In a first-of-its-kind investigation into the closed-door negotiations of the UN’s budget in New York, ISHR uncovers how a small group of States – led by China and Russia – have coordinated efforts to block and slash funding for the UN’s human rights work through political manoeuvring and influence. At a moment of sweeping UN reform and financial crisis, these efforts – compounded by the US failure to pay their UN membership fees and outstanding debts – pose an existential threat to the UN’s human rights system.
…The UN’s historically underfunded human rights work now faces an existential threat due to budget cuts under the UN80 Initiative and the UN’s liquidity crisis, fuelled by the failure of the United States, China and other countries to pay their contributions in full and on time. Drawing from dozens of interviews and combing through official documents and internal budget negotiation documents from 2019 to 2024, ISHR’s report ‘Budget Battles at the UN: How States Try to Defund Human Rights’ finds that China and Russia have led a sustained effort to build influence, disrupt proceedings, and politicise technical discussions at the UN General Assembly’s Fifth Committee (5C), where States negotiate the UN’s budget, and its little-known yet influential advisory body, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). Over the past decade, Chinese influence within these bodies has expanded sharply, the report shows. Beijing has invested heavily in building its representation at the 5C, the ACABQ and other related bodies to push heavy budget cuts to human rights. Russia has frequently played the role of outspoken spoiler in negotiations, enabling China to deploy its influence more quietly but effectively behind closed doors.
Russian and Chinese diplomats have weaponised UN budget negotiations to serve their own interests and shield allies from scrutiny, at the expense of human rights. Budget negotiations should be solely guided by the goal of adequately funding the UN’s work, not serving as a political tool to weaken accountability and rights protection.‘ – Madeleine Sinclair, Director of ISHR’s New York office..
A deepening cash crisis The report finds that years of underfunding and attacks on the UN’s human rights budget are now being compounded by a severe liquidity crisis triggered by US and Chinese late or non-payment of dues, while the United Nations undergo urgent reform. Since taking office in January 2025, the Trump Administration has launched repeated assaults on UN bodies, often on grounds of an alleged ‘anti-Israel bias’, abruptly blocking the payment of overdue contributions from 2024 dues and all of the US contributions for 2025, while cutting nearly all voluntary funding to the UN. As the US, the largest contributor, withholds this vast portion of the UN budget, Beijing’s increasingly late payments risk depriving the UN of over 40% of its operational cash flow for 2025. Meanwhile, China’s paying in full but extremely late has a similar result to not paying contributions in full, as a little-known State-imposed UN rule perversely returns unspent cash – that could not be used as it came so late – to Member States in the form of credits to future dues. In 2024, China paid its contributions on 27 December, four days before the year’s end. The broader US withdrawal from multilateralism also enables China and Russia to further grow their influence in shaping a more State-centric UN, at the expense of civil society and the universality of human rights.
….
UN80 reform risks deepening the damage US cuts also forced the UN into an unprecedented race for reform through the UN80 Initiative, an internal reform drive to make the organisation more efficient and effective, yet so far focused primarily on austerity and cost-cutting. Initial cuts proposed by the Secretary-General in September slash the human rights budget by 15%, a higher percentage than cuts proposed for the UN’s development and peace and security work. Further cuts are expected once the ACABQ reviews the Secretary-General’s proposals, and States table additional reform proposals under UN80 in the coming months.
‘China and Russia have long exploited UN processes in order to spin a web of influence against human rights progress, and now the Trump administration is moving in that same direction. But this is not irreversible. The UN80 Initiative must be more than a hunt for ‘efficiency’: it should be a collective effort towards meaningful, human rights-driven reform. For this, States, and particularly Global South countries who have a clear stake in having strong, responsive UN human rights bodies, can still take back the space and ensure funding for a UN that advances human rights protection on the ground for all.’ – ISHR Executive Director Phil Lynch
Funding for the UN’s human rights work is on the brink of collapse at a time when it is most needed to address global crises…
Michelle Langrand for Geneva Solutions of 20 March 2024 has an exclusive report on the liquidity crunch and its effect on the UN human rights branch. Here her report in full:
UN secretary general António Guterres and UN human rights high commissioner Volker Türk at the opening of the Human Rights Council 55th session in Geneva, 26 February 2024. (UN Photo/Elma Okic)
As the United Nations faces its worst liquidity crisis in recent history, experts, staff and observers worry about the ramifications on human rights work. Correspondence seen by Geneva Solutions reveals concerns at the highest levels of the UN human rights branch in Geneva as they are forced to scale back their operations.
