legal consequences as other perpetrators. This approach would help ensure that justice is comprehensive and includes all responsible parties, not just armed groups and individuals.

What can be done to hold companies accountable for the human rights impacts of their operations?

In many countries such as the USA, corporate laws are designed primarily to maximise profits, often at the expense of people and communities. The emphasis on profit can lead to serious harms being ignored or minimised. This must change. Governments around the world must prioritise human rights when regulating business. Rather than letting them hide behind complicated legal tactics, governments should require companies to respect human rights and hold them accountable for any harm they cause.

International organisations can play a crucial role. They can serve as platforms for bringing cases against companies that violate human rights. By sharing information and building international support, these organisations can help hold these companies to account. Accountability ensures that companies are not allowed to ignore the human impact of their actions in the pursuit of profit.

Civic space in Colombia is rated ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with EarthRights International through its website or Instagram page, and follow @EarthRightsIntl and @gpvalentind on Twitter.

CIVICUS discusses restrictions on civil society activism in Timor-Leste with human rights activist Nelson Roldão.

In Timor-Leste, activists organising solidarity protests for the right to self-determination and against human rights abuses in West Papua – a region under Indonesian rule with a long-running independence movement – are facing increasing hostility. Ahead of Pope Francis’s visit on 9 September, the government has banned all protests related to West Papua, describing them as a threat to national security, apparently under pressure from the Indonesian government. In this context, on 2 September, Nelson was arrested and briefly detained at the national airport and threatened by intelligence officers.

How did you get involved in activism on West Papua?

I have been involved in solidarity actions for West Papua since 2016, after meeting activists from the region. I sympathised with the plight of West Papua, the Republic of South Maluku and the Republic of Aceh because of the history of Indonesian military aggression against civilians and the tragedies in these regions.

The freedom of people in these regions has been restricted by the Indonesian military, which has often intimidated people who have protested against the seizure of their land. The Indonesian military has also continued to terrorise people by forcibly abducting and killing human rights activists. The people of Timor-Leste experienced this when we were occupied by Indonesia, until the military regime of President Suharto fell in 1999.

That’s why I’ve been involved in solidarity actions for those who still live under colonialism. I am part of a coalition of student movements, youth movements, human rights defenders and victims of past abuses who stand firmly in solidarity with the people of West Papua.

How are you working for the West Papuan cause?

We have been lobbying foreign activists to support the West Papuan struggle, writing about events in West Papua, showing films and holding press conferences and seminars. We have also organised protests in front of the Indonesian embassy with other international solidarity activists, and we maintain direct contact with friends from various organisations in West Papua, as well as in other parts of the world, so we coordinate our actions with them.

Why were you arrested?

Ahead of the Pope’s visit to Timor-Leste from 9 to 11 September, restrictions were placed on all protests in solidarity with West Papua. These restrictions are unconstitutional because they contradict articles 10 and 40 of the constitution, on the right to solidarity and the right to freedom of expression. The authorities are failing to fulfil their obligations under the constitution and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, which Timor-Leste has ratified. Instead, they appear to be doing the bidding of the Indonesian authorities.

In this context, on 2 September I went to Nicolau Lobato International Airport to accompany a West Papuan friend who was returning to Indonesia. As he passed through immigration, I noticed intelligence officers were watching me. As I was walking back to my motorbike outside the airport, the intelligence officers stopped me because I was carrying a ‘freedom bag’, a sign of solidarity with West Papua. As they began to interrogate me, I realised that they were aware of my frequent solidarity activities for West Papua. Then one of the officers suddenly pulled out a gun and pointed it at me. They also kicked me until a border agency commander intervened.

What happened when you were detained?

I was detained at the Border Force office at the airport so that they could check and identify the equipment I was carrying, including the West Papuan independence flag and bag, T-shirts and the banners we had made to protest against home evictions in the capital, Dili, ahead of the Pope’s visit. They accused me of smuggling goods from abroad, of trying to escape and of planning to organise a demonstration as the Pope arrived.

After being detained for two hours at the airport and interrogated by border agents and the intelligence services, I was taken to the office of the Timor-Leste Kaikoli Command, and then to the office of the Criminal Investigation Directorate at the Police Command Centre, where I spent two hours and 15 minutes giving further information to the police investigators before they released me and told me to go home. They confiscated the banners and T-shirts for our West Papua solidarity actions and told me to come and collect them the next day. They also told me not to wear any symbols of solidarity with West Papua or hold protests around the Pope’s visit.

What are your hopes for West Papua?

We hope we’ll be able to continue to call for solidarity with West Papuan activists, students and Indigenous people, and to fight together for the liberation of the West Papuan people from Indonesian militarist aggression. We also hope the United Nations will undertake a visit to West Papua to monitor the situation.

West Papua’s forests, known as the lungs of the world, are being destroyed by the Indonesian military. An area of 29 million hectares has disappeared and Indigenous Papuan people have become refugees in their own land, with 80,000 displaced in conflict zones in West Papua. The international community must guarantee the West Papuan people’s right to self-determination.

Civic space in Timor-Leste is rated ‘narrowed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

CIVICUS discusses the challenges for civil society in Zimbabwe with Tapiwanashe Chiriga, Advocacy and Communications Officer at Heal Zimbabwe Trust, a local human rights organisation.

The Zimbabwean government stepped up its repression in the run-up to the Southern African Development Community (SADC) summit, which it hosted in the capital, Harare, on 17 August. Over 160 people, including opposition leaders, have been arrested since June, with many facing torture and harassment. In early August, masked men tried to break into the offices of a leading civil rights group. The crackdown was aimed at quelling any protests ahead of the summit, where President Emmerson Mnangagwa took over the SADC chair. Despite the growing repression in Zimbabwe, visiting regional leaders remained largely silent.

What’s the state of civic space in Zimbabwe?

Civil society in Zimbabwe is operating under increasingly repressive conditions. Government officials often use intimidation, surveillance and defamation against civil society organisations (CSOs). Local government offices, particularly in rural areas, are being used to impose administrative and legal restrictions that target groups and people that criticise the ruling party or advocate for human rights.

This hostile environment poses significant challenges to our human rights work, particularly when trying to access some of the local communities we support. The ruling party often uses local traditional leaders to intimidate others who collaborate with us, and we have also faced harassment from people suspected of being state security agents. These tactics make it difficult for us to work freely and effectively.

Did restrictions increase in the run-up to the SADC summit?

Yes, they did. President Mnangagwa’s government deliberately stepped up its efforts to stifle any form of opposition or dissent as he prepared to take over the chair of the SADC bloc.

In a bid to prevent potential protests during the summit, the government arrested, abducted and detained civil society activists, particularly those campaigning for democratic reforms. This increased repression, intimidation and surveillance, and combined with the use of outright threats, created a climate of fear among activists, human rights defenders and citizens as a whole.

The government is using a strategy of widespread intimidation to silence pro-democracy voices and prevent them drawing regional and international attention to Zimbabwe’s human rights abuses.

Were you able to use the summit to raise your demands at the regional level?

Unfortunately, I was unable to engage with SADC leaders or other influential figures during the summit due to serious security threats. After receiving explicit threats from state security agents who made it clear they intended to arrest and possibly harm me, I was forced to go into hiding. This situation severely limited my ability to participate and raise the critical issues we had hoped to address.

As a result, many pressing concerns about the increasing restrictions on civil society in Zimbabwe were not raised at the regional forum. The response of regional leaders to the escalating repression of civil society in Zimbabwe has been markedly inadequate. Some SADC members have been very reluctant to confront the Zimbabwean government directly over its human rights abuses, undermining any regional efforts to support democracy and uphold civic freedoms. This weak regional response leaves many critical issues unaddressed and the struggles of those advocating for democratic reform remain largely ignored.

What should the international community do to promote democracy and human rights in Zimbabwe?

The international community needs to take a more proactive approach to addressing the deepening crisis in Zimbabwe and drawing attention to the systemic abuses taking place in the country. This requires moving beyond the occasional incidents that make international headlines and instead making a concerted effort to hold the Zimbabwean government to account. United Nations agencies, development partners and other global organisations should actively challenge the government and use diplomatic pressure to urge it to uphold human rights standards.

In addition to diplomatic efforts, it’s crucial to provide human rights defenders and organisations in Zimbabwe with the resources and training they need to strengthen their advocacy efforts and help them raise public awareness of citizens’ rights and constitutional protections.

Finally, the international community should push for independent investigations into human rights abuses and use diplomatic and economic pressure to ensure accountability. By adopting this comprehensive approach, the international community can more effectively address the crisis and support those working to uphold human rights in Zimbabwe.

Civic space in Zimbabwe is rated ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with Heal Zimbabwe Trust through its website or Facebook page and follow @HealZim and @tapiwa_chiriga on Twitter.

CIVICUS discusses the crackdown on civil society in Togo with a human rights defender who asked to stay anonymous for security reasons.

Political tensions in Togo have increased following the recent adoption of constitutional changes. Under the new parliamentary system, the president will be elected by parliament rather than popular vote, and a powerful new post of President of the Council of Ministers will be created. Suspicions are that the changes will enable President Faure Gnassingbé to stay in power. Gnassingbé has ruled Togo since 2005, when he took over from his father, who’d seized power in a 1967 coup. The government has banned protests against the changes, disrupted civil society meetings, arbitrarily arrested and detained protesters and suspended and deported journalists for covering the unrest.

What are the main constitutional changes and why have the political opposition and civil society objected to them?

On 25 March, Togo’s National Assembly adopted a new constitution that dramatically changes the country’s governance from a presidential to a parliamentary system. The changes were not put to a referendum, but were decided through opaque legislative procedures. The main changes are the abolition of direct presidential elections and the creation of the powerful role of President of the Council of Ministers. Similar to a prime minister, this president is elected by parliament for a six-year term that can be extended indefinitely if he retains majority support. This removes the two-term limit imposed by the 2019 constitution, which was introduced after massive public protests.

The new constitution sparked widespread controversy and came amid an already tense political climate, with parliamentary and regional elections originally scheduled for 13 April repeatedly postponed while lawmakers debated the constitutional changes. Political parties, civil society organisations (CSOs), the Catholic Church and part of the population see it as an attempt by the ruling family to cling to power, as the amendments would extend the 19-year presidency of Faure Gnassingbé and the 57-year dynastic rule of the Gnassingbé family.

We strongly condemn the adoption of the new constitution and the lack of transparency in the process. This is a constitutional coup that restricts citizens’ political rights, exacerbates political instability and undermines democratic governance.

What reforms are needed to ensure genuine multi-party democracy in Togo?

First, it’s crucial to restore direct presidential elections based on universal suffrage, because the electoral system should truly reflect the will of the people. But a president shouldn’t be allowed to rule indefinitely, so it’s also crucial to reintroduce term limits for the president and other key officials to prevent the concentration of power and promote accountability.

In addition, an independent electoral commission should be established to restore public confidence in a system that’s now perceived to be biased in favour of the ruling party. This commission should oversee all electoral processes and ensure they are free, fair and transparent.

It is also key to ensure equal access to campaign resources for all political parties. Fair media coverage and campaign financing would contribute to a more competitive and representative electoral process. It is equally important to strengthen legal safeguards. All parties should be allowed to operate freely without interference or fear of persecution and violence from state authorities.

We need to increase civic participation. Reforms should facilitate platforms for CSOs to engage in political debate. We must support grassroots movements with resources and training to help them mobilise people and educate them about democratic principles and their rights.

Togolese civil society is already pushing for these changes. Groups such as ‘Touche pas à ma constitution’ (‘Don’t touch my constitution’) are organising protests, raising awareness and holding community meetings to educate people and challenge the new constitution. They have also filed complaints with regional bodies such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), calling for the annulment of the new constitution and the restoration of democratic norms. CSOs and democratic political parties are presenting a united front to demand democratic reforms. 

How has the government responded to the protests?

The government has responded to the protests with a heavy-handed approach aimed at silencing dissent. Many opposition leaders and activists have been arrested. On 26 March, law enforcement and security forces banned two press conferences organised by political parties and CSOs on the grounds that the organisers didn’t have proper permits. This was a clear attempt by the government to stifle opposition voices. On 3 April, nine leaders of the political opposition party Dynamique Mgr Kpodzro were also arrested for ‘disturbing public order’. They were released six days later.

The use of violence, a hallmark of the Gnassingbé regime, has created a climate of fear. Anyone who takes part in opposition activities is framed as a criminal who threatens public order and is prosecuted. This has a chilling effect on civil society activism. Many people are afraid of being arrested or violently attacked if they engage in political discourse or take part in protests. This criminalisation undermines our ability to mobilise effectively and advocate for democratic reform.

With our freedoms of expression and assembly severely curtailed, we’ve found it increasingly difficult to organise events, hold press conferences or communicate our messages without interference from security forces. This has increasingly isolated us from the wider public. The crackdown on dissent has undermined public trust in both the government and CSOs, as people become disillusioned with the political process and the weak foundations of democracy.

How can the international community help address the suppression of civic freedoms in Togo?

The international community can play a key role by applying diplomatic pressure and supporting democratic reforms. Public condemnations and resolutions by international bodies such as the United Nations and the African Union can help highlight these issues and push for necessary changes. International bodies and representatives should engage directly with Togolese officials to address concerns.

They should also support local civil society by providing funding, resources and training. This support is essential to strengthen CSOs’ capacity to advocate for democracy and human rights, and to mobilise and empower people.

Independent monitoring and reporting mechanisms are essential to assess the political situation, ensure transparency in the upcoming elections and document human rights violations. If violations continue, the international community should consider sanctioning key officials and making development aid and assistance conditional on respect for democratic principles and human rights. This can serve as an incentive for the government to undertake meaningful reforms.

ECOWAS is also in a position to mediate between the government, the opposition and local civil society to promote a more inclusive and democratic environment. At a time when democracy is in retreat in West Africa, with four countries having suffered military coups since 2020 and 15 leaders having circumvented term limits, ECOWAS must take a firm stand against unconstitutional changes such as those recently seen in Togo and send a clear message that power grabs won’t be tolerated.

Civic space in Togo is rated ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

CIVICUS discusses the state of civic space and justice in Guatemala with former anti-corruption prosecutor Virginia Laparra.

Virginia recently went into exile after spending two years in prison for a case brought against her in retaliation for her work. She received a five-year sentence, which she condemned as arbitrary. As a prosecutor, she led important investigations into corruption cases. This put her in the crosshairs of a judicial system that had become a guarantor of impunity. While in prison, she suffered violations of her fundamental rights and medical negligence. Her case is part of a pattern of repression that has forced over 50 human rights defenders and members of the Guatemalan judiciary into exile.

What circumstances forced you to leave Guatemala?

For 16 years I worked in the Guatemalan Public Prosecutor’s Office as a prosecutor for crimes against life, property crimes, violence against women, crimes against minors, drug trafficking, financial and tax crimes and customs smuggling. This experience helped me to train in different areas and this is how my career as a prosecutor took shape.

As time went on, I took on more and more responsibility, becoming head of various units and offices, including the Permanent Attention Office, which deals with complaints and classifies information received by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. I was also in charge of the regional headquarters of the Office of the Special Prosecutor against Impunity, which worked hand in hand with the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala on cases of organised crime and corruption.

My work didn’t go unnoticed. Starting in 2017, I received threats and was subjected to smear campaigns in the government-controlled media. Persecution included arbitrary judicial proceedings and an attempt to put my case in the hands of judges known for their ties to corruption. Finally, I was arrested in an illegal and arbitrary procedure and sent to prison, where I suffered torture, human rights violations and prolonged solitary confinement.

I received the support of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which issued several resolutions in my favour, and I was declared a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International. But the Guatemalan state ignored these demands. I spent two years in prison, and when I was released in January, threats intensified. In the absence of guarantees for my safety, I took the difficult decision to leave my country to preserve my life and freedom.

Fortunately, in exile I have found new ways to contribute to the promotion of justice and human rights in Latin America by working with international and local organisations. Above all, I’m satisfied with the work I did in Guatemala and proud to have contributed to justice.

What are the challenges facing human rights defenders and the judicial officials in Guatemala?

Civic space in Guatemala is in crisis. There were hopes that the government of Bernardo Arévalo, which took office in January this year, would reform the judicial system and create a more favourable environment for the administration of justice. It’s true that little time has passed, but it seems unlikely this will be achieved. The powerful interests that perpetuate corruption and impunity remain intact, and the new administration has faced strong pressures that limit its ability to implement substantial change.

Human rights defenders, members of the judiciary and politicians who support the Arévalo government face intimidation, threats, attacks and arbitrary detention. Impunity only exacerbates the risks.

Corrupt elites who have stayed in power by plundering public resources see defenders of justice as a threat to their interests and try to silence them through smear campaigns, persecution and physical violence. The exile of Thelma Aldana, Juan Francisco Sandoval and many other former members of the judiciary, human rights defenders and journalists is a stark reminder of the hostility faced by those who work for justice, transparency and accountability.

How can the international community support the fight against impunity in Guatemala?

The international community can and must play a crucial role in this fight. International platforms should highlight and condemn human rights violations. Diplomatic voices must urge the Guatemalan government to guarantee respect for human rights. It is also essential that they provide financial and technical support to local civil society organisations.

The international community should support the fight against corruption and impunity in Guatemala and coordinate its efforts to ensure it has deep and lasting impact. They must help protect human rights defenders and ensure the justice system is not used as a weapon to stifle dissent.

Civic space in Guatemala is rated as ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

CIVICUS discusses the recent wave of protests against gender-based violence (GBV) in India with Dr Kavitha Ravi, a member of the Indian Medical Association (IMA).

Protests erupted across India after a 31-year-old female medical trainee was raped and murdered in a Kolkata hospital on 9 August. The IMA called a strike, with protests held in major cities including Kolkata and Mumbai. While the official strike has ended, many doctors, particularly junior doctors, remain on strike and protests continue to demand justice, accountability and safer working conditions for women.

What triggered the recent protests against GBV in India?

