Africa

Das Konjunkturbarometer des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin) legt im September deutlich zu und liegt nun bei 96,3 Punkten, nach 92 Punkten im August. Der Wert nähert sich somit der neutralen 100-Punkte-Marke, die ein durchschnittliches Wachstum der deutschen Wirtschaft ...

Marceline, a farmer from the Gwiza Cooperative in Rwamagana district, Rwanda, shows her beds of newly planted cabbage. Credit: ISF/Henry Joel

By Michael Keller
NEW YORK, Sep 30 2025 (IPS)

When you think of climate action, images of wind farms, solar panels, bicycles or electric vehicles may come to mind. Perhaps lush forests or green landscapes. What you may not think of is the humble seed.

Yet seeds are among our most powerful tools to cut emissions, adapt to rising temperatures, and reduce food waste and loss. They underpin reforestation efforts, and have the power to unlock climate-resilient, lower-emission, longer-lasting crops.

If the world is to meet its climate goals while feeding a growing population in a hotter, less predictable world, it must unleash the full potential of the seed industry. That means supporting innovation, investment, and strong collaboration between the public and private sectors.

The strong engagement at Climate Week NYC helped set the stage for the discussions we must now advance on the road to COP30 in November to fully harness the potential of seeds for a climate-resilient future.

Global temperatures continue to rise, driving more frequent extreme weather events and straining ecosystems. The fallout is global. Food security, health, migration and economic stability are all impacted, especially in the poorest nations, which have contributed the least to the problem.

Agriculture is often hit the hardest, as crops depend on stable weather, yet droughts, floods and heatwaves devastate harvests, while warmer and more humid temperatures fuel germs, spoilage and food loss. Already, one fifth of all food produced in the world is lost or wasted before people consume it.

Yet one of the most powerful tools to adapt, cut emissions, and reduce hunger remains underutilized: improved seeds. Compelling examples of the potential impact of seeds can be found scattered around the world, waiting to scale and take root.

For example, in Brazil, dedicated orchards of native trees, such as the Araucaria, are meticulously managed through a process of raising seedlings in nurseries and planting them in restoration sites. This crucial work is foundational for climate-resilient reforestation, ensuring that future forests are diverse, robust and stable in the face of changing environmental conditions.

Further afield, in Mexico, the agricultural landscape has been significantly transformed through the development and widespread adoption of climate-adapted hybrid maize varieties. This innovation has revolutionized the country’s maize production, contributing to food security and economic stability.

Simultaneously, in Rwanda, sustainable seed systems are being built from the ground up, with newly tested varieties demonstrating remarkable improvements, yielding up to nine times more than traditional seeds. These efforts highlight the power of localized, tailored seed solutions.

Looking into the future, scientific advancements are continuously pushing boundaries. Researchers are actively developing new varieties of staple crops, such as tomatoes, utilizing cutting-edge CRISPR technology. This innovative approach aims to increase the shelf life of produce and significantly limit food waste, addressing critical challenges within the global food supply chain.

To get the most out of seeds, they need to move from the margins to the mainstream of climate action to the front of people’s minds. This shift is crucial for unlocking their full potential in building a more sustainable and resilient future.

Firstly, mainstreaming seeds in climate finance would accelerate the development and delivery of climate-resilient low-emission varieties. This involves directing significant investment towards research, breeding, and distribution programs that focus on developing crops capable of thriving in changing climatic conditions while minimizing environmental impact. This can be a part of a long overdue reinvestment in agrifood systems, which currently receive just 4 per cent of climate finance.

Second, integrating seed innovation into national strategies and Nationally Determined Contributions, would ensure countries see seeds as the critical infrastructure they are. By acknowledging seeds as fundamental to food security and climate adaptation, governments can prioritize their development and deployment in national development plans, agricultural policies, and climate action frameworks.

More public-private partnerships would help to drive innovation at scale, with governments, researchers and the private sector driving towards solutions. These collaborations, like ISF’s with CGIAR, can pool resources, expertise, and technologies, fostering a dynamic ecosystem where cutting-edge research translates into practical, scalable solutions for farmers worldwide.

In 2025 — following the hottest year ever recorded — we can’t afford to overlook one of our most effective tools for climate action: seeds. These tiny powerhouses hold immense untapped potential to help us adapt to rising temperatures, cut emissions, improve carbon sequestration, and minimize waste across agricultural systems.