A patchwork of cost-saving measures taken over the winter holidays at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, from keeping the heat down and closing the premises for two weeks, revealed how serious the UN’s cash troubles were after states failed to fully pay their bills in 2023. The new year didn’t brighten prospects either. In January, UN secretary general Antonio Guterres in New York announced that “aggressive cash conservation measures” would be taken across the organisation to avoid running out of cash by August as year-end arrears reached a record $859 million.
It couldn’t have come at a worse time for a cash-strapped UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) as worsening human rights crises worldwide add to its workload. The Geneva-based office acts as a secretariat for dozens of independent experts, investigative bodies and human rights committees that rely for the most part on the UN’s regular budget and few voluntary contributions from states. Between vacancies and travel restrictions, both insiders and outsiders worry that planned cuts could severely impair the UN’s crucial human rights work.
Understaffed and overwhelmed
On 12 February, just as the UN’s Geneva headquarters prepared for one of its busiest months hosting the Human Rights Council’s first session of the year, bad news came from New York. Countries had only paid one-third of the UN’s $3.59bn regular budget for 2024, and instructions from the higher-ups were that the hiring freeze imposed in July 2023 would be extended throughout 2024 across UN operations. The organisation said that $350 million would need to be shaved off through spending restrictions on travel, conference services and others.
Human rights bodies, where vacancies had been piling up in the last months, would have to continue to run with reduced staff. In a letter from 23 December, UN high commissioner for human rights Volker Türk had already warned Council president Omar Zniber that 63 posts in over 10 investigative mandates were waiting to be filled while recruitments had been placed on hold. Currently, there are active investigations on serious human rights abuses in Ukraine, Iran, Syria, South Sudan and Nicaragua among others.
“While no compromise has been made in terms of methodology, some of the investigative bodies have had to narrow the scope of both their investigations and their upcoming reports,” the letter reads.
The fact-finding mission on Sudan was one of the bodies immediately affected. Created in October to collect evidence on atrocities committed during the last year of bloody conflict in which thousands of civilians have been killed and millions displaced, the probe body has struggled to begin work. The independent experts composing it, who aren’t paid, have been appointed since December, but as of late February, the Human Rights Office hadn’t been able to hire a support team due to insufficient cash flow, according to a Human Rights Council spokesperson. The experts, who have been mandated for one year, are due to present their findings in September, with observers wondering whether the western-led proposal will garner the political backing it needs to be renewed.
That isn’t the only initiative struggling to get off the ground. “We have met with some new mandates, and we realised that they barely have a team, if any, to support them,” said one NGO member who collaborates with the human rights mechanisms and asked to remain anonymous. Observers say most investigative bodies, even older ones, are impacted at some level.
Kaoru Okoizumi, deputy head of the Independent Investigative Mechanism on Myanmar (IIMM) – the largest human rights probe team – said six out of 57 staff positions funded through the UN’s regular budget were vacant, significantly affecting their work. The IIMM, which also relies on a trust fund made up of voluntary donations and doesn’t depend on the OHCHR’s budget, is coping better than most.
Expert committees that oversee states’ compliance with international human rights law, such as on children’s rights and on torture, are also stretched thin. One staffer said they were required to take on more work than normally expected, for example, having to conduct research and compile information about several countries at the same time for one session. “It’s just too much!” they said, adding that their team was short of more than 10 people.
Another worker from the OHCHR’s special procedures branch, who said was covering for several vacant spots, conceded that the quality of work is affected in such conditions. “Of course, you won’t work as well after pulling all-nighters,” they said. Türk’s letter to Zniber acknowledges that the secretariat was having trouble supporting some 60 special procedures, which are UN-backed independent experts or groups of experts assigned to report to the council on a specific theme or country.