Protests erupted after the tragic rape and murder of a young female doctor at the R G Kar Medical College in Kolkata on 9 August. This horrific incident shocked the nation and sparked widespread outrage. In response, a coalition of doctors, medical associations such as the IMA and various resident and faculty associations joined together in a nationwide strike to demand justice for the victim and better safety measures for health workers, particularly women who face significant risks in the workplace.

Protesters are calling for major reforms, including the adoption of a Hospital Protection Act, which would designate hospitals as safe zones and introduce measures to create a safer environment for health workers. Their demands are part of a larger movement to comprehensively address GBV, prevent similar tragedies in the future and create a safer and more supportive working environment for everyone in the health sector.

What steps have been taken so far to ensure justice and the safety of female health workers?

The judicial system has acted swiftly by transferring the case to a higher authority to ensure a thorough investigation after concerns were raised about the police’s initial inquiry, which was not accepted by the students or the victim’s family. They were sceptical, believing the police might be favouring the college authorities and supporting the accused.

This decision aims to ensure a detailed investigation so justice can be done. The Supreme Court of India is also overseeing the case to monitor its progress, address any issues that may arise and ensure all necessary steps are taken to uphold justice.

In parallel, several initiatives are underway to improve the safety of female health workers. The Ministry of Health has proposed establishing a committee to review and improve safety protocols in health facilities. There are also plans to increase security in hospitals and establish a new national taskforce dedicated to improving safety through better infrastructure, advanced technology and additional security measures. However, despite these efforts, more needs to be done to combat GBV and ensure that these measures effectively protect female health workers.

How have the authorities responded to the protests?

The authorities have taken a mixed approach to the nationwide strike, combining concessions with new measures to address immediate concerns. The Health Ministry has drawn up a detailed plan to increase security in central government hospitals. This includes installing high-resolution CCTV cameras, monitoring access points with identification badges, deploying trained security personnel for constant patrolling and securing duty rooms for female staff. Hospitals are also encouraged to develop and regularly update emergency response plans and conduct mock drills.

In response to these measures, the IMA suspended its strike. However, other doctors’ associations have continued to protest for more substantial reforms. Many people remain dissatisfied, particularly after recent incidents of police violence. While the Supreme Court’s intervention may have temporarily eased the tensions, protesters remain concerned about the new measures’ effectiveness and full implementation.

Why is GBV so prevalent in India, and what’s being done about it?

Deep-rooted cultural, social, economic and legal factors account for the high prevalence of GBV in India. This is a patriarchal country where traditional gender roles and the subjugation of women are deeply entrenched. Women tend to be economically dependent on men, which traps them in abusive relationships that make it difficult for them to seek help or escape. Intergenerational cycles of violence perpetuate the problem, as children who witness or experience abuse may come to see such behaviour as normal.

Low literacy rates, particularly in rural areas, further limit women’s understanding of their rights and the available support. When they do seek justice, the system often fails to protect the victims or hold perpetrators accountable. Systemic failures in law enforcement and justice help perpetuate GBV.

Many initiatives and campaigns have helped highlight and address this issue. But it has not been easy. A lack of consistent political will and weak implementation of policies have hindered substantial change. Feminist and social justice movements often face resistance from conservative parts of society, making it difficult to change these deeply entrenched cultural norms.

To combat GBV effectively, we need a comprehensive approach that includes better education, legal reform, economic empowerment and cultural change. Civil society organisations are at the forefront of this fight, actively advocating for stronger laws, better enforcement and increased public awareness. Continued and robust efforts are essential to address this widespread problem and ensure meaningful change.

Civic space in India is rated ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with the Indian Medical Association through its website or Facebook page, and follow @IMAIndiaOrg on Twitter.

CIVICUS discusses the ‘anti-NGO law’ recently passed in Venezuela with Alí Daniels, Co-Director of Acceso a la Justicia, a civil society organisation (CSO) dedicated to monitoring justice administration and the rule of law in Venezuela.

On 15 August, Venezuela’s National Assembly approved a bill known as the ‘anti-NGO law’, which severely restricts freedom of association. The law requires CSOs to declare the origin of their funding, imposes strict reporting obligations, including a requirement to provide sensitive information, and bans organisations deemed to promote ‘fascism, intolerance and hatred’. The measure, proposed some time ago, was finally adopted after the 28 July presidential election, which the opposition won by a large margin. The government has ignored the results, violently suppressed democracy protests and sought to stifle all sources of dissent.

What’s the anti-NGO law, and what’s its place within the ruling regime’s repressive machinery?

This new law has been presented as an instrument to regulate the exercise of freedoms of association and expression, when in fact it seeks to hinder it. One third of its 39 articles contain severe sanctions such as fines, deregistration, expulsion of foreigners and the dissolution of organisations. Although it claims to seek greater transparency and accountability, it contains only two articles on this issue, which was already regulated by the Civil Code.

One of the most worrying aspects of the new law is that it obliges CSOs to reregister within 180 days and could leave them in legal limbo if they don’t receive a response from the authorities. It also imposes annual reviews, creating an unnecessary administrative burden even for those lacking financial resources.

The anti-NGO law is part of a long-standing strategy of repression that includes human rights violations such as enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions and extrajudicial executions. It’s another cog in a repressive machine that includes measures such as revoking the passports of human rights defenders and activists, illegal surveillance of phones and social media and censorship of platforms such as WhatsApp and Twitter/X. Senior government officials have already labelled us terrorists, encouraging and justifying the intensification of repression.

The anti-NGO law can also be seen as a response to international pressure questioning the legitimacy of the 28 July election. With it, the government is doubling down on its willingness to punish anyone who questions its legitimacy.

What impact could this law have?

We are very concerned that the new law is very similar to Nicaragua’s, which in just one year has led to more than 3,000 CSOs being made illegal.

In the medium term, the new law could have a serious impact on the humanitarian situation. The new restrictions could lead to a reduction in the number of CSOs, while those that still operate may be forced to reduce their capacity to implement projects. Many CSOs may end up opting to become informal groups. While this would reduce costs, it would also limit their ability to receive funding, as donors often prefer to work with formal legal entities.

The damage this could cause is not limited to CSOs – it also affects the people who depend on their services. For political reasons, the Venezuelan government adopts contradictory positions: it forces bankrupt companies to keep operating, allegedly to ‘protect jobs’, but it dissolves CSOs for failing to pay a fine. It claims to protect jobs, but dissolves organisations that create jobs in the humanitarian field.

The anti-NGO law is designed to limit the independence of civil society, allowing only likeminded CSOs to operate. The government wants a civil society that’s aligned with its interests, tamed and silent.

How is civil society working for a democratic transition in Venezuela?

In a context marked by censorship of political expression and press freedom, Venezuelan civil society is playing a crucial role in the struggle for a democratic transition. In the face of restrictions on political parties and government control of the media, CSOs have become reliable sources of information, providing an alternative analysis to the official narrative. We provide data the government would rather hide, such as the rise in child malnutrition. We show reality as it is, and that’s why they want to suppress us.

CSOs act as monitors and whistleblowers, offering critical analysis and proposing alternatives for Venezuela’s future. We advocate for dialogue and a negotiated transition, but we also set clear ethical and legal boundaries to ensure those responsible for crimes against humanity are brought to justice.

How can the international community support civil society in Venezuela?

The international community can help us keep what is happening in Venezuela in the global debate by echoing our condemnation of human rights violations and crimes against humanity. This is extremely important so those more ideologically reticent can recognise that human rights violations have no ideology and torture is unacceptable and must be condemned and punished no matter who commits it.

It’s important that states with influence over the Venezuelan government, such as Brazil and Colombia, use their position to encourage dialogue. Diplomatic pressure and mediation by friendly countries could facilitate a process of negotiation and peaceful resolution. We have been facing a complex humanitarian emergency for more than two decades; any support to alleviate the crisis is greatly appreciated and will continue to give us hope and strength to face the very serious situation we are in.

Civic space in Venezuela is rated ‘closed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with Acceso a la Justicia through its website or Facebook page, and follow @AccesoaJusticia and @alijdaniels on Twitter.

CIVICUS discusses the human rights impacts of US aid to the Philippines with Cristina Palabay, Secretary General of Karapatan. Founded in 1995, Karapatan is a coalition of civil society activists and organisations working to promote and protect human rights in the Philippines.

The USA recently pledged US$500 million in military aid to the Philippines amid tensions with China. This could bolster the authoritarian government of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, already responsible for extrajudicial killings, disappearances and aerial bombing and artillery attacks on civilian areas on the basis that they’re suspected of supporting armed revolutionary movements. The additional aid, along with a proposed 51 per cent increase in the Philippines’ defence budget for 2025, heightens concerns about corruption and rights abuses.

What’s behind growing tensions between the Philippines and China, and how is the USA involved?

Growing tensions between the Philippines and China stem from territorial disputes in the West Philippine Sea, particularly over the Kalayaan archipelago and Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal). These disputes were exacerbated by the implementation of the 1994 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which grants rights to a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf, including the right to explore and exploit fisheries, petroleum and other marine resources.

On the surface, this is about the Chinese Coast Guard preventing Filipino fishermen from accessing the EEZ or confronting the Philippine Coast Guard. Behind the scenes, however, are increasing provocations by the USA as part of its broader geopolitical and military strategy in Asia. The USA seeks to maintain its influence in the region to counterbalance China’s expanding economic reach both in Asia and globally.

As well as asserting its navigational rights within the EEZ in 2023 and 2024, the USA conducted numerous joint military exercises with the Armed Forces of the Philippines aimed at countering Chinese aggression in the disputed waters. Instead of easing tensions, this is exacerbating them. These provocations threaten to overshadow legitimate claims and could undermine efforts to resolve maritime disputes between the Philippines and China peacefully.

Has the relationship between the Philippines and the USA changed since Ferdinand Marcos Jr became president?

There has been no significant change beyond the absence of the crass and offensive rhetoric associated with former President Rodrigo Duterte. The Philippines’ dependence has allowed the USA to maintain its presence and influence in the country’s national defence and security affairs, serving its economic and political interests.

The USA-Philippines 1951 Mutual Defence Treaty and the 1998 Visiting Forces Agreement are longstanding but one-sided agreements that have allowed the USA to maintain a military presence in the Philippines, despite having closed its bases in 1991 following public protests. The presence of US troops was further expanded by the 2014 Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement. Other additional bilateral defence agreements with NATO allies such as France, Germany and Japan have also bolstered the USA’s strategic position in the region.

The US position could become more aggressive if Donald Trump returns to office. This could further escalate tensions in the region, particularly over the West Philippine Sea dispute. This in turn could lead to increased US military intervention in the Philippines through existing agreements and so-called military assistance.

What is US military aid being used for, and how does it affect human rights?

On 30 July 2024, following a meeting between US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, US Secretary of Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin and Philippines’ government officials, the US government announced a US$500 million foreign military financing package for the Philippines to reinforce ‘cooperation’ on the West Philippine Sea disputes.

Since 2019, the Philippines has been the largest recipient of US military and security aid, with US$273.2 million provided over the past five years. US military aid has historically been used to support the country’s military operations, including the provision of hardware, financial assistance for acquiring military equipment and technical advisory services. In practice, however, this aid has often been used to suppress political dissent and social movements in the Philippines. The funds have been used to support air, naval and ground military operations that have resulted in bombings, detentions, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, illegal arrests and other serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.

The new US military aid comes on top of a proposed 51 per cent increase in the national defence budget for 2025, which includes a six per cent increase for the Armed Forces, a four per cent increase for the Philippine National Police, approximately US$104.4 million for the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict and US$95.4 million for the Payapa at Masaganang Pamayanan Programme, a counter-insurgency initiative for conflict-prone areas.

We believe that the so-called aid and overall increase in security and military budgets indicate a shift towards warmongering that will worsen the Philippines’ already dire human rights situation. The government is prioritising its military efforts over people’s urgent economic and social needs, even though people are struggling with rising prices, inadequate social services and lack of decent work.

How has the state of civic space evolved in recent years?

Civic space in the Philippines has narrowed significantly, with fundamental rights such as freedoms of association, expression and peaceful assembly under constant threat. Counter-terrorism laws, such as the 2020 Anti-Terrorism Act and the 2012 Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act, have further restricted humanitarian work and civil liberties. These laws were meant to target terrorism but are being used to stifle political dissent and silence civil society.

Instead of protecting rights, the anti-terrorism laws are being used to violate them, with activists falsely accused of being involved in violent conflict. So far, 37 petitions have been filed challenging the constitutionality of these laws, but the Supreme Court has largely upheld them.

To date, Karapatan has documented that at least 112 human rights defenders face criminal charges under these laws, 32 of whom are currently detained after being arbitrarily labelled as terrorists. Those arbitrarily designated as terrorists include peace consultants, Indigenous rights defenders and a community health worker.

Despite these challenges, civil society and social movements continue to resist. Our strategies include mass campaigns such as #DefendTheDefenders, which aims to educate people about fundamental rights and freedoms and denounce their erosion through the weaponisation of terror laws. We’ve also built local networks to support human rights defenders and mobilised international solidarity to amplify their voices, highlight the realities on the ground and counter the official narrative that falsely claims human rights have improved under the current government.

Civic space in the Philippines is rated ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with Karapatan through its website or Facebook page, and follow @karapatan on Twitter. Connect with Cristina on Facebook or Twitter.

Civil society is working on all fronts to tackle the climate crisis. Activists are protesting in numbers to pressure governments and corporations to cut greenhouse gas emissions. They’re using non-violent direct action and high-profile stunts, paying a heavy price as numerous states criminalise climate protest.

Campaigners are taking to the courts to hold governments and companies accountable for their climate commitments and impacts, with recent breakthroughs in Belgium, India and Switzerland, among others, and many more cases pending. They’re pressuring institutions to stop investing in fossil fuels – 72 per cent of UK universities have pledged to divest – and putting forward corporate resolutions calling for stronger action.

At the global level, activists are working to influence key meetings, particularly the COP climate summits. At the most recent summit, COP28, states agreed for the first time on the need to cut fossil fuel emissions – an incredibly belated acknowledgement, but one that came only after intensive civil society lobbying.

As pressure mounts, fossil fuel companies are looking for any way they can portray themselves as responsible corporate citizens while continuing their lethal business for as long as possible. They want to make it look as though they’re transitioning to renewable energies and cutting greenhouse gas emissions, when the opposite is true.

Read on Inter Press Service News

CIVICUS discusses LGBTQI+ rights in Bulgaria with Manuela Popova, co-director of the Bilitis Foundation, the country’s oldest active LGBTQI+ organisation.

On 7 August, Bulgaria’s parliament passed a law on education that bans ‘LGBTQI+ propaganda’ in schools. The law, proposed by the pro-Russia Vazrazhdane party, criminalises discussion of non-traditional sexual orientations and gender identities in educational settings. Despite protests in the capital, Sofia, it was passed by a significant majority. Critics argue that it violates human rights and European Union standards, and see it as a political manoeuvre designed to appeal to far-right voters at a time of great political instability.

How does the new education law define and regulate ‘LGBTQI+ propaganda’?

The recently passed law amending the Preschool and School Education refers to ‘LGBTQI+ propaganda’ in overly broad terms that serve to restrict LGBTQI+ rights. It prohibits any positive or neutral mention of LGBTQI+ identities in the education system and requires teachers and educational materials to avoid discussions that could be seen as supporting LGBTQI+ issues, particularly with minors. Educators and institutions that fail to comply with the law could face penalties.

This law is part of a disturbing regional trend seen in countries like Russia and Hungary, where similar measures are being used to push for a conservative agenda. These laws disguise the suppression of LGBTQI+ rights and visibility as measures to protect children.

What’s the situation for LGBTQI+ people in Bulgaria?

Discrimination – both legal and societal – is widespread, with limited protection against hate crimes, particularly for trans and gender non-conforming people and little to no legal recognition of diverse gender identities or same-sex relationships. This leaves many LGBTQI+ people, particularly younger people, vulnerable to stigma, harassment and violence.

We need anti-discrimination laws that explicitly cover sexual orientation and gender identity, legal recognition of same-sex partnerships and gender identity, and full protection from hate crimes. But beyond these legal changes, it’s crucial to tackle everyday stigma in education and healthcare.

What progress has LGBTQI+ activism made, and what obstacles does it face?

Despite facing strong opposition, our growing community of activists and allies has made remarkable progress in raising awareness and visibility of LGBTQI+ issues. By holding regular Pride events and working tirelessly to challenge discriminatory practices and advocate for equality, we have achieved some significant victories. For example, we succeeded in getting parliament to amend the Criminal Code to increase protection against hate crimes based on sexual orientation. This was a major victory, as it was the first time in 20 years that Bulgaria legislated in favour of LGBTQI+ rights.

However, the movement still faces significant obstacles, including widespread social conservatism, political resistance and the promotion of ‘traditional Christian values’, which are often opposed to LGBTQI+ rights. The legal and political framework also remains unstable and unsupportive, with little progress in enacting protective legislation.

The new ‘anti-LGBTQI+ propaganda’ law is likely to exacerbate these challenges. By further marginalising LGBTQI+ people, restricting our activism and criminalising the expression of LGBTQI+ identities in educational contexts, it risks increasing stigma and creating a more hostile environment for LGBTQI+ activists and LGBTQI+ people as a whole.

How are you connected to the regional and global LGBTQI+ movements and what international support do you need?

As an LGBTQI+ activist in Bulgaria, I feel deeply connected to the broader regional and global movements. These connections are vital as they allow us to share resources, exchange strategies and provide and receive solidarity in the face of growing challenges.

International support is now more important than ever. With the current unstable government in Bulgaria, there’s a real risk that far-right groups will push for even more discriminatory policies. This could include a potential ‘foreign agents’ law targeting civil society organisations and activists, particularly those working on human rights and children’s rights.

All of this could severely restrict our ability to operate, making international support essential to continue our work. Global networks can help us amplify our voices, put pressure on our government and provide moral and material support. We need allies around the world to stand with us against these regressive moves and help us protect the rights we’ve fought for and counter a political climate that is increasingly hostile to diversity and inclusion.

Civic space in Bulgaria is rated ‘narrowed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with the Bilitis Foundation through its website or Facebook page, and follow @bilitisfoundation and @mannierox on Instagram.