But to truly unlock that potential, they must be given the spotlight on global stages, where consequential decisions are being made and long-term priorities are set for the planet’s future.

As we enter the second half of this crucial decade for climate action, the message from the seed sector is clear and urgent: we are ready to continue contributing to the fullest of our potential.

It is imperative that policymakers and stakeholders plant the seed of a climate-resilient future now, before it is too late to reverse the devastating impacts of a warming world.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Excerpt:

Michael Keller is Secretary General of the International Seed Federation

A “hagyományos” lízing alatt általában a zártvégű lízinget értjük, amelynek a működése nagyon egyszerű. A nyíltvégű egyik jellegzetessége, hogy a szerződéskötéskor még nem bizonyos, hogy a futamidő lejártával és az ügylet lezárásával kinek a tulajdonába kerül a lízingtárgy, azt csak a végén kell eldöntenie a lízingbevevőnek.

A nyíltvégű lízing miért kedvezőbb?

Egyéni vállalkozók, cégek választják általában ezt a konstrukciót. A nyíltvégű lízing igénylése könnyedén elindítható a Lizingo.hu oldalán, nézzük meg itt is az információkat. Új vagy 8 évnél fiatalabb használt autót is vásárolhatunk a konstrukció használatával, az önerő minimum a vételár 20%-a lesz, de sokkal jellemzőbb a 30%. A jármű lehet hazai vagy külföldről behozott is, de a legfontosabb, hogy mindenképpen legyen egy, a teljes vételárról 27%-os áfakulccsal kiállított áfás számla, amit a magyar eladó ad.

Milyen előnyökkel jár ez? Az áfatörvény 2012. január elseje óta hatályos változásai miatt a nyíltvégű lízing kezdő befizetésének és havi lízingdíjainak áfatartalma akár teljes egészében levonható. Ehhez az kell, hogy a személyautó legfeljebb 8 éves legyen, 27%-os áfakulccsal számlázzon az eladó, a lízingbevevő vállalkozásnak áfalevonásra jogosultnak kell lennie, illetve történjen céges autóhasználat, ami áfakörbe tartozó, vállalkozói tevékenységhez kapcsolódik.

Céges személygépkocsi finanszírozása nyíltvégű pénzügyi lízing segítségével akár több millió forint is megspórolható. Azonban, ennek a többszörösét is elveszíthetjük, ha végül a NAV jogosulatlan áfa-visszaigénylést állapít meg, mert nem figyeltünk oda az igénylés folyamata során.

Mindenképpen vonjunk be egy szakembert már az elején, aki minden kérdésünkre válaszolni tud, illetve felhívja a figyelmünket a részletekre, apróbetűs részekre is.

A nyíltvégű lízing legnagyobb előnye az áfa visszaigénylésének lehetősége. Ugyanis ez a konstrukció nem minősül vásárlásnak, mivel csak a futamidő végén kell eldönteni, hogy az autó maradványértéken történő megvásárlása során kihez kerüljön a jármű.

A kamatfizetés is kedvezőbb

A finanszírozó a szállítói számla alapján egy összegben visszaigényli a jármű teljes áfáját az adóhatóságtól már a futamidő elején. A visszaigényelt áfa után nem számítanak fel kamatot így, az aktuális havi tőketörlesztés áfáját tehát kamatmentesen lehet törleszteni.

Ez a gyakorlatban azt fogja eredményezni, hogy egy azonos futamidejű, zártvégű lízinghez képest a nyíltvégű konstrukcióval akár 10-15%-kal is kevesebb kamatot fizetünk majd vissza.

Kerüljük el a fennakadásokat

Az igénylés, a törlesztés is egy fokkal bonyolultabb, mint egy zártvégű esetében. Ezért is fontos tanácsot kérni, egyeztetni a szakértőkkel, hogy elkerüljük az adóbírságot vagy az átminősítést az ügylettel kapcsolatban. Például az elő- vagy végtörlesztés sem feltétlenül ajánlott a nyíltvégű lízing esetében. Jobb odafigyelni minden részletre, ezzel biztosan mindenki egyetért.

The post Zártvégű vagy nyíltvégű lízing lesz a jó választás? appeared first on Biztonságpiac.

The BBC visits a Kenyan garment factory facing job losses if the deal known as Agoa is not renewed.