While the problem of understaffing isn’t new, and many also point to cumbersome months-long recruitment processes that are often incompatible with brief mandates, the situation has worsened. To compensate for the hiring freeze, the UN has also increasingly resorted to temporary contracts that last for a few months and can be exceptionally renewed for up to two years. The two workers, who have living on contract to contract for more than a year, said that there is fear that temporary staff may be among the first to go, along with consultants. “In the food chain of contracts, we’re at the bottom,” one of them said.
A slim year for the Human Rights Council
The UN’s human rights branch, which receives as little as four per cent of the UN’s total budget – around $142 million – just enough to cover one third of its activities, has been scrambling to cut back on spending. On Friday, in another letter seen by Geneva Solutions, Türk informed Zniber that his office would be forced to axe certain activities this year.
OHCHR spokesperson Marta Hurtado confirmed the information to Geneva Solutions by writing: “The office has developed an internal contingency plan, which provides for adjustment pending the complete availability of regular budget resources become available.”
Among the measures it proposes is postponing some activities to 2025 altogether while as many consultations and meetings as possible would be moved online without interpretation, according to Hurtado, since the UN in New York hasn’t authorised it for virtual meetings. For those that will be held in person, resources to fly in experts and civil society will also be reduced.
The UN’s recent decision that it would no longer provide online services for meetings has drawn outcry from rights campaigners who argue it curtails the possibility of civil society groups and states with little resources to participate. While the move has been attributed to matters of rules, observers can’t help but wonder if it isn’t, in the end, about the money. Echoing the concerns in the letter, Türks described the impact of these measures on participation from experts and other stakeholders as “deeply regrettable”.
Another issue raised by the UN rights chief is the difficulty that his office has been facing in providing technical assistance to national authorities. He gave the example of the Marshall Islands, which requested help in 2022 to assess the human rights impact of US nuclear testing in its territory in the 1940s and 50s. A source said that although a first visit finally took place this year, work has been delayed.
Marc Limon, director of the human rights think tank Universal Rights Group, remarked that work by the Council to help states improve their rights record through capacity-building support was unfortunately “almost inexistent” and regretted that resources couldn’t be spared for what he calls the “hard end of human rights diplomacy”. “While UN investigations must be protected, there is little threat to key commissions of inquiry due to the huge budgets allocated to them in the first place,” he said. Most probe bodies have between 17 to 27 staff while special procedures usually have one or two assistants.
The Moroccan ambassador forwarded Türk’s letter to fellow states on Monday and said a draft decision regarding the measures would be tabled for the council to consider at the end of the session at the beginning of April.
Human rights credibility at stake
One that has raised eyebrows but isn’t explicitly mentioned by the UN rights chief is limiting country visits by UN experts to one visit instead of two. Hurtado acknowledged that special procedures and other expert mechanisms, including probe bodies, would see their country visits “reduced” while not commenting on the number of authorised visits.
One UN expert, speaking under the condition of anonymity, voiced concern over the restriction. “Country visits are extremely important because they give us a real intimate understanding of a place and the state gets direct feedback on what they’re doing well and what they can do to improve, while also energising civil society,” they said, point out that experts were already barely able to conduct visits during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Limon commented that while it was a wise choice to cut back on some of the “superfluous” debates and activities, reducing special rapporteur trips to countries to one per year, an idea that he said has been floated around before, showed the office “had its priorities wrong”.
Travel restrictions could also have significant implications for criminal cases. Okoizumi said her Myanmar team only had 65 per cent of its usual travel budget, which is key for the Geneva-based group to reach victims and witnesses. “We do our witness interviews in person because we think it’s important in a criminal investigation to make sure that interviews are being conducted in a way that preserves the integrity of the testimony,” she said.
The body, set up in 2018 by the Human Rights Council, is currently working to support a case brought by The Gambia against Myanmar for violating the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice, as well as investigations on crimes against the Rohingya at the International Criminal Court and Argentina.
“These are very concrete proceedings and our ability to support them will be impacted by the number of interviews that we’re able to conduct or the analysis that we’re able to produce and share with these jurisdictions,” Okoizumi said, noting that the ICJ case is particularly time-sensitive as both parties were expected to make submissions this year.