CIVICUS discusses the political, economic, social and human rights implications of the recent Olympic Games with UK-based academic, journalist and author David Goldblatt, whose latest book is The Games: A Global History of the Olympics.

The Olympics have long been a global celebration of sport and unity, but recent editions have sparked intense debate about their impact on human rights. While the Paris 2024 Games sought to highlight gender inclusivity, environmental initiatives and urban development, they also generated significant controversies. The exclusion of Russia and Belarus but not Israel and the displacement of people from excluded groups raised questions about consistency, fairness and respect for human rights. As the focus shifts to Los Angeles 2028, concerns remain about the lasting effects of the extensive security measures put in place for the Games.

What are the Olympics for, and why are they important?

The purpose of the Olympic Games has evolved over time. In the original model conceived by Pierre de Coubertin in the late 19th century, they were a neo-Hellenic celebration of Victorian athletic amateurism and a space for personal diplomacy among the elite. More than 120 years on, both sport and society have changed, and so has the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) vision of the Games. Today, they are a cosmopolitan celebration of humanity through sport.

Since abandoning amateurism in 1992, the IOC has linked the Games to several international issues, including support for universal human rights, international peace-making through the idea of an Olympic Truce, environmental sustainability with a focus on carbon neutrality and progressive urban development. Whether it succeeds in all these areas is another matter.

The Olympic Games have also made significant progress in terms of gender inclusiveness, as they are no longer a male-only event. In recent years, there have been particular efforts to include more women as competitors and in television coverage, with Paris 2024 the first gender-equal Olympics. However, the issue of how transgender athletes should be treated remains unresolved, with highly controversial cases such as the Algerian boxer whose gender was questioned. This is a global sports problem, not just an IOC problem, and there isn’t a clear way out.

The Games are supposed to be a unifying event, but the reality is always more complicated. The fact that Belarus and Russia were banned from taking part while Israel was accepted caused a great deal of controversy. It also seemed the focus of the event wasn’t on the athletes. Apart from global stars like Simone Biles and Léon Marchand, much of the attention was given to rapper Snoop Dogg, which is questionable for a multi-billion-dollar sporting event. The Games seem to be moving away from de Coubertin’s original vision and turning into a commercial television spectacle.

What were the 2024 Olympics criticised for?

The exclusion of Belarus and Russia raised questions of consistency, particularly in the light of Israel’s participation. While Israel argues it hasn’t violated international law and should therefore be treated differently to Russia, most of the world – and particularly the global south – disagrees. The IOC needs to rethink its criteria for participation, as there will always be ongoing conflicts and there should be clear rules about who can and can’t participate.

Despite these problems, France handled protests reasonably well. Compared to the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, where pro-Iranian, pro-migrant worker and pro-LGBTQI+ protesters were severely repressed, pro-Palestinian protesters were allowed to make a statement with their T-shirts and flags. And it was definitely better than the 2008 Olympics in China, where there was no room for any kind of protest, even as the human rights situation was getting worse.

Paris 2024 also showcased a diverse, multicultural and multiracial France, both through its athletes and in the opening ceremony. This display of diversity drew criticism from conservative groups and the French far right. But one thing is clear: once the Games began, attention shifted away from these issues, making it difficult for them to gain media visibility.

What is your overall assessment of the event?

It’s a complex assessment. One of the biggest problems with the Olympics is that they tend to cost much more than is budgeted for. But Paris 2024 managed to keep the budget under control. France aimed for a more modest Olympics, with a budget of around US$9 billion, making it one of the cheapest editions compared to London, Rio and Tokyo. Half of the money came from public funds and the rest from IOC sponsorship and ticket sales.

Another positive aspect of Paris 2024 was that, unlike many other Olympic Games, it was explicitly linked to an existing urban development project. The only other notable case was Barcelona 1992, which was integrated into a wider urban plan. While the Paris model was not as comprehensive as Barcelona’s, it definitely stood out. Development plans focused on Saint Denis, France’s poorest region, with new public transport links and social housing in the Olympic Village expected to benefit the area.

However, the extent to which these developments will contribute to a greener, more equitable Paris is still under debate. Houses in the Olympic Village are likely to be sold at prices local people can’t afford, and it’s not clear that the new jobs will benefit the people of Saint Denis. It’s likely to end up with a process of gentrification similar to what happened in Vancouver and London, where most of the housing is now owned by the Qatar Investment Authority and sold at prices locals can’t afford.

What was the environmental cost of these Olympics?

Paris made considerable efforts to reduce its carbon footprint. Although we don’t have the final data yet, it’s likely to be a significant improvement on previous editions – with the sole exception of Tokyo, where the COVID-19 pandemic prevented many people travelling. The Paris venues were powered by renewable energy, high environmental standards were applied to the construction of the Olympic Village and car use in the city was severely restricted during the event.

However, air travel is still a problem. Hosting an international event such as the Olympics involves people travelling from all over the world and results in a very large carbon footprint, estimated at 1.5 million tonnes or more. Attempts have been made in the past to offset this by planting forests or investing in renewable energy, but the carbon credit market has proved ineffective. We must ask whether it’s justifiable to burn as much carbon as a Caribbean island consumes in a year just to host a global sporting event and transport dressage horses. Yet this is an issue no one in the global sports industry or any other major international event is willing to address.

Were there any major human rights concerns?

There are at least two major areas of concern. One is the large number of unhoused or poorly housed people evicted from the city in the run-up to the Games. At least 12,500 migrant workers and residents of temporary camps were moved to other parts of France, far from their communities and jobs. This number is likely to have increased in recent months and the situation remains a tragedy.

Clearing the streets to create the illusion that there isn’t a housing problem before staging a global event is simply wrong. But this wasn’t the first time – there have been similar evictions in Tokyo and even more in Rio. With Los Angeles 2028 on the horizon, we can expect an even higher number of evictions given the city’s large unhoused population.

Civil society organisations advocating for the unhoused made their voices heard in the run-up to the Games, with much media coverage. But once the spectacle began, they struggled to make headlines and advocacy was quickly overshadowed by the sport.

Another human rights issue concerns the extensive security measures for the Paris Olympics, which involved a complex process of zoning Paris, with strict policing and rules about who could enter certain areas near the venues. If you lived in one of these areas, you needed a QR code. It was a very complicated and intrusive system, but for all the grumbling, it worked reasonably well. More worrying was the use of artificial intelligence, CCTV cameras and facial recognition technology to control crowds, raising questions about privacy and the long-term use of these measures.

The French government and police promised to dismantle all these special security measures after the Games, but there is reason for scepticism. Similar measures were introduced for previous Olympics, such as Athens 2004 and London 2012, and remain in place today. And the enormous amount of money spent on Rio’s various police and paramilitary forces for riot control ahead of the 2016 games wasn’t returned either.

What are your expectations for the next Olympics?

We’re going to have another four years of global warming, so Los Angeles 2028 is going to be very hot. Extreme heat could have a significant impact on events and spectators, as seen at Tokyo 2020, where a marathon had to be cancelled due to the weather.

The high number of unhoused people in Los Angeles is another major concern. While Mayor Karen Bass has plans to address the ‘issue’, the situation is likely to worsen in the run-up to the Games, with multiple evictions, as we’ve seen in Paris.

On the positive side, Los Angeles 2028 has promised to be a car-free Olympics. It’s difficult to see how this could be achieved in a country with such a strong car culture. But Los Angeles has public transport and a light rail network, so it’s a question of getting locals out of their cars and onto trains and buses. Whether this ambitious goal can be achieved remains to be seen, but it could be an opportunity for a lasting change in habits and more sustainable urban development.

Civic space in France is rated ‘narrowed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Follow @davidsgoldblatt on Twitter.

CIVICUS discusses recent leadership changes in Vietnam with David Tran, coordinator of the Alliance for Vietnam’s Democracy, a civil society platform that promotes democracy in Vietnam and the region through international cooperation and the strengthening of local civil society.

On 3 August, President Tô Lâm was confirmed as General Secretary of the Communist Party, Vietnam’s top position, following the death of long-serving General Secretary Nguyễn Phú Trọng. Lâm, who has been president since May, is known for leading an aggressive anti-corruption campaign that has seen many officials jailed and others forced to resign. He will continue as president while assuming the duties of general secretary, potentially enabling him to consolidate power ahead of the 2026 party congress, which will choose Vietnam’s top leaders for the next five years. Civil society fears the regime could become even more autocratic and repressive if Lâm retains both positions.

What’s Vietnam’s political system like, and what’s the likely impact of the recent leadership change?

Vietnam is an authoritarian one-party state led by the Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP). There are four key positions of authority: the president, who is the ceremonial head of state, the prime minister, who heads the government, the chair of the National Assembly, the unicameral legislature, and the most powerful, the general secretary of the VCP.

Although the president is elected by the National Assembly, this body is overwhelmingly made up of VCP members, who usually approve all incumbents unopposed. On 3 August, following the death of the last VCP general secretary, Nguyễn Phú Trọng, Tô Lâm was confirmed as the new VCP leader.

This appointment is particularly significant because it puts a lot of power in the hands of one person. His dual role gives Tô Lâm considerable influence over the state and party, as well as greater control over the public security apparatus. While he appears set to continue the policies of his predecessor, there are several cracks beneath the surface. His power is likely to be challenged by several VCP members who’ve been forced into retirement by his ‘anticorruption’ campaign, effectively an initiative to eliminate competing factions. We can expect this infighting to continue and intensify.

What does Tô Lâm’s rise mean from a human rights perspective?

Tô Lâm has had a long career, including stints as minister of public security and a member of the politburo. The key role he played in the previous general secretary’s ‘anticorruption’ campaign saw him elected president in May, after his investigations into several high-profile politicians and businesspeople led to the resignation of his predecessor and other top officials.

The accumulation of power in the hands of the architect of a purge is unlikely to lead to improvements in civic space or human rights. Tô Lâm has been closely associated with the worsening human rights situation, as the Formosa and the Trinh Xuan Thanh cases clearly illustrate.

In April 2016, the Formosa company caused an environmental disaster when it discharged heavily polluted waste off Vietnam’s central coast. This caused widespread damage in at least four provinces and sparked protests. Instead of prosecuting Formosa, Tô Lâm, then minister of public security and in charge of the environmental police, suppressed peaceful protests and had 220 people sentenced to a total of 133 years in prison, not including probation after release. He said he was protecting Formosa from what he called ‘hostile forces’ – essentially anyone who criticised the company.

The second case involves Trinh Xuan Thanh, a former vice chair of Hau Giang Province, who fled to Germany in 2016 after being accused of ‘deliberately violating state regulations, causing serious consequences’. He was abducted on German soil by the Vietnamese secret service, which is under the Ministry of Public Security, and returned to Vietnam. Tô Lâm was directly involved in this operation, which Germany condemned as a ‘scandalous violation’ of its sovereignty and a ‘gross breach of international law’.

Given Tô Lâm's track record, we expect human rights conditions to worsen under his leadership as Vietnam descends into a police state where human rights and the rule of law are ignored. The already limited space for civil society in Vietnam has shrunk under his watch, and we expect this trend to continue.

What are the challenges facing civil society in Vietnam?

Tô Lâm’s rise to power has been marked by his consistent efforts to stifle dissent. Under his leadership, the authorities, particularly the Ministry of Public Security, have increasingly tightened their grip on civil society organisations (CSOs). They have implemented new decrees that overregulate the registration and management of foreign CSOs and applied stricter rules to domestic organisations.

They have also weaponised tax laws and the criminal code to target civil society leaders, charging them with offences such as tax evasion and ‘abuse of democratic freedoms’. This has led to the imprisonment of prominent activists, including environmental and labour rights advocates.

Independent CSOs are subject to strict surveillance, with some being dismantled or forced to reorganise to conform to the authorities. This was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which the authorities used as a pretext to impose further restrictions on civil society under the guise of public health measures.

Despite this repressive environment, some social service CSOs and philanthropic groups continue to operate and strive to make a positive impact. But their independence is severely restricted as they and their activists are constantly targeted.

What international support does Vietnam’s civil society need?

Human rights organisations and international bodies have raised concerns about the shrinking space for civil society in Vietnam. They have called for respect for freedoms of assembly, association and expression and urged the authorities to ease restrictions. While these statements are important, they must be accompanied by trade sanctions and other enforcement mechanisms. Words alone are not enough.

Unfortunately, human rights in Vietnam are also falling victim to geopolitics. As tensions with China escalate, the USA is increasingly seeing Vietnam as a counterweight to China. In this context, human rights and civic space are often sidelined, if not ignored altogether. We believe that a democratic Vietnam would be the best partner and ally in promoting a peaceful, open and stable Indo-Pacific region.

Even if Tô Lâm has a long way to go before he reaches a position comparable to Xi Jinping’s in China, consolidation of power is a general trend we’re seeing among the region’s communist states. Oddly enough, given how these two leaders came to power, it could be a sign that pressure for human rights and civic space, both domestically and internationally, is working. If the authorities feel compelled to respond by consolidating power and positioning figures like Tô Lâm to counter these movements, there is still hope we are on the right track.

Civic space in Vietnam is rated ‘closed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with the Alliance for Vietnam’s Democracy through its webpage or Facebook page.

CIVICUS discusses the causes and consequences of recent far-right riots with Kulvinder Nagre, Research and Policy Officer at Race On The Agenda (ROTA), a UK-based civil society organisation working to tackle racial inequality and promote social justice.

On 30 July, anti-immigration and anti-Muslim protests and riots erupted in England and Northern Ireland, sparked by the fatal stabbing of three children the day before. Disinformation had quickly circulated on social media falsely blaming the attack on a Muslim asylum seeker. Violent protests followed in many towns and cities, including attacks on mosques, migrant-owned businesses and hotels believed to be housing asylum seekers. Large anti-racist counter-protests followed, and violence has now subsided, with several of those involved already convicted and sentenced, including for spreading racial hatred on social media.

What are the main causes of the recent riots, and what explains the high levels of violence?

On 29 July, three children were killed in a horrific mass stabbing at a dance studio in Southport. Eight children and two adults were also injured, some seriously. Within hours of the attack, false reports began circulating online, particularly on X/Twitter, claiming the attacker was a Muslim who had arrived in the UK via a ‘small boat’ crossing. This disinformation quickly went viral, feeding into an already hostile atmosphere towards migrants and British Muslims, and sparking a violent reaction.

The issue of ‘small boat’ crossings has dominated national discourse since former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak unveiled his government’s ‘five key priorities’ in early 2023. Political rhetoric on migration intensified during the recent election campaign, with both major parties pushing for tighter controls. Levels of support for the right-wing populist Reform UK party only confirmed growing anti-immigration positions. The Conservative Party’s adoption of the slogan ‘stop the boats’ – a phrase later echoed by the rioters – underlines the dangerous impact of such hostile language. Overall, these events are part of a wider pattern of rising Islamophobia and xenophobia in Britain over the past decade.

How have minority communities been affected by the riots?

Migrant, Muslim and other minority communities have been left shaken by the appalling wave of hatred and violence that accompanied the riots, particularly in the midlands and the north of England, where the riots were most intense. Many were advised not to leave their homes during and immediately after the disorder, and even in more diverse areas such as London, which was not directly affected by the riots, there remains a lingering sense of unease and insecurity.

We were already aware of the growing anti-immigrant rhetoric in political discussions but were shocked by the extreme violence of the attacks. There were attempts to burn down hotels housing migrants, calls to bomb mosques and ‘race checkpoints’ in Middlesbrough where rioters checked the ethnicity of drivers.

However, there have been some causes for cautious optimism over the past fortnight. The strong show of community solidarity across the country during last week’s ‘big day’ of action against right-wing hate was somewhat reassuring. Seeing so many Britons from all backgrounds stand up against divisive violence and the politicians who fuel it felt like a truer reflection of the society I belong to.

While the immediate threat seems to have receded, we must now engage in meaningful discussions about the causes of these riots and work on strategies to prevent them from happening again.

What are advocacy groups doing to counter this anti-Muslim surge?

The immediate priority of advocacy groups has been to ensure the safety of their members. There have been several reports from across the country of British Muslims not going to work, travelling or leaving their homes to protect themselves from potential attacks. Local community and advocacy groups have been working tirelessly to support their communities at this difficult time.

Beyond immediate safety concerns, there is a broader, ongoing conversation about the harmful rhetoric and representation of Muslim communities on the national stage. For more than a decade – really since the early 2000s – British Muslims have been subjected to harmful stereotypes and treatment that often positions them as second-class citizens. Few media personalities and politicians have been willing to call Islamophobia what it is and condemn the divisive rhetoric of figures such as Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and networks such as GB News. This permissive environment has allowed anti-Muslim sentiment to fester, leading to the violence and terrorism we’ve recently seen.

Looking ahead, advocacy groups for Muslim and other minoritised communities are calling for an end to this permissive environment and for political and media figures who exploit Islamophobia for personal or political gain to be held to account.

How did social media contribute to the riots?

Social media played a significant role in facilitating the rapid spread of disinformation. The Online Safety Bill passed in October 2023 is a step forward, as it gives regulators the power to fine companies like Meta and X up to 10 per cent of their global turnover if they fail to meet their safety obligations. But tackling disinformation is only part of the challenge.

Social media platforms have also become a breeding ground for far-right ideologies. Online algorithms often create echo chambers by channelling users into particular viewpoints and bombarding them with content that reinforces these perspectives and isolates them from opposing views. This mechanism has had a damaging effect on public and political discourse, contributing to the rise of populist campaigns and the spread of anti-vaccine and QAnon conspiracies. We need a broader examination of how social media undermines healthy political discourse and normalises extremist views.

Holding social media companies to account means not just enforcing regulations, but critically assessing and reforming the algorithms that drive harmful content. This will require concerted efforts from regulators and the platforms themselves.

What needs to be done to tackle the root causes of right-wing extremism?

A comprehensive approach is needed to tackle the root causes of right-wing extremism. In the short term, it is crucial to combat disinformation and misinformation on social media platforms. Expanding the Online Safety Bill and strengthening regulatory powers are positive steps, but a more effective long-term strategy involves empowering anti-racist organisations that combat disinformation and promote healthy dialogue. Equipping people with the tools to assess information critically and build trust across communities is also key to eradicating right-wing extremism.