A nuclear test is carried out on an island in French Polynesia in 1971. Credit: the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO)

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 30 2025 (IPS)

Is the unpredictable Trump administration toying with the idea of resuming nuclear tests?

The New York times reported April 10 that some of Trump’s senior advisers had proposed the resumption of “test denotations for the sake of national security”. The last such US explosion took place in 1992.

But former US Representative Brandon Williams, (Republican-New York), the new administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which plays an integral role in the nation’s $1.7 trillion nuclear weapons modernization effort, testified last April before the Senate Armed Services Committee he would not recommend the re-start of nuclear weapons testing.

The last confirmed full-scale nuclear explosive test was conducted by North Korea in September 2017—with perhaps more to come.

Speaking at a meeting, September 26, on “the international day for the total elimination of nuclear weapons,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned “nuclear testing threats are returning, while nuclear saber rattling is louder than in past decades.”

Hard-won progress – reductions in arsenals, the cessation of testing – these are being undone before our eyes. We are sleepwalking into a new nuclear arms race, Guterres warned,

“I call on every State to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, ending once and for all and for all the dark legacy of nuclear tests.

And every State must support the victims of nuclear use and testing – and confront the enduring harm: poisoned lands, chronic illness, and lasting trauma” declared Guterres.

Meanwhile, the devastating after-effects of past nuclear tests from a bygone era are still lingering.

During the British nuclear weapons tests in Australia between 1952 and 1963, Indigenous voices were systematically ignored, resulting in severe health and cultural devastation, according to a published report.

Through decades of relentless campaigning, survivors and their descendants have forced a belated official acknowledgement of the harm caused. However, the fight for full justice continues to this day, with the voices of many still unheard.

For years, both governments dismissed or covered up the health dangers associated with the tests, despite Aboriginal communities reporting severe health issues like rashes, blindness, and cancers. A 1956 letter from an Australian government scientist mocked a patrol officer for prioritizing the safety of a “handful of natives” over the British Commonwealth.

Despite state-sanctioned ignorance, Aboriginal survivors and their advocates refused to be silenced, ensuring their experiences were recognized.

Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and Director pro-tem, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS a resumption of nuclear weapon testing by the United States will most likely lead other countries like Russia, China, India, and North Korea to test their nuclear weapons.

In turn, this will increase the likelihood of an accelerated nuclear arms race, and a greater likelihood of nuclear weapons being used somewhere in the world with catastrophic consequences.

But even without nuclear war, the people who live close to these test sites, which in many cases have included indigenous communities, will suffer from exposure to radioactive contamination and other environmental effects.

The only countervailing force that one can place some hope on under these circumstances is the peace and disarmament movement, that might be able to catalyze public opposition to testing, declared Dr Ramana.

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, California, told IPS: It is somewhat reassuring that the new head of the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, Brandon Williams, during his confirmation hearings said he would advise against resuming explosive nuclear tests.

“However, the second Trump regime’s likely nuclear policy is spelled out in a manifesto by Project 2025, which proposes that a second Trump administration prioritize nuclear weapons programs over other security programs, accelerate the development and production of all nuclear weapons programs, increase funding for the development and production of new and modernized nuclear warheads, and prepare to test new nuclear weapons,” she pointed out.

Separately, Robert O’Brien, Trump’s national security advisor during his first term, wrote in Foreign Affairs, that in order to counter China and Russia’s continued investments in their nuclear arsenals, the U.S. should resume nuclear testing.

“And we must keep in mind that Russell Vought, one of the architects and co-authors of Project 2025, is now the Director of the powerful Office of Management and Budget,” said Cabasso.

Since 1945, she said, there have been 2,056 nuclear weapons tests by at least eight countries. Most of these tests have been conducted on the lands of indigenous and colonized people.

The United States conducted 1,030 of those tests in the atmosphere, underwater, and underground, while the USSR carried out 715 nuclear test detonations.

“Not only did these nuclear test explosions fuel the development and spread of nuclear weapons, but hundreds of thousands of people have died and millions more have suffered—and continue to suffer—from illnesses directly related to the radioactive fallout from nuclear detonations in the United States, islands in the Pacific, in Australia, China, Algeria, across Russia, in Kazakhstan, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and elsewhere,” said Cabasso.