However, extreme caution should be exercised if lawmakers are considering a further expansion of police powers as a result of this violence. Increased police surveillance is not an outcome our communities are broadly enthusiastic about due to continuing issues of over-policing and institutional racism within UK police forces, as seen in cases such as the 2011 riots and the shooting of Chris Kaba in 2022. We need a comprehensive reform of the police before endorsing any increase in surveillance powers. We must ensure that any new measures are implemented with strict oversight and accountability to prevent further subjugation of marginalised communities.

Civic space in the UK is rated ‘obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with ROTA through its website or Facebook page, and follow @raceontheagenda on Twitter and Kulvinder Nagre on LinkedIn.

CIVICUS speaks with Chris Garrard, co-founder and co-director of Culture Unstained, about the campaign to end fossil fuel sponsorship of cultural institutions, which oil companies use to try to present a positive public image.

The campaign has achieved some notable successes, with the Royal Shakespeare Company and Tate group of art galleries ending BP sponsorship deals and the Edinburgh Science Festival rejecting fossil fuel funding. Recently, the Science Museum in London ended its sponsorship arrangement with the Norwegian state-owned oil giant Equinor. It’s now under pressure to reconsider its relationships with Adani and BP.

How significant is the London Science Museum’s decision to end its sponsorship by Equinor?

The museum’s decision to end its eight-year sponsorship deal with Equinor is a major victory for the campaign against oil sponsorship. The museum finally cut ties with the oil company because it had failed to align its business plans with the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

The museum’s decision also highlights a significant shift in its policy because its director, Ian Blatchford, had strongly defended taking funding from fossil fuel companies in the past, stating in a Financial Times interview that he would still seek such sponsorship ‘even if the museum were lavishly publicly funded’. The decision to cut ties with Equinor contradicts his stance and hopefully represents a step towards greater ethical responsibility, in line with the museum’s scientific mission.

Alongside our allies, Culture Unstained played a key role in this campaign win. I was involved in protesting against Equinor’s sponsorship when it was first announced and ‘Wonderlab: the Equinor Gallery’ first opened to the public, so it was incredibly exciting to finally see this shift happen. Crucially, the campaign involved interventions by various groups over several years, including scientists, youth climate activists and young people from Norway.

Over time, pressure has grown on the museum to adopt new ethical sponsorship criteria that now require sponsors to have aligned their business plans with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C pathway, as assessed by the Transition Pathway Initiative. Its recent assessment clearly showed that Equinor didn’t meet this standard, which ultimately led to the ending of its relationship with the museum.

Why do oil companies sponsor cultural bodies?

Oil companies such as BP, Equinor and Shell sponsor arts and cultural institutions for two main reasons. Firstly, sponsorship deals help them to maintain what’s known as a ‘social licence to operate’. This is essentially a form of consent from wider society which relies upon a belief that they are responsible corporate citizens, and that what they are doing is ethically acceptable. By attaching their logos and brands to cultural institutions, they associate themselves with the progressive values of the arts, so when people think of BP, for example, they don’t associate it with climate impacts, polluting oil spills or toxic gas flaring in places like Iraq, but rather with culture, philanthropy and positive social contributions. It’s a form of cheap advertising and a way to clean up a toxic image.

This practice has been particularly widespread in the UK. BP, for example, had sponsored BP Exhibitions at the British Museum, the BP Portrait Award at the National Portrait Gallery and BP Big Screens at the Royal Opera House, all of which helped to normalise its tarnished brand. Our research has revealed how sponsorship deals are strategically planned to project a misleading image of these companies as philanthropists and responsible corporate citizens rather than the major polluters they are.

Relationships with cultural institutions also give fossil fuel companies a strategic platform for lobbying. For instance, our research found that BP sponsored a Day of the Dead event at the British Museum just before the Mexican government auctioned off new drilling licences in the Gulf of Mexico – several of which were awarded to BP. So while the public enjoyed the cultural event downstairs in the British Museum’s Great Court, BP executives were meeting with Mexican government officials upstairs, using the event as the backdrop for their corporate agenda.

Now, in response to the growing opposition to oil sponsorship of the arts, fossil fuel companies are increasingly shifting their focus to sport and music sponsorships, and often using their subsidiaries or ‘green energy’ brands for these partnerships. This combination of greenwashing and artwashing is a new strategy of fossil fuel companies, and we’re determined to oppose it.

What have been the most notable successes and challenges of your campaign so far?

Our campaign has had some notable successes, particularly in recent years. Since 2016, around 18 major UK cultural organisations ended their sponsorship deals with fossil fuel companies such as BP and Shell. They included the National Portrait Gallery, the Royal Opera House, the Royal Shakespeare Company and Tate ending long-running sponsorship deals with BP and, on London’s South Bank, three major institutions – the British Film Institute, the National Theatre and the Southbank Centre – ending their partnerships with Shell, which has its headquarters next door.

This trend has also gained traction internationally, with groups such as Fossil Free Culture NL in Amsterdam successfully pushing fossil fuel companies out of cultural institutions such as the Van Gogh Museum.

However, despite these successes, the Science Museum has explicitly avoided stating that Equinor’s dire record on climate change was the reason for ending its sponsorship deal and, even now, continues to defend its deals with Adani and BP, even though neither company is aligned with the Paris Agreement goals. Adani in particular is the world’s largest private coal producer, and the Science Museum has cynically sought to deflect criticism by weakly claiming it is only being sponsored by Adani’s renewable energy subsidiary, even though there are clear links between Adani Green Energy and the company’s coal mining business. This is a clear example of greenwashing and the Science Museum is actively helping promote it. Nevertheless, we see this victory with Equinor as a first step, and we’ll continue to push for Adani and BP to be removed from the museum as well.

Meanwhile, the British Museum took a huge backward step last year when it signed a new 10-year sponsorship deal with BP, despite numerous large-scale protests and growing opposition for over a decade. One of the biggest challenges, particularly with institutions such as the British Museum, is their lack of transparency and accountability and, in some cases, their closeness to the government. Although the museum is supposed to be independent, it will often be used for cultural diplomacy. Its notable lack of transparency isn’t limited to decisions around oil sponsorship, but also extends to issues such as the return of stolen artefacts and failure to address its origins in colonialism.

While many museums and galleries have shifted away from fossil fuels and other unethical sponsors, some institutions will, when challenged, defend the records of their corporate sponsors. For example, even when presented with clear evidence, the British Museum has continued its partnership with BP while falsely claiming that BP is helping to lead the transition away from fossil fuels. Often, staff and workers at these institutions support or are sympathetic to our campaign, so the real obstacle to change is the concentration of decision-making power in a few people who aren’t properly accountable.

A different but important challenge is to ensure our campaigning in the UK and the global north is connected and accountable to those directly affected by the fossil fuel companies we are campaigning against. Whether it’s communities in Egypt, the US Gulf Coast or West Papua suffering from pollution and environmental degradation, or those already feeling the effects of climate change, we seek to build relationships of solidarity with them and find ways to offer them a platform.

What space is there for climate activism in the UK?

The space for climate activism in the UK is certainly under threat and needs defending. Recently introduced laws have restricted protests and free speech, and we’ve seen climate activists given lengthy and draconian sentences that discourage others from getting involved, speaking out and taking action. This is deeply worrying and many are calling on the new government to review and repeal these laws. What’s disturbing as well is that we’ve also seen attempts to stifle discussion of issues such as the genocide in Palestine, notably when Adani’s partnership with the Israeli arms company Elbit has been highlighted during protests at the Science Museum.

On the positive side, there are many in the climate justice movement who are constantly finding creative and imaginative ways to protest, in cultural spaces and on the streets. More importantly, there’s also a growing awareness of the need to adopt an intersectional approach emphasising not just climate action, but climate justice. For instance, a group called Energy Embargo for Palestine is currently campaigning against BP’s sponsorship of the British Museum, but linking different struggles and highlighting how fossil fuel extraction is connected to the repression of Palestinian people. It is essential to support and amplify such efforts, as our activism must constantly evolve and adapt to address complex and overlapping concerns. As the activist and poet Audre Lord put it, ‘There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives’.

Civic space in the UK is rated ‘obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with Culture Unstained through its website, and follow @Cult_Unstained and @TheGarrard on Twitter.

CIVICUS discusses protests in Nigeria with youth activist Hassan Nurudeen. Hassan is program manager at Hope Behind Bars Africa, a civil society organisation (CSO) seeking to mitigate human rights abuses in the criminal justice system, reduce unjust imprisonment and improve the lives of people jailed for socio-economic reasons.

Hundreds of thousands of people recently took to the streets of Nigeria’s major cities, including Abuja and Lagos, to protest against the rising cost of living and poor governance. President Bola Tinubu, in office since May 2023, defended his economic policies, including cutting petrol and electricity subsidies and devaluing the naira, Nigeria’s currency, as necessary measures despite rising inflation. Protests subsided after the government imposed curfews in several northern states and ordered a deadly police crackdown. Amnesty International reported that at least 22 protesters were killed.

Why did protests erupt in Nigeria?

A 10-day protest was announced in July in response to economic hardship, government mismanagement and bad governance. Many people are frustrated by the government’s policies and lavish spending, which they see as out of touch with their daily realities. While people are struggling to make ends meet, the government bought a new plane and a yacht for the president, made extravagant renovations to the vice president’s palace and got luxurious cars for members of parliament. Public anger was further fuelled by the government’s attempts to discourage the protests, including by using religious and tribal rhetoric.

The protest wasn’t organised by any particular group, but the protesters were mainly young people, long the target of police brutality and the protagonists of the 2020 #EndSARS movement that protested against police violence. Since then, many Nigerians have connected the dots between politics, policy and quality of life. The 2023 general election brought further discontent. On his first day in office, the new president announced the removal of fuel subsidies. This led to a rapid devaluation of the naira and a sharp rise in the cost of living, which hit middle class people hard.

How has the government responded to the protests?

The government has mainly avoided addressing the core issues that sparked the protests, such as inflation, insecurity and inequality. Its initial response was to gaslight the public, suggesting that protest wasn’t an option and trying to exploit ethnic and social divisions. In Lagos, for example, I saw firsthand organised campaigns against the protests, with threats of violence against those who dared to participate. The government also tried to co-opt religious groups and other organisations to discourage participation.

Instead of addressing the root causes of the protests, the government resorted to symbolic gestures such as distributing rice across the country, a temporary solution at best, but not an adequate response. It wasn’t until the fourth day of the protests that the president made a speech, and even then it was underwhelming and failed to address the protesters’ main concerns. It was the only positive step, but unfortunately it didn’t go very far.

In addition, the government allowed criminal elements to infiltrate peaceful protests and create chaos as a pretext for imposing curfews. This was a clear strategy to discredit the movement and undermine genuine dissent.

What role has social media played in the protests?

Social media has been a game changer in Nigeria, particularly for holding the government to account. It has become a key tool for people and CSOs to discuss issues, organise campaigns and mobilise support. During the recent protests, social media has been not just a platform but also a battleground where proponents and opponents have clashed with their arguments and evidence.

Twitter, or X, has been particularly crucial, allowing for real-time discussion and helping to amplify voices that might otherwise go unheard. Without social media, the government would likely be more repressive, as there would be fewer channels for people to express their dissatisfaction and organise collectively.

The government’s repeated attempts to pass an anti-social media bill to restrict its use is another sign of the power of these platforms. Despite these efforts, social media remains a powerful tool for advocacy and accountability. Even when people can’t physically attend protests, the online community ensures their voices are still heard, putting pressure on the government to address the issues at hand.

What international support is Nigerian civil society receiving and what further support is needed?

When the protests began, many CSOs, including Hope Behind Bars Africa, sprang into action. We anticipated that arrests were likely, so we set up a hotline for people to call if they were detained during protests and expanded our network of lawyers to ensure a wide reach across the country.

We worked with media organisations covering the protests and arrests to ensure those detained didn’t go unnoticed. CSOs also issued statements condemning the government’s actions and worked tirelessly to protect the rights of protesters and press the government to listen to people’s demands.

But we still need help from international partners to ensure those arrested during the protests are released or given a fair trial. Some people have been in prison without charge since the 2020 protests. To prevent this, we want to do a thorough review of all Nigerian prisons.

We also need the international community to put pressure on the Nigerian government to uphold democratic principles. Nigeria is a regional power in West Africa, and instability here can have far-reaching consequences. The government must respect people’s right to protest and listen to our demands.

Civic space in the Nigeria is rated ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with Hope Behind Bars Africa through its website or Instagram and Facebook pages, and follow @hopebehindbar on Twitter.

CIVICUS speaks about protests, their repression and the changes they’ve brought about in Bangladesh with civil society activist Mohammad Ashrafuzzaman, also known as Zaman Ashraf.

In July, mass student protests erupted in Bangladesh in reaction to the reintroduction of quotas in government jobs for the descendants of those who fought for independence. Protesters faced attacks from the student wing of the ruling Awami League party and brutal repression from security forces, which killed an estimated 440 people and injured thousands, along with arbitrary arrests. The movement persisted regardless, triggering the resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on 5 August. Hasina fled the country and the army announced the formation of an interim government.

What triggered these protests?

The protests began in July when students from various academic institutions across Bangladesh reacted to the reintroduction of a quota system in public employment. The system reserved 30 per cent of government jobs for the descendants of war veterans. The protesters argued that access to public sector jobs should be based on merit and this system was discriminatory and unfair.

Protests were notable for their broad base of public support. While the protests started in academic institutions, they rapidly expanded to include a wide range of people, including workers from various professions and members of the lower middle class. These protests were widespread and had a more organic and grassroots character than previous ones.

Why did the reintroduction of the quota system cause such discontent?

The quota system was originally introduced to provide employment opportunities to descendants of those who fought in Bangladesh’s 1971 war of independence. The first government after independence, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman – father of Sheikh Hasina Wazed, the prime minister who resigned in response to the protests – adopted a policy of reserving 30 per cent of government jobs for freedom fighters. Between 1972 and 1975, 80 per cent of public recruitment was reserved for this quota and only 20 per cent of posts were left for merit-based recruitment.

Over the years, the system expanded to include not only the children but also the grandchildren of freedom fighters in the 30 per cent quota. Additionally, the government established a 10 per cent female quota, a 10 percent district quota, a five per cent tribal quota and a one per cent physical disability quota. This resulted in at least 56 per cent of government jobs being allocated under the quota system.

Protesters argued that this system primarily benefited those connected to the Awami League, until recently the ruling party, rather than truly deserving descendants of freedom fighters. They claimed the system created a public sector workforce based on loyalty rather than merit.

The list of freedom fighters was also mired in controversy, with allegations that people who didn’t qualify benefited from the quota system. Some listed freedom fighters were found to have been as young as five during the war of independence. Top bureaucrats also falsely claimed to have taken part in the war, further fuelling public anger.

Protesters respected genuine freedom fighters but opposed the exploitation of their legacy for political gain. The protests reflected a wider dissatisfaction with the way the government operated, and highlighted the younger generation’s desire for transparency and fairness in employment practices.

What reforms does civil society advocate for and what challenges does it face?

It’s worth noting that many civil society organisations (CSOs) supported the former government. These CSOs largely remained silent on many important issues such as enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings committed by the government over the past 16 years. A few of them called for public investigations into recent incidents, but their individual and organisational credibility was questionable at best.

Independent civil society, in comparison, is quite vocal and faces significant challenges. Members of independent CSOs have been targeted in politically motivated cases, with some convicted and others facing various forms of repression domestically and internationally.

Independent civil society called for the government to step down, as it had lost the people’s mandate to remain in office and is responsible for crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute, including enforced disappearances. A government that commits such crimes shouldn’t remain in power under any circumstances.

Civil society is advocating for a law enforcement system capable of complying with basic international principles on the use of arms and firearms in dealing with protests. It’s also calling for a comprehensive reform of the criminal justice system, including the judiciary, crime investigation, prosecution and forensic medicine examination systems. These reforms should ensure that all institutions involved operate independently and uphold high standards of professionalism, ultimately guaranteeing fair trials.

Finally, following the prime minister’s resignation, civil society demands the restoration of the people’s right to vote through an overhaul of the electoral system.

How did the government respond to the protests?

In response to 2018 protests, the government initially promised to abolish the quota system, but this was followed by a violent crackdown involving the police and the Awami League’s student wing. Protesters were attacked with weapons and leaders were targeted to disperse the crowds. Despite promises of reform, the violence fuelled further student protests against the Awami League.

Six years later, the government again used violent tactics to suppress protests and imposed severe restrictions on freedoms of association, expression and peaceful assembly. Police and Awami League supporters attacked protesters, often resulting in deaths and serious injuries. One such incident involved Abu Sayed, shot dead by police in front of the cameras in Rangpur on 16 July. Many families were forced to bury their loved ones quickly and without proper documentation to avoid bureaucratic problems.

When initial violent measures failed to disperse protesters, the government escalated its response by deploying police, border guards and military forces equipped with military-grade weapons, armoured personnel carriers and helicopters. Snipers were also reportedly used to target protesters.

The media were also targeted, with journalists covering the events attacked, tortured and killed. Awami League members intervened to prevent journalists reporting on casualties. On 16 July, the government imposed a blackout on mobile phone networks and the internet, which hampered protesters’ ability to organise and the public’s ability to stay informed.

The government also imposed curfews to restrict movement between 7pm and 7am. These were accompanied by shoot-on-sight orders for snipers, creating an environment of fear and further discouraging participation in protests.

Taken together, all of these arbitrary and draconian measures taken by the government to silence dissent showed the extent it was willing to go to try to stifle opposition and maintain its grip on power.

How can the international community best support civil society in Bangladesh?

The international community must publicly and unequivocally condemn the human rights abuses committed by the former government. It should also provide both moral and financial support to enable independent CSOs to operate in Bangladesh without fear of harassment and reprisals. This support would enable these groups to continue their vital work to promote justice and human rights.

Finally, given the inability of the domestic system to deliver justice, independent CSOs are considering taking to international forums such as the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council. These initiatives should receive strong, immediate and sustained support from the international community to ensure accountability and justice for victims through credible probes by UN independent experts. All perpetrators – both civilians and military commanders – should be brought to justice for their crimes.

Civic space in Bangladesh is rated ‘closed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Follow @ZamanAshraf on Twitter.

CIVICUS discusses the Malawi Constitutional Court’s decision to uphold the criminalisation of homosexuality with members of the Nyasa Rainbow Alliance, a civil society organisation that has supported LGBTQI+ people and promoted LGBTQI+ rights for a decade, despite facing significant legal and societal challenges.

On 29 June, Malawi’s Constitutional Court dismissed a petition challenging sections of the penal code that criminalise sexual relations between consenting same-sex adults, arguing that there was no evidence that criminalisation was discriminatory and that it’s up to parliament to amend existing laws. The case involved a Dutch man and a Malawian transgender woman who were charged with engaging in homosexual sex in 2021. As a result of the negative court decision, criminal proceedings against the two will continue.

What’s the status of LGBTQI+ rights in Malawi?

LGBTQI+ rights in Malawi are severely restricted by the country's Penal Code, which criminalises ‘carnal knowledge against the order of nature’ and targets those who engage in sexual activities deemed ‘unnatural’ or ‘indecent’. These vague and broad provisions carry penalties of up to 14 years in prison. Although in theory they apply to everyone, in practice they are mainly enforced against LGBTQI+ people, leading to frequent harassment, arrests and extortion by police. A trans woman was recently convicted under these provisions, which according to the Constitutional Court comprise all sexual acts between people of the same sex, including oral sex.

Legal provisions are reinforced by social attitudes. A large proportion of people oppose same-sex relationships. Religious and traditional leaders have been vocal in their opposition to LGBTQI+ rights, organising protests and reinforcing discriminatory sentiments. As a result, many LGBTQI+ people face significant challenges: they are often disowned by their families, lose their jobs or are evicted from their homes. The recent Constitutional Court decision to uphold the criminalisation of homosexuality will only exacerbate the situation, because many will interpret it to mean there’s no place for LGBTQI+ people in Malawi.

What was your request to the court and what are your next steps?

We asked the Constitutional Court to determine whether Section 153 of the Penal Code, which outlaws consensual same-sex relations between adults, violates the constitutional rights to privacy, dignity, equality and non-discrimination. We questioned whether actions such as the police stripping a trans woman to verify her gender and forcing her to undergo a medical examination violated her rights.

The Constitutional Court’s decision was both surprising and perplexing. It ignored important human rights issues and appeared to be influenced by social prejudices rather than legal principles. The court’s reasoning was based on a broad interpretation of Malawi’s constitution and failed to address our specific concerns about discriminatory enforcement and invasion of privacy. The law disproportionately targets LGBTQI+ people while leaving the private lives of heterosexuals unaffected – a point the court overlooked.

We decided not to appeal because it would be unlikely to succeed and could set a negative precedent for future LGBTQI+ advocacy. It would also be costly and divert resources from vital advocacy work. Instead, we will focus on raising awareness, engaging key stakeholders such as members of parliament, judges and senior police officers, and building alliances to advance LGBTQI+ rights in Malawi through strategies other than litigation.

What are the challenges faced by LGBTQI+ rights groups in Malawi?

There are several groups working on LGBTQI+ rights in Malawi, including the Diversity Forum, a consortium of LGBTQI+ organisations that coordinates our collective advocacy. But we work under considerable constraints.

A major challenge is the politicisation of LGBTQI+ issues. In a conservative society like Malawi, political leaders often avoid supporting LGBTQI+ rights to maintain their popularity and electoral support. Fear of political repercussions discourages politicians and the public from supporting LGBTQI+ advocacy.

There’s also groups mobilised in direct opposition to our work. During our court case, religious groups organised demonstrations against LGBTQI+ rights, and even the Minister of Information attended these protests. Such high-profile opposition hampers advocacy efforts and discourages potential allies from joining the movement.

As a result, many organisations end up hiding their true aims to avoid persecution. When registering, they tend to describe their mission in terms of advocating for ‘minority groups’ rather than explicitly mentioning LGBTQI+ rights. Cautious wording helps them obtain registration, but limits transparency and can make advocacy more difficult.

The recent court ruling has created an even more hostile atmosphere for our work. But while the legal and social landscape remains challenging, we continue to support LGBTQI+ people, push for legal change and strive for greater acceptance of LGBTQI+ people in our society.

What progress have you made in terms of visibility and acceptance?

We are organising a Pride event this August, although it will be a more private celebration compared to our 2021 Pride. During this event, we will recognise and award people and organisations for their contributions to LGBTQI+ advocacy and honour courageous allies, including some religious leaders and parents of LGBTQI+ people.

Our Pride event will be a mix of advocacy and celebration of our achievements. A recent breakthrough, for instance, was getting the Ministry of Health to support HIV-related health services in government health facilities. It helps us overcome barriers such as stigma and discrimination from health workers.

We have also built relationships with various government institutions, such as the Malawi Human Rights Commission, who actively participate in our events, as well as journalists and social media influencers who help us promote positive narratives about LGBTQI+ people.

Another notable achievement has been the creation of a network of pro-LGBTQI+ religious leaders, which is particularly important in a conservative society like ours. This network is working on a joint statement against the court ruling and harassment of LGBTQI+ people.

How do you connect to the global LGBTQI+ movement and what international support do you need?

We are strongly connected to the global LGBTQI+ movement through partnerships with international organisations such as Amnesty International and the Southern Africa Litigation Centre. We also attend major global conferences, such as this year’s International AIDS Conference in Germany, where we gain recognition and support.

While these global connections are good and valuable, we need additional support to ensure the safety and effectiveness of LGBTQI+ advocacy in Malawi. This includes improving digital and physical security and supporting engagement with influential traditional and religious leaders to change public perceptions. We need resources to train advocates, provide safe housing and address harmful ‘conversion practices’.

Civic space in Malawi is rated ‘obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with the Nyasa Rainbow Alliance through its website or its Instagram and Facebook pages, and follow @nyasa_rainbow on Twitter.

CIVICUS speaks with Lisa Saad of Mother Nature Cambodia about the criminalisation of environmental activism in Cambodia.

Ten activists from the Mother Nature group were recently sentenced to between six and eight years in prison for ‘insulting the king’ and ‘conspiracy’. The group’s leader, Alejandro Gonzalez-Davidson, was sentenced in absentia. The convicted activists’ work involved exposing environmental problems such as illegal logging and pollution. Their sentencing, along with the violent arrest of five of them, is part of a wider crackdown on civil society aimed at silencing criticism of the government of Prime Minister Hun Manet.

What are the conditions for civil society in Cambodia?

In Cambodia, civil society faces significant restrictions due to both historical and ongoing pressure from the government. The regime has fostered an environment where civil society organisations (CSOs) are severely restricted and encouraged to focus on safe activities such as training workshops rather than more vocal advocacy. The pervasive fear of being banned or facing repercussions suppresses their ability to speak freely and address issues head-on. It makes it difficult for them to push boundaries or take more impactful action.

The situation has worsened over the past decade as the government has stepped up its repression. It has since increased its arrests of activists and shut down CSOs deemed too outspoken or to be working on sensitive issues, forcing the rest to tread more carefully. However, some movements have continued to resist and engage in long-term campaigns to find solutions for people and advocate for change. They work under considerable threat and often face arrest for speaking out.

Why is the government targeting environmental activists?

We face repression because our efforts to protect natural resources and defend community rights disrupt practices and projects that benefit large corporations and powerful people. We challenge powerful economic interests and expose systemic corruption. This has brought us into direct conflict with the government and major economic interests.

For example, in 2013 we successfully halted a major hydropower project by a Chinese company that had strong backing from the Cambodian government. We mobilised communities, gathered critical information and built solidarity against the project. Community support was crucial in stopping the hydropower plant, which would have had devastating environmental impacts.

Similarly, in 2015, we stopped a large-scale sandmining operation that was exporting sand to Singapore, Taiwan and other countries. The project involved the extraction of over US$700 million worth of sand, which would have severely impacted on local ecosystems and communities. We worked closely with people to educate them about their rights and the importance of protecting their environment. Their active involvement and support were instrumental in stopping the operation.

How has the sentencing of 10 Mother Nature activists affected the movement?

In early July, in retaliation for their environmental activism, the court convicted 10 of our friends, falsely accusing them of plotting against the government and insulting the king. It gave them long prison sentences and fines. Five of them were arrested violently in front of the rest of us, in what was clearly an attempt to intimidate us. This is what they do all the time: they try to scare us into silence.

But we are determined to continue our work. We have responded with a robust campaign for the release of our friends, while ensuring the safety of remaining activists. We’ve enlisted international allies to raise awareness and put pressure on the government. We are also campaigning for our imprisoned friends to be transferred to the capital, Phnom Penh, where their families can more easily visit them. Domestically, we are mobilising university students and collecting signatures for an online petition that has already exceeded 10,000 signatures. We want to show that despite the regime’s efforts to suppress us, our movement remains strong and committed.

How can international allies better support your work?

We receive significant solidarity from our international allies, who amplify our voices by highlighting our struggles and advocating for human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy. They are sharing our stories, making public statements and urging their governments and organisations to support us.

For example, our regional allies from countries such as Myanmar and Thailand are working with us on joint statements and sending messages of support. They’ve even organised joint actions, such as group photos, to demand the release of our activists. These gestures are incredibly motivating, and we need more of these coordinated efforts to keep our movement alive and ensure our work continues despite the regime’s attempts to silence us.

But while solidarity is crucial, it doesn’t seem to have scared the regime, which has continued its repressive actions despite international attention. Even during a recent visit by a United Nations Special Rapporteur, the government defied international scrutiny and arrested activists.

We need even stronger international pressure on the Cambodian government, including diplomatic efforts, sanctions and public condemnation. While we appreciate the statements and support, we need more tangible action to make the government reconsider its position.

Mother Nature Cambodia remains committed to fighting corruption and defending the environment. The recent sentencing of our friends only strengthens our commitment, and international support motivates us. We will continue to challenge the oppressive regime and seek justice, even amid security concerns and relocations.

Civic space in Cambodia is rated ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with Mother Nature Cambodia through its website or Facebook page, and follow @CambodiaMother on Twitter.

CIVICUS discusses proposed legislative changes that target LGBTQI+ people in Georgia with Tbilisi Pride director Tamar Jakeli. Tbilisi Pride is a prominent LGBTQI+ rights organisation fighting homophobia and transphobia.

Georgia’s ruling party, Georgian Dream, is pushing a bill that would ban LGBTQI+ gatherings, same-sex marriages, gender transitions and adoption by same-sex couples, and censor LGBTQI+ content in schools and the media. Critics claim the proposed law is similar to Russia’s law against ‘gay propaganda’, which has enabled discrimination and violence against LGBTQI+ people. They accuse the government of trying to exploit anti-LGBTQI+ sentiment for political gain and warn that if passed, the bill could reverse progress made so far in changing social attitudes towards LGBTQI+ people.

What’s the status of LGBTQI+ people in Georgia?

The situation is worsening. For several years we made progress: anti-discrimination legislation was passed and we held Pride festivals with up to 3,000 attendees. We organised community meetings, social gatherings, film screenings and conferences. But the situation has recently deteriorated, as the government has begun to adopt tactics similar to Russia’s, promoting the idea that ‘LGBTQI+ propaganda’ needs to be controlled, leading to increased targeting and oppression of LGBTQI+ people. Many are considering leaving or have already done so, seeking asylum in countries such as Belgium and Germany.

Queer-friendly spaces are now mostly underground, with events held privately due to security concerns. Vandalism and constant threats make public gatherings extremely risky. We are systematically denied the constitutional right to freedom of assembly.

What’s in the ‘anti-LGBT law’ recently proposed by the ruling party?

The proposed legislation is a package of bills that poses severe threats to LGBTQI+ rights. It includes a total ban on assemblies related to LGBTQI+ rights, sexuality or gender identity. Police could disperse any gathering where there’s an openly queer person. Education on these topics would be banned in schools and universities, and the media would be prohibited from portraying same-sex relationships or gender transitions. Censorship would extend to films and other media.

Most alarmingly, the bill would ban gender reassignment surgery and hormone therapy, making it impossible for transgender people to physically transition, likely forcing many to leave Georgia. The bill also explicitly bans same-sex marriage and civil unions, even though since 2017 the constitution has defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

The bill’s language is highly discriminatory, as it equates LGBTQI+ rights with incest and other crimes and refers to LGBTQI+ people in derogatory terms. It would make life nearly impossible for LGBTQI+ people in Georgia.

Given the constraints, how are you working to promote LGBTQI+ rights?

There are organisations focusing on providing healthcare, legal and psychological services, while Tbilisi Pride prioritises cultural and political rights, highlighting issues such as the right to freedom of assembly and working to normalise the visibility of LGBTQI+ people. Our primary goal remains for LGBTQI+ people to be seen as legitimate citizens deserving respect and equal rights under the law, to counter the government’s absurd accusations, which claims we are plotting to overthrow it, among other things.

Pride events are a crucial part of our strategy because they provide an opportunity to bring LGBTQI+ issues to the forefront of public discourse. However, they are polarising within the movement. We see them as essential for visibility and advocacy, but some activists oppose them due to security risks or because they dislike them being inspired in western Pride events, which they see as overly commercialised.

Last year, we organised three events for Pride week: an opening event, an international conference and a Pride festival. The first two were successful, but the festival faced severe security challenges. Despite months of negotiations and promises from top state authorities, far-right groups managed to infiltrate the festival grounds. The police evacuated us and then allowed anti-rights groups to destroy the venue. This was a strategic choice by the government to simultaneously avoid bloodshed and appease conservative factions.

This year, due to pre-election tensions and heightened security risks, we decided not to hold any physical events. Instead, we’re focusing on mobilising young people to vote in the upcoming parliamentary election to prevent further erosion of our rights.

What progress have you made and what challenges have you faced?

Over the past decade we witnessed considerable progress in societal attitudes towards LGBTQI+ people. A few years ago, it was too common for people to publicly and openly discriminate against and reject LGBTQI+ people. While we still haven’t achieved full acceptance, there has been a significant positive shift in public attitudes. This change may not be radical but represents a meaningful improvement, particularly given the hostile environment fostered by the current government and the Georgian Orthodox Church.

We’ve made progress in creating spaces where queer people can express their true selves, particularly in the underground club culture and nightlife scene. Between 2015 and 2020, we also made notable strides in anti-discrimination legislation and gained inclusion in national human rights texts.

However, in the past few years the government has shamefully erased references to LGBTQI+ people from these vital documents, despite pressure from international human rights bodies. This erasure is a huge step backward, yet we remain hopeful and steadfast in our commitment to fight for equality and acceptance.

How do you connect with the global LGBTQI+ rights movement, and what international support do you need?

We are well-connected within Europe, being part of several umbrella organisations like the ILGA-Europe network. Our representatives participate in various European meetings to share progress and challenges. However, we need stronger connections with global organisations, particularly from the global south, to share experiences and develop strategies.

International support is now more critical than ever. An upcoming foreign agent bill, which targets organisations that receive international funding, also threatens our financial stability and security. We may need to fundraise internationally and develop an exit plan for activists if the situation becomes more insecure. Continued international solidarity and pressure on the Georgian government are vital to our survival and ongoing advocacy efforts.

Civic space in Georgia is rated ‘narrowed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with Tbilisi Pride through its website or Instagram page, follow @TbilisiPride on Twitter, and Tamar Jakeli on Facebook.

CIVICUS discusses Venezuela’s recent election with Luz Mely Reyes, Director General of the Venezuelan digital media outlet Efecto Cocuyo. Founded in 2015 by a group of women journalists, Efecto Cocuyo began its journalistic work on Twitter. It is now an independent digital information platform that offers training for journalists and communications professionals, as well as fact-checking channels. Its team is part of CIVICUS’s Digital Democracy Initiative.

The 28 July presidential election was the first in many years where there seemed to be a real chance of a democratic transition. Despite successive bans of political leaders, the opposition united behind a single candidate. Even though the government denied a vote to most of the several million Venezuelans living in exile, exit polls pointed to a resounding opposition victory. However, the ruling party was quick to declare victory without providing any evidence. Hundreds of thousands took to the streets in protest while, for the first time, the Venezuelan government’s usual allies suspended recognition of the results until data was published. The outcome remains uncertain.

What were expectations for this election?

The main expectation was that it would lead to an orderly and negotiated transition. We expected the opposition candidate to emerge as the clear winner, but knew that the real challenge would be to get that victory recognised.

However, the reality has been very different from what was expected. The government has refused to present the results as required by law, raising serious doubts about their veracity and fuelling questions about the integrity of the electoral process. As evidence, the opposition presented all the actas – public documents issued by polling stations at the end of voting – it had access to. This lack of transparency led independent observers such as the Carter Center to dismiss the elections as undemocratic.

The government has responded with repression, setting up mobile phone apps to report protest hotspots and arresting large numbers of people, many of whom are effectively in a state of enforced disappearance, with their families unable to locate them. By 31 July, at least 16 people had been killed. This has pushed the prospect of a democratic transition further away.

How did the opposition and civil society monitor the election?

Human rights organisations and independent media carried out extensive monitoring of the electoral process, despite the fact that the National Electoral Council (CNE) refused to grant them official accreditation. These organisations carried out verifications in several regions of Venezuela to ensure that, at least on election day, minimum standards of free participation and the freedom of movement were respected. They identified a pattern of irregularities, which they then incorporated into their complaints about the performance of the CNE and the so-called Plan República, the military deployment during elections that has the stated aim of guaranteeing order and security.

Opposition political parties organised under the platform led by María Corina Machado, the main opposition leader and one of the politicians banned from standing as a presidential candidate. On election day, they observed the voting and carried out quick counts to estimate the results. They managed to obtain and digitise 80 per cent of the voting records, which they published on a public website to give transparency to the results, which were clearly in their favour.

What has the international reaction to the results been?

International reactions have been mixed and generally insufficient to resolve the situation.