According to an AI extract: Some of the major nuclear test sites include:

• Nevada Test Site, USA: A primary location for U.S. atmospheric and underground testing for over 40 years. Fallout from atmospheric tests was carried by wind over vast downwind areas.

• Pacific Proving Grounds: A U.S. site in the Marshall Islands where numerous high-yield tests, including the 1954 Castle Bravo shot, caused extensive radioactive contamination.

• Semipalatinsk Test Site, Kazakhstan: A major Soviet test site where 456 tests exposed as many as one million people to radiation, leading to high rates of cancer and birth defects.

• Novaya Zemlya, Russia: The Soviet Union’s test site for the largest nuclear explosion in history, the Tsar Bomba, in 1961.

• Lop Nor, China: The location for all of China’s nuclear tests.

• Reggane and Ekker, Algeria; Mururoa and Fangataufa atolls, French Polynesia: French nuclear test sites.

• Maralinga, Emu Field, and Montebello, Australia: British test sites.

Environmental and health effects include:

• Global radioactive fallout: Atmospheric testing spread radioactive particles, such as iodine-131, cesium-137, and strontium-90, globally. This significantly increased atmospheric radioactivity, which peaked in 1963.

• Increased cancer rates: Long-term exposure to radioactive fallout has been linked to increased rates of various cancers, including thyroid cancer, leukemia, and other solid tumors. The highest risks are often seen in communities living downwind of test sites and in those exposed during childhood.

• Acute radiation sickness: Individuals near test sites who were exposed to high levels of radiation suffered from immediate symptoms like nausea, vomiting, and hair loss.

• Soil and water contamination: Radioactive particles can contaminate soil, water, and air for decades, entering the food chain and posing long-term risks.

• Disruption of ecosystems: Radioactive fallout can cause genetic mutations and death in animal populations, leading to wider ecological disruption.

• Psychological impact: Survivors and affected communities have also experienced profound psychological trauma, anxiety, and fear.

• Downwinder compensation: In the U.S., the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was established in 1990 to provide compensation to “Downwinders” who contracted specific cancers and diseases from fallout exposure from the Nevada Test Site.

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Credit: United Nations

By Jesselina Rana
NEW YORK, Sep 30 2025 (IPS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

The ban, intended to boost domestic production of shea butter, has reduced earnings for many women.

The UN says 22 people have been killed and more than 100 others injured since protests broke out on Thursday.

By CIVICUS
Sep 29 2025 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses North Korea’s closed civic space with Hanna Song, Executive Director of the Database Center for North Korean Human Rights (NKDB). Based in Seoul, South Korea, NKDB documents systematic human rights violations in North Korea through testimonies from escapees, and has built the world’s largest private database of such abuses.

Hanna Song

North Korea’s complete isolation and denial of access to independent monitors makes civil society documentation efforts the sole source of credible information on human rights abuses. However, recent funding cuts threaten to dismantle decades of work to preserve survivor testimonies and hold the regime accountable.

What North Korean human rights violations has NKDB documented?

When NKDB first began documenting violations in 2003, testimonies focused overwhelmingly on survival during the ‘Arduous March’ of the 1990s, a period of severe famine that killed hundreds of thousands of North Koreans. People described the collapse of the food distribution system, with families torn apart and entire communities struggling with famine. At the time, violations were framed through the lens of survival – the right to food and life – revealing the state’s neglect of basic needs.

Over time, as more escapees shared their experiences, it became clear these violations weren’t limited to famine periods but were part of a systematic pattern of abuse. The landmark 2014 United Nations (UN) Commission of Inquiry report solidified this understanding. It documented widespread violations, from political prison camps to enforced disappearances, persecution on political and religious grounds and torture, and concluded that crimes against humanity were – and continue to be – perpetrated by the North Korean state.

There has been little improvement in the years since. The government has tightened information restrictions, further isolating people from the outside world. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated this isolation, closing borders, worsening economic hardship and reducing the already small number of defections, making testimony collection harder. Most recently, the regime’s decision to dispatch young soldiers to Russia has raised additional alarm, as it has exposed minors and young adults to forced labour and potential involvement in armed conflict.

Despite evolving circumstances, the underlying reality remains unchanged: North Korea continues to operate a system of control that denies people the most basic rights and freedoms.

How does NKDB monitor human rights violations?