One particularly important reaction was that of Chile’s left-wing president, Gabriel Boric, who declared on the night of the elections that lack of compliance with the rules made it difficult to verify the results and undermined trust in them. His statement prompted other governments to call for the detailed publication of the results in accordance with the law.

However, it seems the international community has not fully grasped the extent of the constitutional rupture and the destruction of institutions Venezuela has experienced. International reactions have been limited to demanding the publication of the results of voting records, rather than the full results as required by law. Further, the legal process for challenging the results before the CNE and the Supreme Court is practically useless, as both bodies have been co-opted by the executive.

Two days after the elections, in a nationally televised speech, President Nicolás Maduro threatened protesters and called on the leaders of all branches of government to validate the disputed results. He called protesters drug addicts and accused them of receiving bribes to take part in demonstrations. He also threatened to arrest Machado and opposition presidential candidate Edgardo González Urrutia, mentioning the possibility of imprisoning them for up to 15 years without due process. This reflects the lengths the government is prepared to go to and underlines the need for a stronger and more coordinated international response.

What are the possible scenarios?

All the possible scenarios are very complicated. The government has closed the only institutional avenue available to it, which was to recognise the election results. The lack of democratic institutions and the repression of the protests have deprived the opposition of the minimum room for manoeuvre. As well as arresting protesters and threatening opposition leaders, the government has broken diplomatic relations with five countries and harassed opposition leaders who have taken refuge in embassies.

In the face of this situation, civil society and independent media will have to focus on publishing information and telling people what is happening. Political parties will have to make strategic decisions to react to the government’s entrenchment in a more organised manner. Coordination and adaptation will be crucial to counter repression and find a way out of this crisis.

What needs to happen for Venezuela to move towards democracy?

To achieve change, democratic forces must unite in defence of the constitution and institutions, working closely with civil society organisations, which, despite many challenges, continue to play a crucial role. The international community must give them strong and coordinated support.

It is essential to keep channels of negotiation with the government open, and democratic leftist organisations could act as intermediaries. International human rights organisations should develop support plans for their counterparts in Venezuela and establish reception protocols for human rights defenders and journalists seeking refuge in other countries. There’s currently no recourse for Venezuelans to seek justice through domestic courts, particularly for politically motivated rights violations.

Civic space in Venezuela is rated ‘closed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with Efecto Cocuyo through its website or its Facebook and Instagram pages, and follow @EfectoCocuyo on Twitter.

CIVICUS speaks about protests, their repression and the changes they’ve brought about in Bangladesh with human rights defender and student leader Nahid Islam. A sociology student at Dhaka University, Nahid is one of the national coordinators of the Students Against Discrimination Movement, which formed in reaction to a specific government policy but evolved into an anti-dictatorship movement. The interview was undertaken with the assistance of researcher Shoeb Abdullah.

In July, mass student protests erupted in Bangladesh in reaction to the reintroduction of quotas in government jobs for the children of those who fought for independence. Protesters faced attacks from the student wing of the ruling Awami League party and brutal repression from security forces, which killed at least 300 people and injured thousands, along with arbitrary arrests. The movement persisted regardless, triggering the resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on 5 August. Hasina fled the country and the army announced the formation of an interim government.

What triggered the protests and what were the main demands?

The movement began with a focus on reform in the quota for government jobs. The government’s response was brutal repression, resulting in hundreds of deaths at the hands of its corrupt security forces. Thousands of protesters were injured, and the government carried out mass arrests and tortured students in their homes.

Most of the media in Bangladesh acted as the government’s mouthpiece. Government ministers made false statements about us on television, and no one kept a count of the killings or bothered to identify the perpetrators. We approached many news reporters, but they said their media bosses were killing their stories, so we appealed to the international media to support the people of Bangladesh by publishing accurate and impartial news.

Early on we realised that under this government there was no possibility of justice for those assaulted by thugs and killed by the police, so we began calling for regime change. We envision a society where the safety of people’s lives is paramount, and a state that provides justice for all. So we decided to make a one-point demand: the resignation of the Hasina government. We vowed to fight her oppression with the last drop of our blood.

What happened when you were arrested?

On 19 July, the government declared a curfew. I called on students to defy the curfew and stay on the streets to demand their rights, but before I could post this on social media, the government shut down the internet and targeted those who stayed on the streets from helicopters.

That same night, I was kidnapped with three of my colleagues. A group of around 30 to 40 plainclothes government agents took me from my friend’s house in the Nandipara area of the capital, Dhaka. They first kept me hidden for 24 hours in a secret prison called Aynaghar, which we had heard about. I was kept in a closed room, blindfolded and handcuffed. I was taken to an interrogation room and subjected to physical and psychological torture. I was severely beaten with a thick stick, leaving marks that are still visible on my body. All the time they were pressuring us to stop the movement and start a dialogue with the government.

Finally, they blindfolded me and left me in an isolated place in the Purbachal area of Dhaka. Some people found me and took me to a hospital, where I was free to talk to journalists for a day or two. I even held a couple of press conferences in the hospital. But then a team from the Detective Branch (DB) of the police came and prevented me from leaving the hospital, insisting that I didn’t make any statements.

I was kept in DB custody for seven days along with two other leaders of the movement, Asif Mahmud and Abu Bakar Majumder. We were subjected to various forms of mental and physical torture. We were denied food for 32 hours and forced to read out their scripted statements. I still haven’t fully recovered from the physical weakness caused by this ordeal.

How did the internet shutdown affect the protests?

The government shut down the internet when it launched its deadly attack on protesters. This had a profound effect because we used social media to communicate, as almost all TV channels and electronic media in Bangladesh are controlled by the government and there’s no press freedom.

Of course, we faced cyberattacks regularly, including hacking of IDs and cloning of accounts. Our Facebook group, which has 500,000 members and is crucial for our movement, was hacked, and attackers spread disinformation to mislead people. Every time we tried to document the massacre on Facebook, we faced cyberattacks. Many of us also fell victim to doxing, and our families were harassed online.

But social media was key to our movement because it allowed us to send and receive quick updates and information on what was happening and where. We used it to make speeches and provide instructions to protesters. The internet shutdown completely disrupted the flow of information.

The government blocked the internet to prevent people gathering and increased surveillance, violating our constitutional rights. Without the internet, organisers were isolated from each other and protesters couldn’t know or share what was happening on the streets.

At one point we started communicating by mobile phone, but the police tracked our phones and arrested us. They admitted this when they had me in custody. They interrogated me about what I had said and why. The only way they could have known was by tapping our phones.

They also told us that the government ordered the internet shutdown. The most shocking thing about the shutdown was that it allowed the government to hide information about people being shot. Deaths weren’t reported, so we still don’t know the true number of people killed.

After a while, people were able to regroup and take to the streets again. But if the internet hadn’t been shut down, the government might have fallen sooner, and many lives might have been spared.

What do you expect from the interim government?

We have demanded that the interim government be led by the internationally renowned Nobel laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus as its chief adviser. The other members of the interim government must be honest, impartial, competent and patriotic. They must ensure justice for all the wrongs committed by the previous regime.

We want to make it clear that the future of Bangladesh must be determined by the people who participated in the mass uprising, not by some cantonment. Power must be handed over to an interim government proposed by the protest movement. We won’t accept anything less, and there is no question of an army-controlled government.

We have received information that Awami League thugs are still creating chaos and looting to discredit our movement. But we have appealed to people not to take part in any incitement, attack or looting. Those doing this aren’t revolutionary students. We urge people to make announcements from mosques in their areas about the need to stop communal attacks and ensure the safety of all, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and Indigenous people alike. The army is clearly not doing its job properly and we’re calling on them to act immediately to keep the peace.

Killers must be brought to justice and held accountable. Political prisoners and those who’ve been kidnapped must be released. Our struggle doesn’t end with the resignation of the Hasina government; we want the abolition of this fascist system and the building of a new Bangladesh with new political arrangements. No one should leave the streets until we win the final victory.

What support do you need from the international community?

Our request to the international community is to support the just demands of Bangladeshi people and to help shape global public opinion. The government’s claim that we are responsible for the violence is false. We call on international human rights activists to investigate the situation.

The government portrayed the conflict as a political struggle between the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, but that’s not true. This was a conflict between a murderous government and the people, including student protesters. There were no other parties involved.

We ask human rights activists to stand in solidarity with us and spread the truth about the situation in Bangladesh. The government has killed students and other innocent people, including children. We weren’t safe in our own homes. We appeal to the international community to help us hold the perpetrators to account and to support the struggle of oppressed people in Bangladesh.

Civic space in Bangladesh is rated ‘closed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with Nahid through his Facebook page.

CIVICUS discusses the upcoming Summit of the Future with Ophelia Kemigisha, United Nations (UN) Program Officer at Outright International, a global organisation that works to improve LGBTQI+ rights around the world.

In September, world leaders will gather at the UN World Summit of the Future to adopt the Pact for the Future. In preparation for the summit, civil society, academia and the private sector have contributed to the pact’s draft. Civil society sees the process as an opportunity to strengthen commitments on the environment, human rights and social justice, and CIVICUS advocates for the inclusion of language on the protection and expansion of civic space. But much work remains to be done before, during and after the summit to ensure ambitious commitments are adopted and then realised.

What’s the purpose of the Summit of the Future?

The Summit of the Future is an initiative of the UN Secretary-General to bring together heads of states and governments to discuss the future of global cooperation and what is needed to secure a promising future for humanity, as envisioned in the UN Charter. With only a few years left to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set out in the 2030 Agenda, the recent High-Level Political Forum made it clear we are far behind. This new initiative aims to turbocharge sustainable development and ensure we meet the goal of leaving no one behind.

Scheduled for September, just before the UN General Assembly, this summit aims to breathe new life into the UN in a number of areas: sustainable development, peace and security, science, technology and innovation, youth and future generations and transforming global governance. It is a far-reaching project that seeks to consolidate the UN’s commitments and strategies into a single document that outlines our collective goals and the means to achieve them.

The summit’s outcome document will be the Pact for the Future, which states have been negotiating for several months. It includes two annexes: the Declaration for Future Generations and the Global Digital Compact. The governments of Germany and Namibia are co-facilitating the drafting process for the pact.

How has civil society engaged, and how much influence has it had?

Civil society has been actively involved from the beginning to try to ensure the outcome documents reflect the concerns of all people. This has mainly been through the Major Groups and other Stakeholders Coordination Mechanism, a network of civil society representatives working with various stakeholders to advance the 2030 Agenda.

Outright International is part of the LGBTI stakeholder group. We meet regularly with other organisations to set the agenda and discuss what we want to see in the document. We have also engaged with states and the European Union to stress the importance of drafting an inclusive document that recognises and respects diversity.

We also participated in a civil society conference in Nairobi, where we formed coalitions to contribute to the document on 21 themes. Once the zero draft was finalised, the co-facilitators organised online consultations, inviting us to share our thoughts and suggest changes and inclusions. Two revisions followed.

But it’s been a bumpy ride for civil society. While some of our suggestions have been incorporated, negotiations are still controlled by states who have been quick to remind us they are in the driver’s seat. Civil society has been pushing for more involvement, but ultimately states control the process.

What issues and policies do you advocate for?

LGBTQI+ people aren’t looking for special treatment – we just want to be recognised as having equal dignity and rights. We are people with disabilities, from different ethnic and racial backgrounds, of different ages, with different jobs and families. We want a pact with inclusive language that reflects and respects our diversity.

In the sustainable development chapter, we focus on the elimination of discrimination to ensure social protection and employment opportunities are available to all. We advocate for the inclusion of LGBTQI+ people in economic growth policies, recognising that metrics such as GDP often overlook human wellbeing and sustainability. We must think about development more broadly. We urge global financial institutions to uphold human rights standards and address discrimination in their practices. Sustainable development must go hand in hand with inclusion.

When it comes to peace and security, we want to ensure LGBTQI+ people are included in conflict prevention measures. We also strive for the eradication of gender-based violence against women, transgender people and anyone who doesn’t conform to heterosexual patriarchal norms. Peace is not just the absence of war, and the pact should reflect the fact that people’s bodies are sites of struggle.

In the area of technology, we promote regional cooperation to develop inclusive digital literacy programmes that ensure LGBTQI+ people have internet access. We also want to ensure online spaces are safe for all and LGBTQI+ people are protected from surveillance and harassment.

In the chapter on youth and future generations, we push for young LGBTQI+ people to be included in decision-making processes at all levels so their voices are heard in shaping their future and that of future generations.

In global governance, we advocate for a system based on trust, cooperation, decolonisation, interdependence and distributed power. We stress the importance of strengthening international human rights obligations to prevent states flouting them.

Overall, we advocate for the protection of human rights in their entirety, creating an environment that is truly inclusive and supportive of all people.

What are your expectations for the summit?

Civil society approaches this process with goodwill but also apprehension. We fear the pact will be yet another document with high ideals but little practical impact. It looks like an aspirational document designed to make us feel heard and keep us quiet.

While it contains references to international law and various international agreements, the pact lacks strong accountability measures, which could undermine its effectiveness. It also assumes that existing processes are good enough and merely need to be better implemented. However, institutions such as the UN Security Council need substantial reform.

Moreover, the document is unclear about the next steps – not only in the long term, but also in the near future. States are supposed to review the 2030 Agenda in 2027, which is just around the corner. But they don’t have a clear analysis of where they’ve failed and what they need to do to achieve the SDGs.

Almost nine years have passed since the adoption of the SDGs, and we have seen little progress. It’s hard to put faith in yet another process that looks so much like the previous one.

While we welcome the ‘big dream’ energy and long-term thinking, we have doubts about how this will be translated into practical actions. We need stronger commitments and clear step-by-step implementation strategies.

But we still have some hope that states want change, and that’s why we remain actively engaged. The draft pact has the potential to shift government mindsets and highlight the urgency of addressing challenges. We hope this ‘big picture’ thinking will lead to meaningful multilateral cooperation.

What are your next steps?

We will continue to engage with the co-facilitators, providing feedback and pushing to further strengthen the pact’s language. We want more stakeholders to be involved in the process, but don’t want to be constantly begging for inclusion, so we are advocating for institutionalised participation processes.

We will continue to engage with our constituencies, gather their perspectives and bring these ideas to the table. We will also participate in the Action Days, organising and participating in side events.

But our most crucial role will be to keep the document alive in the longer term, just as we did with the SDGs. We will constantly remind states of their commitments and encourage people to do the same. But to do that, we need clear language and implementation and accountability mechanisms.

Get in touch with Outright International through its website or Facebook and Instagram pages, and follow @OutrightIntl on Twitter. Get in touch with Ophelia through LinkedIn.

This interview was conducted as part of the ENSURED Horizon research project funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

CIVICUS speaks with Rebecca Shoot, Executive Director of Citizens for Global Solutions, about the advisory opinion recently issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

In response to a 2022 request by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, on 19 July the ICJ issued an advisory opinion declaring Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) illegal. Citing violations of international law and Palestine’s right to self-determination, it urged that Israel end the occupation ‘as soon as possible’. It called for an immediate halt to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and urged other states not to aid or assist Israel in maintaining its presence. The ICJ is the UN’s highest court, and while its advisory opinions aren’t binding, they set important precedents.

How important is the ICJ’s advisory opinion on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories?

Advisory opinions are one of the ICJ’s greatest but least used tools. Unlike contentious cases between states, advisory opinions are legal questions submitted by the UN General Assembly or other UN bodies. The ICJ handles a wide range of advisory requests, including on climate change, deep sea mining and territorial disputes. States can submit third-party observations and written submissions.

The much-anticipated advisory opinion the ICJ delivered on 19 July was requested by the General Assembly on 30 December 2022 and addressed the question of whether Israel’s actions in the OPT violate international law. It concluded that they did indeed constitute multiple violations of international law. The ICJ issued 14 separate opinions. On several key points, the majority was decisive, with votes such as 14 to one, 12 to three and 11 to four, indicating a strong consensus among the judges.

While in other controversial or contentious cases the ICJ has opted to be more discreet, in this case it went quite far in giving its opinion. For example, while occupations are usually associated with military armed conflict, in this case the court said there were other ways in which Israel was illegally occupying the Palestinian territories, such as by applying its own law. It concluded this was also a violation of international law.

It also found Israel had violated human rights treaties, which apply extraterritorially when a state exercises jurisdiction outside its territory. This means the human rights violations found to have been committed by Israel are violations of international law.

The court also found that Israel’s discriminatory policies and unequal treatment of Israelis and Palestinians under the law violated several human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

We expected the ICJ to find that Israel’s actions constituted a violation of international law, but we didn’t expect it to be so expansive in its reasoning or identify such a wide range of violations. It cited violations of international humanitarian law, international human rights law, the UN Charter and the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. It represents a significant advance in international law and is likely to be studied and debated for years to come.

With regard to the implications for other states, the conclusions are also significant. First, with important nuances in the various judges’ opinions, the court reiterated the erga omnes nature – meaning towards states as a whole – of the international legal obligations Israel has been held to be violating. Various treaties, including the European Union Association Agreement with Israel, are also potentially in need of review, where Israel has been found to violate ‘essential elements’ with regard to human rights. This will have major implications for bilateral and multilateral agreements.

Can this advisory opinion affect the ongoing conflict?

This advisory opinion is an important precedent, particularly in relation to other occupied territories, such as Ukraine. Now there’s no way Israel’s allies can pretend Israel has been a fair actor, even before the conflict in Gaza broke out.

But advisory opinions are not legally binding. They are meant to provide guidance on legal issues, but they don’t have the same enforceability as a binding decision in a contentious case. And even in those cases, the ICJ doesn’t have its own enforcement mechanism and relies on the cooperation of states. There is no international police force to enforce the court’s decision and tell Israel to get out of Palestine now.

The purpose of advisory opinions is to influence future policy and legislation. If Israel continues to ignore such a clear ICJ advisory opinion, it will further diminish its status under international law and its position within the community of states and the diplomatic world order.

How does this relate to the ongoing genocide case?

The South Africa v. Israel genocide case is a completely different process within the ICJ and should not be confused with this advisory opinion.

There are four ways in which cases and opinions can come to the ICJ. The advisory opinion and the genocide case illustrate two of them. The advisory opinion came in response to a request by General Assembly, while the genocide case was brought by a state – South Africa – alleging that the actions of another state – Israel – constituted violations of the Genocide Convention, the ICJ being the mechanism in charge of resolving the dispute.

This case followed the precedent set by The Gambia v. Myanmar, where the ICJ accepted a case from a state not directly affected by the alleged genocide. The court held that a violation of the Genocide Convention, regardless of where it occurred, is something that can be denounced by any state. South Africa used this reasoning to present its case against Israel, alleging that genocide was being committed against Palestinian people.

While both cases involve violations of human rights and humanitarian law, the advisory opinion is not a treaty-based proceeding. The genocide case is based on the very limited definition of genocide as set out in the Genocide Convention. The ICJ must determine whether Israel’s actions were committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. And that is difficult – but not impossible – to prove.

What are the other ways of bringing a case to the ICJ?

States can also make a special agreement that they want the ICJ to help them resolve a dispute, even if this compromise is not a clause in a treaty. An example is a seminal dispute between Hungary and Slovakia over damming the Danube River.

States can also accept the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction in all contentious disputes. This is crucial. By doing so, states affirm the inviolability of international law and the centrality of the ICJ. To date, 74 out of 193 UN member states have filed such declarations.

States such as Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Romania and Switzerland are working to increase this number. They are showing other countries why the ICJ is important and how it can help them, and dispel some of the myths about its jurisdiction.

Citizens for Global Solutions supports these efforts through its Legal Alternatives to War (LAW not War) campaign. We help states overcome the political barriers, substantive concerns and any bureaucratic issues that prevent them accepting the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction. Our goal is to reach universality before the UN’s hundredth anniversary in 2045. We know it’s ambitious, but we are making progress.

Are there other legal mechanisms currently dealing with the conflict in Gaza?

These disputes often take place in several complementary forums. There’s another case before the International Criminal Court (ICC), which deals with different aspects of international law. While the ICJ deals with disputes between states or advises them on their dynamics, the ICC focuses on individual criminal responsibility for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression, as defined in the Rome Statute.

The ICC prosecutor is currently investigating alleged war crimes committed in Gaza by both parties to the conflict. This is a different case from the ICJ advisory opinion and the genocide case. This means that there are multiple paths to justice and accountability for violations of international law.

How could the ICJ be improved?

Since it was established in 1945, the ICJ has examined 195 cases. It delivered its first advisory opinion in 1947. It is currently hearing 24 different cases, which gives us an idea of how busy it is today compared to its history.

But there is room for improvement. The ICJ could learn some lessons from the ICC and other international courts and tribunals set up since then.

The requirement that all 15 judges be present for every case – even if it is only a preliminary ruling – hampers its efficiency. The nomination and election of judges could also be improved. There are very strict rules on geographical representation and expertise. But at the end of the day, there is a lot of campaigning and lobbying by states. The ICJ must be objective. Its opinions are legitimate because they don’t come from a vested interest. But this is difficult to maintain when the process of nominating and electing judges is politicised.

Get in touch with Citizens for Global Solutions through its website or Facebook page, and follow @GlobalSolutions and @RAShoot on Twitter.

CIVICUS discusses the upcoming Summit of the Future with Jennifer Rauch, Global Advocacy Officer at Fòs Feminista, a global feminist organisation that promotes sexual reproductive health and rights around the world.

In September, world leaders will gather at the United Nations (UN) World Summit of the Future to adopt the Pact for the Future. In preparation for the Summit, civil society, academia and the private sector have contributed to the pact’s draft. Civil society sees the process as an opportunity to strengthen commitments on the environment, human rights and social justice, and CIVICUS advocates for the inclusion of language on the protection and expansion of civic space. But much work remains to be done before, during and after the summit to ensure ambitious commitments are adopted and then realised.

What’s the purpose of the Summit of the Future?

The Summit of the Future was originally designed to explore how states could cooperate to realise the aspirations and goals of previous multilateral and high-level agreements, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 2030 Agenda’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement on climate change.

The summit aims to accelerate efforts to meet these international commitments, address new and emerging challenges and galvanise support for their full implementation. States will agree on three action-oriented outcome documents: the Pact for the Future and its two annexes, the Declaration for Future Generations and the Global Digital Compact.

Scheduled for 22 and 23 September, it will take place during the high-level week of the UN General Assembly’s 79th session, and will feature plenary meetings and interactive dialogues.

What’s the Pact for the Future and how was it drafted?

The Pact for the Future will be adopted on the summit’s first day, after which member states and UN agencies will make statements in response to its adoption. It will be a negotiated document with five chapters on sustainable development and financing for development, international peace and security, science, technology and innovation and digital cooperation, youth and future generations, and transforming global governance.

The drafting process began in November 2023, with the permanent missions of Germany and Namibia acting as co-facilitators. They conducted informal consultations with member states to gather general themes and substantive priorities. In December, the co-facilitators also hosted a multi-stakeholder dialogue where civil society also shared substantive priorities for the pact. They also issued a call for written inputs from various stakeholders, including states, civil society, UN agencies and the private sector.

Based on all these inputs, the co-facilitators presented the zero draft in January 2024. Since then, several versions of the pact have been released.

How much influence has civil society had in this process?

There is a difference between civil society engagement and influence. Civil society has been presented with several opportunities to engage in the process. After each draft of the pact was released, the co-facilitators hosted virtual consultations for civil society to voice their opinions directly to the co-facilitators and advocate for changes, such as inclusion of stronger language related to their priority areas.

In May, civil society organisations (CSOs) around the world were also invited to attend the UN Civil Society Conference in Nairobi, where participants discussed their aspirations for the pact and strategised on potential opportunities to influence its language. For example, as Fòs Feminista, we submitted written inputs, attended all civil society consultations and briefings and encouraged our partners across different regions to join as well. We engaged directly with states to advocate for gender equality and encouraged our partners in different countries to lobby their national governments.

In May, we participated in the Nairobi conference, where we advocated for the strengthened inclusion in the pact of language on sexual and reproductive health, justice and gender equality.

But engagement of civil society does not necessarily mean civil society has had adequate influence. While Fòs Feminista, our partners and allies have been present in the briefings and at the Nairobi conference, it remains unclear how much of our inputs and advocacy have influenced each draft of the pact.

We would have loved the virtual briefings to be more inclusive of diverse, global civil society; the virtual briefings are only available in English and during the mornings in New York. This unfortunately does not allow the participation of our non-English speaking, global south, or Asia Pacific allies to share their lived experiences and priorities for a more equitable and just future.

Likewise, while the Nairobi conference was a refreshing change of pace from meetings at UN headquarters, it was unclear how its outcomes would influence the draft pact. By the time the conference began, negotiations for the pact had progressed for almost three months, and therefore the ability for tangible, robust and progressive changes had already passed.

For these reasons, Fòs Feminista co-wrote and shared a letter, co-signed by over 360 CSOs, detailing our concerns with the lack of transparency over civil society engagement, influence and accountability mechanisms in the summit processes. Despite having different opportunities for engagement, it remains clear that the summit and its outcome documents are an intergovernmental process and negotiation. Overall, our influence ultimately depends on states’ political will and willingness to adopt a progressive agenda.

What recommendations have you made, and what are your expectations?

Unfortunately, the pact does not have a chapter dedicated to gender equality, so in each version of the pact we have pushed for a cross-cutting gender lens in all five chapters. Our recommendations focused on integrating a human rights-based approach to health and gender equality, including sexual and reproductive health and rights, universal health coverage, inclusive and quality education and protection from sexual and gender-based violence.

We also advocated for disaggregated data on gender equality, the empowerment of women, girls and gender-diverse people and the reaffirmation of human rights instruments such as the International Conference on Population Development’s Programme of Action and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action.

As a feminist organisation, we have also called for stronger language on civil society participation, particularly for feminist and youth-led organisations, ensuring that historically and structurally excluded groups are prioritised and truly not left behind. Overall, we have advocated for a pact based on human rights and gender equality principles, to ensure the summit helps achieves the SDGs and holds governments accountable to their prior commitments.

Fortunately, many of the issues that we advocate for, such as sexual and reproductive health and rights, the prevention of gender-based violence and the empowerment of women and girls, have been included in the most recent version of the pact. But it is one thing is to have them mentioned, and another to have member states make strong commitments to achieve these goals.

Initially, our ambition was high, but as negotiations went on, we began to temper our expectations. We hoped for more ambitious and progressive language related to gender and human rights, but contentious topics such as gender-transformative approaches to climate change, sexual and reproductive health and rights and the eradication of poverty were watered down. However, we remain hopeful that our ally states will continue to push for progressive and gender-equal language

What’s next for civil society in the run-up to the summit?

Civil society will closely monitor the release of the final draft of the pact and its annexes and we will make last-minute advocacy efforts before the document is adopted in September.

Before the summit, the UN Secretary-General will host two Action Days that bring together diverse stakeholders, including civil society, the private sector, youth-led organisations and anyone who has helped shape the pact and its annexes. This will provide opportunities for civil society to discuss the pact’s contents, attend side events, engage with stakeholders and connect with like-minded organisations and UN officials.

Civil society will also have the chance to attend the summit during the high-level week. Registration is open to all civil society organisations, not just those accredited to the UN Economic and Social Council.

What are your hopes for the summit?

We hope the summit will galvanise support for the commitments made in previous multi-stakeholder processes and offer a chance to review progress made on the SDGs, while addressing existing gaps and failures in their implementation. It will bring diverse stakeholders together to assess progress and chart the way forward. We hope the summit will provide actionable steps for member states to achieve these unmet goals and create accountability mechanisms, in partnership with civil society, to ensure no one is left behind.

But its lasting impact will depend on states’ political will. Civil society is ready to push for ambition and hold governments accountable over their commitments, as we have always done. But the effectiveness of our efforts will ultimately depend on states. Civil society has already played its part to advocate for an inclusive future – now it’s up to states and governments to make it happen.

Get in touch with Fòs Feminista through its website or Facebook or Instagram pages, and follow @Fos_Feminista on Twitter.

This interview was conducted as part of the ENSURED Horizon research project funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

CIVICUS discusses the upcoming Summit of the Future with Julie Murray, Advocacy Advisor at Save the Children International, a global organisation advocating for children’s rights and interests worldwide.

In September, world leaders will gather at the United Nations (UN) World Summit of the Future to adopt the Pact for the Future. Ahead of the summit, civil society, academia and the private sector have contributed to the pact’s draft. Civil society sees the process as an opportunity to strengthen commitments on the environment, human rights and social justice, and CIVICUS advocates for the inclusion of language on the protection and expansion of civic space. But much work remains to be done before, during and after the summit to ensure ambitious commitments are adopted and then realised.

What will happen at the Summit of the Future?

The Summit of the Future is a multilateral meeting that will take place on 22 and 23 September during the high-level week of this year’s UN General Assembly. Its goal is to renew and restore trust in multilateralism to address the complex, shared global challenges of today and tomorrow.

During the summit, states will adopt three outcome documents: the Pact for the Future and its two annexes, the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the Declaration on Future Generations (DoFG). These are currently being negotiated and will outline commitments on sustainable development, peace and security, science, technology, innovation and digital cooperation, youth and future generations, and global governance.

The summit will primarily serve as a platform for states to make official statements and discuss key issues in interactive dialogues with other stakeholders.

How are the outcome documents being developed?

The Summit of the Future has been under discussion for about two years but was first proposed as part of UN Secretary-General António Guterres’s Our Common Agenda in 2020. In 2022, states agreed to convene the summit in 2024 to adopt a concise, action-oriented Pact for the Future. The scope of the pact was later agreed at a ministerial meeting in September 2023.

Negotiations for each outcome document are co-facilitated by two states: Germany and Namibia are leading on the Pact for the Future, Sweden and Zambia on the GDC and Jamaica and the Netherlands on the DoFG. Co-facilitators began drafting the texts in late 2023. Chairs first consulted states and stakeholders and then requested written submissions, on the basis of which they prepared zero drafts that were circulated in early 2024. Each document went through a series of readings and negotiations among states and consultations with stakeholders.

As of late July, the co-facilitators have presented the second revision of the Pact for the Future and the DoFG and the third revision of the GDC. Third revision texts are close to final, and are released under the silence procedure, meaning that states typically only continue to negotiate on specific paragraphs if they cannot agree to the text as drafted, while the rest of the document is closed to changes.

The Pact for the Future has seen the most contentious debates, so negotiations are expected to continue until early August, while the other two outcome documents may be finalised earlier.

How much influence has civil society had in the process?

Civil society has had limited influence, as only states are officially involved in negotiations. However, co-facilitators have made efforts to take our views into account and integrate them when they align to states’ priorities.

Midway through the negotiation process, in May 2024, the UN hosted a civil society conference in Nairobi. Civil society played a key role in planning this conference. Many co-facilitators and other states attended to hear our priorities for the summit. Holding the meeting in the global south made it more accessible for local organisations. At the conference, the UN encouraged civil society to form coalitions around issues of common interest related to the summit.

Save the Children actively engaged throughout the process. We provided written inputs and participated in every stakeholder consultation. Our engagement also included advocacy approaches such as bilateral meetings, briefings, events, joint statements, open letters and working through coalitions.

Civil society has been vocal in urging that the outcome documents and the summit itself are inclusive and address the real needs of people, particularly those facing inequality and discrimination around the world. Save the Children supported children from six African countries to attend the civil society conference in Nairobi and three children to participate in the DoFG stakeholder consultation. People under 18 are often excluded from policy-making processes that affect their lives and their needs tend to be overlooked.

But unlike the 2030 Agenda negotiations, where civil society was able to participate, negotiations on the Pact for the Future and the GDC are closed to us, making it harder to follow the discussions. Fortunately, negotiations on the DoFG are open to civil society observation, allowing us to tailor advocacy messages and provide suggestions on language to include. We hope this practice will become more widespread in the future, because even though we also provide suggestions to states even when negotiations are closed to civil society, these can be more useful and focus on key areas of debate when we can observe negotiations.

What issues are you advocating should be included in the outcome documents?

We are pushing for more substantive language on children, particularly in the sustainable development chapter. Across UN negotiations, there has been some resistance to recognise children’s rights. However, the Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most widely ratified human rights treaty. Meeting children’s needs today is crucial to fulfilling their rights tomorrow. We hope states recognise this.

Children make up about a third of the world’s population. With the escalation of war, violence and the climate crisis, the fulfilment of their rights is more urgent than ever. At Save the Children, our priority is to ensure these rights are mainstreamed throughout the three outcome documents.

We must invest in public services for the children of today and tomorrow. This requires reform of the international financial architecture to ensure all countries can finance climate resilience and adaptation measures, child protection, education, health and other essential services. Children must also be protected from violence. Every year, a billion children face physical, emotional and sexual abuse. They are growing up in a rapidly evolving digital world that was not designed for them, so we must ensure their rights and safety offline and online.

Children have the right to participate in decisions that affect them, as stated in article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. They are key stakeholders here, as they are the generation closest to future generations. So we have engaged children in virtual Children’s Assemblies to gather their priorities and will release a ‘Children’s Pact for the Future’. We have detailed our position in two policy briefs: Realizing Intergenerational Justice for Children and Future Generations and Fulfilling the Rights of Children, With Children, Today and Tomorrow.

It remains to be seen whether children’s rights will be meaningfully included in the pact. There has been much back and forth on this issue. Progress has been made in the chapters on peace and security and youth and future generations, but negotiations aren’t over yet. The GDC is progressive on children’s digital rights, and the DoFG is strong on ensuring an environment that upholds children’s rights, despite debates about whether children are ‘critical agents of change,’ as stated in the 2030 Agenda.

What are the next steps for civil society, and what are your expectations for the summit?

The Summit of the Future, the pact and its annexes have the potential to make a difference, but only if they are bold and action-oriented, include effective accountability mechanisms and are achieved through an inclusive process. Otherwise they won’t make a real difference to people’s lives now or in the future.

Civil society amplifies the voices of communities that are often excluded and forgotten, so it’s vital that civil society contributions are reflected in the outcome documents. This will make them more realistic, responsive to the needs of communities and more likely to gain the support needed for implementation.

Civil society must continue to monitor the negotiations, encourage states to make bold commitments at the summit, collaborate on implementation and monitoring and hold states to account afterwards. Virtual and in-person side events during the summit and its Action Days will create spaces for important multi-stakeholder conversations and amplify voices not typically heard within the UN.

The summit must include children’s voices. 2024 marks the 100th anniversary of the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child, drafted by Save the Children founder Eglantyne Jebb. Yet their rights and voices are often neglected and underfunded. But our work has shown they have a vested interest in the future and valuable insights to contribute.

Further, the Summit of the Future cannot operate in isolation. It must be linked to the 2030 Agenda and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. The summit’s work should also respect the UN Charter and international humanitarian and human rights law, and align with other UN outcomes and processes, such as the Commission on the Status of Women and the Financing for Development process.

We must remain ambitious and optimistic, and encourage states to do the same. Without high expectations and a clear vision of an equitable, just, peaceful and sustainable future, we’ll never get there.

Get in touch with Save the Children through its website or Facebook page, and follow @SC_UNNY and @save_children on Twitter. Get in touch with Julie Murray on LinkedIn.

This interview was conducted as part of the ENSURED Horizon research project funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

CIVICUS speaks with Darío Iza Pilaquinga, president of the Kitu Kara People of the Kichwa nationality of Ecuador, about a historic court ruling that applied a constitutional provision recognising the rights of nature.

On 5 July, an Ecuadorian court issued a ruling recognising the rights of the Machángara River, which flows through the country’s capital, Quito. While other countries in the region recognise the right of people to a healthy environment, Ecuador’s constitution also recognises the right of natural elements not to be degraded. The lawsuit to protect the rights of the river, affected by high levels of pollution, was filed by the Indigenous Kitu Kara people. As a result of the ruling, the Municipality of the Metropolitan District of Quito must produce a plan to clean up the river.

What rights does the Ecuadorian Constitution recognise to natural elements?

The constitution recognises nature as a subject of rights. In practice, any person or community can demand that the authorities respect the rights of nature. The constitution also establishes the right to environmental restoration, which means the state must eliminate or mitigate the harmful effects of human activities on the environment.