North Korea permits no independent human rights monitoring or reporting within its borders. Even the UN has never been granted investigative access despite repeated requests. This complete isolation means monitoring organisations must rely on escapee accounts, making testimonies from defectors and refugees indispensable windows into a society the regime keeps hidden.

NKDB conducts secure and confidential interviews with escapees after they have resettled in South Korea. There are around 34,000 people. We document experiences ranging from arbitrary detention and torture to forced labour and religious persecution. Although the sharp decline in recent defections has reduced new testimonies, the information we collect remains critical. When combined with satellite imagery, open-source intelligence and other remote monitoring tools, these first-hand accounts allow us to identify patterns of repression and preserve survivor voices for history and accountability.

Through this work, we’ve built the largest private database on North Korean human rights abuses, containing over 88,000 documented cases based on interviews with more than 20,000 people. This database forms the foundation for UN reports, government policy and international advocacy, and lays the groundwork for future transitional justice processes.

But we don’t stop at documentation. We have in-house counsellors and social welfare workers who provide psychosocial support to escapees after they share their testimonies. For many, recounting traumatic experiences is retraumatising. We don’t abandon them after the interview process, but provide them ongoing counselling and practical support to help them process their experiences, heal and rebuild their lives. In this way we have preserved critical evidence while preserving the dignity and wellbeing of those who entrust us with their stories.

How has civil society documentation influenced policy and international awareness?

Civil society documentation has profoundly influenced international attention and responses to North Korea’s human rights situation. For instance, NKDB’s research on overseas workers has highlighted the critical intersection between security and human rights. While the focus is often on sanctions or weapons proliferation, our work ensures North Korean people’s rights aren’t forgotten, even amid emerging Russia-North Korea ties.

By documenting how North Korean workers are exploited abroad – through wage confiscation, movement restrictions and state surveillance – we provide evidence for human rights-based policy approaches. In a context as closed as North Korea, civil society testimonies and evidence form the foundation for major human rights reports by governments, UN special rapporteurs and international bodies. Without this documentation, there would simply be no reliable record of the scale, scope or persistence of human rights abuses in North Korea. Our work preserves truth, amplifies the voices of survivors and keeps the international community accountable to its responsibility to act.

What has been the impact of recent US funding cuts?

US withdrawal has caused a huge crisis. For two decades, the USA played a unique role in sustaining the global movement for truth, justice and accountability for the people of North Korea. It was the only government that provided consistent and large-scale support for documenting human rights abuses in North Korea. In the absence of alternative funding, this support enabled much of the North Korean human rights movement to exist. Now that movement is facing its greatest crisis since it began in the 1990s.

For escapees who depend on civil society organisations (CSOs) for therapy, counselling and reintegration support, this freeze has meant a loss of essential services. It has also weakened the ability of survivor empowerment groups and information dissemination organisations to train defectors as advocates, challenge the regime’s information blockade and bring credible evidence to the international community. In our case, the suspension of funding threatens the infrastructure we have built since 2003.

The impact is also symbolic: it sends North Korean escapees and victims who have risked everything to tell their stories the chilling message that their voices don’t matter.

Impacts go far beyond civil society. Human rights documentation challenges the secrecy, denial and impunity on which authoritarian regimes thrive. It provides credible evidence that informs international pressure, prevents the regime rewriting history and generates the intelligence needed to understand the regime’s inner dynamics in the absence of conventional diplomacy. All that infrastructure –databases, testimonies, training programmes and survivor networks — is at risk of being dismantled.

How are you adapting and finding alternative resources?

Faced with declining funding and challenging conditions, NKDB and other CSOs have adopted multiple adaptation strategies. Collaboration is central: by working together with other CSOs, academic institutions and advocacy groups, we pool expertise, share methodologies and sustain initiatives despite disruptions.

We’ve also actively engaged with the public to build grassroots support. Our public exhibition in Seoul makes North Korean escapee stories tangible for residents and international tourists. By translating statistics into human-centred experiences, the exhibition reminds visitors of the issue’s urgency while encouraging broader community engagement and cultivating supporters who can advocate and contribute in the long term.

What urgent actions should the international community take?

Given these critical realities, the international community must prioritise restoration and expansion of funding for advocacy, documentation and research. Adequate support ensures CSOs maintain capacity, pursue high-impact initiatives and respond to emerging crises like young soldiers’ deployment to Russia.