The fact that Ecuador recognises the rights of nature clashes with western legal concepts, but for us it is an issue that goes beyond the legal and even the environmental realm. For Indigenous peoples, rivers and mountains are unique sacred entities that must be protected and preserved.

What tactics do Ecuadorian social movements use to demand environmental protection?

Citizens and Indigenous communities are demanding public policies that recognise the violation of nature’s rights. However, because we don’t want to depend on the changing will of successive administrations, we view court rulings as a fundamental tool for guaranteeing rights, including long-term environmental protection.

Through litigation, we have obtained Constitutional Court rulings that establish clear rules and oblige all public officials to protect rivers, regardless of changes in government. These rulings oblige institutions to define public policy to that effect and commit citizens to respecting nature and being aware of the environmental impact of their actions.

Finally, we run media campaigns to inform the public about the pollution levels of rivers and organise community litter picking. These campaigns are essential because, even if the government sets ambitious goals for itself, it cannot achieve them in the absence of people’s active participation.

Why did you file a lawsuit to protect the Machángara River?

The Machángara River, which flows through Quito, is very polluted. It looks more like an open sewer than a river. We believe that by failing to clean up its waters, the Quito authorities are violating the right of people in Quito to a healthy environment and the right of the river itself to not be degraded or polluted.

When the Kitu Kara people, alongside their communities and organisations, decided to join this action to defend the rights of the river, other environmental and cultural collectives joined us. Citizens’ groups, academics and researchers joined the cause, as well as former municipal officials who provided evidence of the lack of maintenance and conservation work on the river.

The city government is directly responsible for the failure to prevent pollution. Its public enterprises include the Municipal Public Company of Water and Sanitation (EPMAPS), responsible for drinking water supply and sewerage. Only three per cent of wastewater is treated, while the rest is discharged directly into the river. This affects water quality and environmental safety.

In our lawsuit, we hold the Municipality of Quito responsible for the pollution of the river and the violation of our rights. After hearing witnesses and scientists, the court found that in some stretches the river has only two per cent of oxygen, while the minimum required for animals and plants is 80 per cent. This is due to the presence of a large number of bacteria, parasites and viruses that consume the oxygen in the water.

In its ruling, the court recognised that the river’s rights were being violated and stated that the municipality must clean up the river and develop a methodology alongside citizens to educate them about the importance of protecting nature.

This landmark ruling is not the first: almost two years ago there was a similar one concerning the Monjas River. Although each case is unique, both rulings provide others in Ecuador with the legal tools they need to demand the protection of their rivers – such as people in the province of Pastaza, who have begun to demand the recognition of the Puyo River as a subject of rights.

How has the municipal government reacted?

Since the beginning, the city government tried to boycott the trial. They started by saying that our lawyer had a conflict of interest because he had been a judge at the Constitutional Court in the Monjas River case. But the judge rejected this.

Then they tried to take advantage of our naivety to get us to drop the case. A few days before the hearing, they called us to a meeting where they encouraged us to also sue the Ministry of the Environment, which is responsible for the rivers and for issuing permits, as well as EPMAPS. But our lawyers told us that if we requested the inclusion of additional defendants, the existing process could be declared null and void.

Once the process started, the mayor went to the media to announce that a project to build 27 treatment plants had been approved, in an attempt to show he was addressing the problem. When we asked for and received more information, we discovered that one of the main proposed plants, which would treat a large proportion of sewage, would be built on land that was part of the ancestral community of Llano Grande, which had not yet been consulted. In other words, the Indigenous communities’ right to free, prior and informed consent was being violated.

Even if the municipality had carried out the consultation and the community had given its consent, the project couldn’t have been carried out easily, because it would have destroyed an archaeological and agricultural zone and a preserve of Andean dry forest, violating the rights of nature. In short, the municipality was trying to solve one problem by creating another. When we objected, they accused us of obstructing their actions to solve the problem we had created.

Finally, their reaction to the ruling was also negative: the city government appealed the decision and promoted an extensive social media campaign to justify its position. This was aggravated by the activation of a troll campaign against us, as well as the intervention of other groups trying to take advantage of the situation in their fight against the current municipal administration.

However, we are optimistic. We believe that the Provincial Court and, if it comes to it, the National Court will ratify the decision, because the violation of rights we have denounced is so clear and obvious.

Civic space in Ecuador is rated ‘obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with Darío Iza through his Instagram page and follow @daroizap on Twitter.

CIVICUS speaks with Fridah Wawira, gender specialist and acting Executive Director of the Coalition on Violence against Women (COVAW), about gender-based violence (GBV) in Kenya and civil society efforts to eradicate it.

COVAW is a Kenyan women’s rights organisation established in 1995 to respond to the lack of action to address GBV and a related issue – the very low number of women in key leadership positions. It works to improve women’s access to comprehensive support for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and sexual and reproductive health services, promote women’s economic empowerment and leadership development and ensure equal access to justice. 2024 has seen a spike in incidences of GBV in Kenya, sparking civil society protests.

How big a problem is GBV in Kenya, and what are its main causes?

This has been a particularly difficult year for women and girls in Kenya, with a disturbing increase in GBV cases, particularly femicide. In January alone, 14 femicides were reported. This led to nationwide protests organised by human rights and feminist groups and activists, culminating in a major march on 27 January. In July, 14 dismembered female bodies were discovered in a disused quarry in Mukuru Kwa Njenga.

Perpetrators of GBV are often known to their victims. According to Kenya’s National Crime Research Centre, one woman is killed every 48 hours by an intimate partner or family member. The 2022 Kenya Demographic Health Survey found that 28 per cent of women aged 15 to 49 who had ever been married or had an intimate partner had experienced emotional, physical or sexual violence.

There has also been a significant increase in technology-facilitated GBV, particularly towards women in politics and public life. This has increased despite progressive legislation such as the Computer Misuse and Cybercrime Act 2018. According to Pollicy’s 2023 Byte Bullies Report, 55.7 per cent of female candidates in the 2022 general election experienced online violence. The recent appointment of Soipan Tuya as Cabinet Secretary for Defence highlights the ongoing challenges faced by women in leadership roles, as she too experienced online violence.

Why is GBV so difficult to address effectively?

Kenya has a comprehensive legal and policy framework to address SGBV but implementation has been weak. The main challenges are insufficient funding to implement GBV laws and policies and lack of access to justice.

COVAW’s study on legal and administrative bottlenecks to justice for SGBV survivors in Kenya found significant delays in the judicial process. For example, by November 2021, under half of sexual offence cases from 2017 had been completed in four of the seven court stations surveyed. In addition, many completed cases had been withdrawn, often due to procedural issues.

Among many others, the case of Sharon Otieno, a university student who was raped and killed in Kodera Forest, remains unsolved seven years later. This leads to frustration and a loss of confidence in the justice system. It also contributes to underreporting and reliance on alternative dispute resolution methods, which often perpetuate impunity and tolerance of SGBV. COVAW urges the judiciary, executive and parliament to implement measures to ensure survivors’ rights are fully realised.

Funding is also a chronic problem. For example, Kenya’s response to its Generation Equality Forum commitments has been lacklustre. The country pledged to invest US$23 million by 2022 and increase funding to US$50 million by 2026 for GBV prevention and response. However, the Auditor General’s performance audit report reveals that only US$8 million, including donor funding, was invested between 2018/2019 and 2021/2022.

This shortfall has slowed the implementation of commitments, such as the establishment of safe houses for GBV survivors in all 47 counties. Currently, there are only five government-owned safe houses and not all are operational.

How is Kenyan civil society working to eradicate GBV?

COVAW, like many other civil society organisations, is playing an active role. Over the years, we have invested in empowering women and girls to claim their rights, providing equitable access to services, resources and opportunities, facilitating greater access to justice for SGBV survivors and supporting people who can promote change who are committed to ending all forms of violence against women and girls.

To achieve this vision, COVAW uses an integrated approach that focuses on supporting evidence-based advocacy, piloting and implementing innovative, high-impact responses to SGBV, providing technical support to women, girls and key people and groups involved in addressing violence against women and girls and supporting mobilisation to increase awareness and activism on women’s and girls’ rights.

In response to the alarming rise in cases of femicide and extrajudicial killings, civil society in Kenya has played a critical role in mobilising and organising people to demand justice. Human rights organisations have uncovered the truth, provided real-time data on the number of victims and called for thorough and prompt investigations and prosecutions. Civil society groups have provided immediate assistance to victims, survivors and their families, including by covering medical expenses, offering free counselling services and providing pro bono legal assistance. Privately owned safe houses are providing much-needed temporary refuge to survivors and women and girls at risk of abuse. This support has been instrumental in providing timely and accessible services to GBV survivors.

What are the challenges faced by grassroots organisations working on GBV and what support do they need?

Grassroots organisations working on GBV face challenges related to security and resources. Leaders of these organisations often face threats and harassment aimed at discouraging their advocacy work. There have been cases of killings, shootings and unlawful abductions of human rights defenders, despite civil society calls for law enforcement bodies to comply with court orders prohibiting the use of lethal force against peaceful protesters. Unfortunately, no action has been taken against those responsible for these acts.

In addition, many grassroots organisations lack funding to address GBV comprehensively. They need flexible budgets to provide timely and life-saving services, such as medical care and rescue operations. However, donors often offer restricted funding, making it difficult to respond effectively.

GBV is deeply rooted in patriarchal norms, so addressing it requires long-term community engagement. Most donors commit to funding for one year or less, which is insufficient to effect lasting changes in social and gender norms.

To improve their response to GBV, organisations like COVAW need access to long-term, unrestricted funding to build their institutional capacity and comprehensively respond to GBV. The Kenyan government must work with civil society to eradicate GBV.

Civic space in Kenya is rated ‘obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with COVAW through its website, and follow @covaw on Twitter.

CIVICUS discusses environmental activism in Cambodia’s heavily repressed civic space with Naly Pilorge, Outreach Director of the Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights (LICADHO). LICADHO is a civil society organisation (CSO) that works with communities and activists to monitor, investigate and document civic space restrictions and human rights abuses in Cambodia.

On 2 July, a Cambodian court sentenced 10 activists from the Mother Nature movement to between six and eight years in prison and heavy fines for allegedly ‘plotting’ and ‘insulting the King’. Mother Nature works to defend and protect Cambodia’s natural resources and people’s environmental rights, and has angered the authorities by exposing the links between environmental degradation and government corruption. Its work was recognised with the 2023 Right Livelihood award, but the court stopped several of those facing criminal charges travelling to Sweden to receive the prize.

Why has Mother Nature been targeted by the authorities?

Mother Nature focuses on protecting Cambodia’s remaining natural resources. Activists use direct action to raise awareness and pressure the authorities to protect the country’s national parks, forests and islands. It has been very effective in drawing public attention to important environmental issues, and has even had some success in getting the government to reverse some of its more outrageous concessions and giveaways to private interests.

In the process, it has made powerful enemies within the state. Unfortunately, in Cambodia, the more effective your activism, the more likely you are to be targeted by a government that doesn’t see dissent as legitimate and won’t accept those who contradict it or cause it to lose face. That’s why the 10 activists were charged with the outrageous crime of conspiracy against the state and given such disproportionate sentences – six to eight years in prison for their peaceful activism. These sentences should serve as a sobering reminder and deter others from doing the same.

What are the conditions for civil society in Cambodia?

In Cambodia, people’s ability to exercise their fundamental civic freedoms of association, expression and peaceful assembly depends on the whims of the government, which sometimes allows a bit more space but often heavily restricts it. It usually does this by routinely misusing criminal legislation enacted for other purposes to undermine and weaken civil society and criminalise human rights defenders, trade unionists, youth activists, journalists and other critical voices.

If activists can get long prison sentences for testing polluted river water, advocating against deforestation or calling for the preservation of the capital’s remaining lakes, it means any meaningful activism entails immense personal risk.

So, this isn’t just about Mother Nature or even about environmental activism. All human rights defenders, including environmental activists, face an impossible situation as repression intensifies.

Fortunately, while harsh punishments for peaceful environmental activism may have a short-term chilling effect, in the long term, repression is doomed to fail. The courage of the young activists targeted will also inspire a new generation of young human rights defenders.

How has Cambodian civil society responded to the convictions, and what support from the international community does it need?

Civil society was angered and appalled by the unfounded convictions and issued statements condemning the sentences, the violent arrests of five of the convicted activists and the cruel and inhumane decision to split them into five separate prisons, mostly located in rural areas, in some cases hundreds of kilometres from their families. Their sentencing and ill treatment was seen as an all-out attack on civil society as a whole.

To help build greater respect for human rights and democratic freedoms in our country, we need everyone to stop pretending things are normal in Cambodia. Too many people are wilfully ignoring the fact that an already bad situation has deteriorated sharply over the past year. Cambodian people need new strategies, new tactics and meaningful responses from the institutions that claim to be our international partners.

Civic space in Cambodia is rated ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with LICADHO through its website

CIVICUS discusses recent setbacks for reproductive rights in Poland with Antonina Lewandowska, national advocacy coordinator at the Foundation for Women and Family Planning (FEDERA). Founded in 1991, FEDERA focuses on improving access to abortion and contraception, combating gynaecological violence and providing support and information on sexual and reproductive health and rights. FEDERA also does national and international advocacy, including with the European Union and United Nations.

Polish lawmakers recently rejected a bill that would have decriminalised abortion assistance. The bill sought to relax abortion laws, including by allowing abortion pills to be sent from abroad for medical abortions, but was narrowly defeated by 218 votes to 215. Poland currently has some of the strictest abortion laws in Europe, allowing the procedure only in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of a pregnant person. The ruling coalition that came to power in December 2023 has pledged to reform these laws but faces opposition from conservative and nationalist groups.

What obstacles do women face in getting an abortion in Poland?

There’s a widespread belief that abortion is completely illegal in Poland, but this isn’t entirely true. While a woman can terminate her pregnancy up to 22 weeks without facing any legal consequences, all forms of assistance in obtaining an abortion are criminalised. This includes providing money for pills, giving pills and driving a woman to a clinic abroad. Anyone who helps can be prosecuted.

Because of these restrictions, many women in Poland get abortions outside the official medical system. Most abortions are performed at home following World Health Organization guidance, or in clinics abroad. As abortion rights activists we do our best to educate the public and ensure people having at-home abortions know how to do so safely, but there are surely cases of women risking their health due to lack of knowledge. There are also some doctors who perform abortions illegally, but this is kept very secret because of the legal risks.

Despite the strict laws, abortion is a reality for many Polish women. Studies show that a significant proportion of Polish women will have at least one abortion in their lifetime, in line with global trends. The unclear legal framework and inconsistent enforcement, coupled with the stigma surrounding abortion, create significant hardship for women, who are often mistreated by the system even though they haven’t broken any laws.

What was the aim of the recently rejected abortion bill?

The defeated bill aimed to decriminalise abortion assistance, ensuring that people wouldn’t face jail time for helping someone obtain abortion pills or providing other related assistance. If passed, the bill would have greatly reduced the challenges faced by women seeking abortions.

The bill was reintroduced several times after a restrictive ruling by the Constitutional Tribunal, and the latest attempt fell three votes short of passing, preventing it advancing to a second reading in parliament’s lower house. It faced significant opposition from the former ruling Law and Justice party and far-right groups, but also from within the current governing coalition. Despite support from several parties, opposition from more conservative members led to its failure. This outcome caused a sense of betrayal among women who had hoped for better protection of their reproductive rights, and public outrage that sparked protests. Another bill aiming to decriminalise abortion has already been filed during a parliamentary sitting following the vote. It is expected to be discussed in September at the earliest.

Is this part of a wider trend of regression in women’s rights?

Being a woman has always been challenging in Poland. Under the Law and Justice party, in power from 2015 to 2023, it became an extremely difficult experience. Many people chose not to have children out of fear, as several women died in hospitals because of extremely restrictive abortion laws and the prosecutions that followed. This created a climate where even getting pregnant was considered too risky.

But the current government is taking promising steps. For example, the state-funded IVF programme, which had been cancelled by Law and Justice, has now been reinstated. There has also been progress on legislative issues, such as a recent petition to change the legal definition of rape to make it more survivor centred. The bill for this has been approved by parliament and now we await the president’s decision to either enact or veto the proposed change.

The Minister of Health, a woman, is working hard to improve access to contraception. While under the old system emergency contraception required a prescription, the new government attempted to make the pill available over the counter. A bill to that effect passed a parliamentary vote but was eventually vetoed by the president, who used to be a member of Law and Justice before winning re-election in 2020. The Minister of Health then drafted a backup plan so that currently it is not necessary to visit a doctor’s office to get the pill, as pharmacists are allowed to write prescriptions directly. This is not a nationwide solution and still has limitations, but it’s a step forward.

So the rejection of the abortion bill doesn’t necessarily indicate a wider regression on all aspects of women’s rights. However, the government’s reluctance to reform abortion laws, despite progress in other areas, reflects persistent anti-abortion sentiments among politicians.

What are the main demands of the Polish feminist movement?

The Polish feminist movement has several key demands, which focus primarily on improving sexual and reproductive health. The first priority is to ensure free, legal and accessible abortion services. There is also an urgent need to improve access to contraception, as Poland currently has some of the worst access in Europe, behind even countries like Belarus and Russia.

Another key demand is for comprehensive, ideologically neutral sex education to be made compulsory in schools. The legal definition of rape also needs to be updated to better protect survivors; the bill is a promising development here. Improvements in prenatal testing and obstetric care are also needed, as well as progress on longstanding issues highlighted by international bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights.

To make meaningful progress, the government should deliver on its election promises and ensure coalition partners are committed to these goals. It’s vital to update the training of medical professionals, particularly in abortion procedures, to address the wider impact of restrictive anti-abortion laws on health and social services. It’s essential to address these issues holistically to advance women’s rights and improve overall societal wellbeing, as restrictive laws affect not only individual autonomy, but the health and quality of life of all.

Civic space in Poland is rated ‘obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with FEDERA through its website or Instagram page, and follow @FEDERApl on Twitter.