Beyond funding, capacity development support is crucial, including training in digital security and evidence verification. The international community must facilitate access to decision-making forums where civil society findings directly inform policymaking through UN bodies and diplomatic engagements.

Critically, human rights and security are deeply intertwined. Documentation provides real-time intelligence on North Korea’s internal dynamics, essential for informed diplomacy. The international community should ensure human rights remain central in broader diplomatic efforts.

Finally, cross-border collaboration among CSOs, governments and academic institutions must be strengthened. This amplifies credible evidence while sustaining networks capable of long-term monitoring. It ensures the human rights ecosystem survives political uncertainty and funding disruptions. To prevent years of progress unravelling, the international community must act decisively, strategically and urgently.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Instagram

SEE ALSO
North Korea: ‘Since Kim Jong-un came to power, the surveillance and security system has increased dramatically’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Bada Nam 18.Oct.2023
North Korea: ‘It is time for the international community to adopt a ‘human rights up front’ approach’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Greg Scarlatoiu 06.Oct.2023
North Korea: ‘Many women escape to experience the freedoms they are denied’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Kyeong Min Shin 07.Nov.2022

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

The special court rules that Riek Machar is not immune from prosecution and it can put him on trial.

South Africa's hopes of reaching the 2026 World Cup suffer a setback after Fifa imposes a 3-0 forfeit for fielding an ineligible player in a qualifier.

Ein Verbot von ausschliesslich knallerzeugendem Feuerwerk dürfte im Bundesparlament gute Chancen haben. Der indirekte Gegenvorschlag zur Feuerwerksinitiative ist in der Vernehmlassung auf breite Zustimmung gestossen. Einzig die SVP lehnt den Entwurf ab.

Comedienne Hazel Brugger bekam beim Kochen Unterstützung von ihrer Tochter. Auch wenn man das Gesicht der Kleinen nicht sieht, hört man ihre Stimme deutlich. Sie liest ihrer Mutter sogar das Rezept vor – und das mit nur viereinhalb Jahren.

After the EU's top court ruled that the deal breached the principle of self-determination, Brussels was given 12 months to comply

Etosha National Park is home to endangered black rhinos and more than 100 diverse mammal species.

Die im DIW Berlin angesiedelte forschungsbasierte Infrastruktureinrichtung Sozio-oekonomisches Panel (SOEP) sucht zum nächstmöglichen Zeitpunkt eine studentische Hilfskraft (w/m/div) für 15 Wochenstunden.

Die am DIW Berlin angesiedelte forschungsbasierte Infrastruktureinrichtung Sozio-oekonomisches Panel (SOEP) ist eine der größten und am längsten laufenden multidisziplinären Panelstudien weltweit, für die derzeit jährlich etwa 30.000 Menschen in knapp 15.000 Haushalten befragt werden. Das SOEP hat den Anspruch den gesellschaftlichen Wandel zu erfassen und steht immer neuen vielfältigen Themen- und Aufgabenfeldern gegenüber.

Du bringst Interesse an der Datenaufbereitung innerhalb einer der am längsten laufenden Panelstudien Deutschlands mit und arbeitest sorgfältig und verantwortungsbewusst. Deine Affinität zu Daten und dein Interesse an empirischer Forschung zeichnen dich aus.

Hattmannsdorfer warns supply restrictions drive higher prices across EU

Coq au Vin ist ein klassisches französisches Gericht, bei dem Huhn in Rotwein geschmort wird. Der Name «Coq au Vin» übersetzt sich wörtlich als «Hahn im Wein», was darauf hinweist, dass das traditionelle Rezept ein älteres Huhn oder einen Hahn als Hauptzutat verwendet. In der Praxis wird jedoch oft Hühnerfleisch verwendet. Dieses rustikale Gericht ist berühmt für seinen tiefen, herzhaften Geschmack, der durch das Schmoren im Rotwein und die Kombination von Gewürzen und Gemüse entsteht.

Die Schweiz und die USA verpflichten sich, Wechselkurse nicht für unfaire Vorteile zu nutzen. Eine neue Erklärung betont die Bedeutung von Interventionen am Devisenmarkt.

Die erste WM auf afrikanischem Boden war spannend und erfrischend. Und aus Schweizer Sicht? Da überwiegen trotz einer historischen Marke gemischte Gefühle.