The international lawyer said this has meant shifting resources to meet shorter-term deadlines at the risk of putting aside other objectives. “The whole point of having an investigative mechanism is to make sure that we can collect the evidence very soon after a crime happens, even if there isn’t an investigation or prosecution until many years or even decades later. So, shifting our resources in that way, overall will have a negative impact,” she explained.
Top experts within the human rights branch have also rang alarm bells about the wider repercussions of the funding crisis. In a letter seen by Geneva Solutions addressed to the president of the General Assembly, Dennis Francis, dated 23 February, 10 chairs of human rights committees warned that the liquidity crisis “severely threatens the credibility and efficiency of the United Nations human rights system”.
The experts said the treaty bodies were “being denied even the minimum staff and operational resources required to deliver their critical mandates to advance human rights” at a time of “such a severe existential crisis of multilateralism and of non compliance with international law”.
Referring to some of the measures being considered, the signatories also argue that suspending sessions “for the first time in their over six decades of history for financial reasons, together with visits to prevent torture and other human rights violations” would lead to “concrete and irreversible” harm.
“When the collective security system has failed to honour the ‘never again’ pledge of 1945, the least to do is to strengthen human rights monitoring mechanisms, so that human rights violations are documented, even when justice seems extremely challenging to serve. We note with deep regret that the opposite is being done,” the custodians of human rights law wrote.
Volker Türk speaking to journalists after a press briefing at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, 24 May 2023. (Geneva Solutions/Paula Dupraz-Dobias)
Gabriela Galindo on 24 May 2023 in Geneva Solutions reports that Volker Türk said that $800 million are needed yearly, noting rich nations are quick to splurge when it comes to banks or the military, but not ‘when it comes to people’.
Dire humanitarian crises are piling up across the world, yet the United Nations’ human rights watchdog is still strapped for cash, its chief warned Wednesday.
But as these parallel crises continue to flare and some spiral, Türk warned that his organisation was running on empty and chided global leaders for not taking human rights funding more “seriously”.
“The needs have exponentially increased, but there isn’t the commensurate funding available on the humanitarian front – that’s just the reality,” he said. “And, unfortunately, that trend has been there for quite a number of years.”
“We have this combination of protracted conflict situations; we have the increase in new and emerging crises and [in] both non-international armed conflict and international armed conflict,” he said, referring to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Responding to a question on their funding needs, the UN rights chief said he “would want to see a doubling, which would be about $800 million per year, for the organisation”s
Türk addressed a grim roster of situations currently followed by the OHCHR, where human rights were being trampled on amid active armed conflicts, including in Sudan and Ukraine, or at the hands of authoritarian governments in Myanmar and Iran.
In Sudan, he said that the “senseless” fighting between two generals vying for power had civilians “besieged” as ceasefires were broken and added that his office had documented at least 25 cases of sexual violence…
Türk added that he was “deeply troubled by the growing phenomenon of anti-rights movements” targeting asylum seekers in the US and Europe as “hateful narratives against migrants and refugees also continue to proliferate”, spurring “anti-migrant” laws and policies that undermine basic human rights and international refugee laws.
“The developments that are unfolding in various countries including the United Kingdom, the US, Italy, Greece and Lebanon are particularly concerning,” he said, as they “appear designed” to hinder the right to seek asylum, to penalise citizens for assisting those in need or to organise returns in “unlawful, undignified and unsustainable ways”.
“We have some [crises] in the headlines all the time, but others are not. Haiti is a good example. There seems to be (…) no sense of urgency when it comes to dealing with a situation like this.”..
“When you look at how quickly billions can be made available when there is a banking crisis or and – I’m sure, rightly so – including military expenditure and so forth… when it comes to people and the plight of people, there doesn’t seem to be the same,” he said.
“Donor countries, they have a budget for peace and security, they have a budget for development (…) but they don’t actually have a budget down for human rights,” he said. “It is actually important to take human rights seriously, not just by (…) coming to the [UN Human Rights] Council and having all these discussions here and working with us, but also by having and increasing the funding for the organisation.”
Political leaders in the European Parliament will insist that the EU’s massive budget payouts be dependent on countries meeting human rights and media freedom standards, they said on Wednesday.26 August 2020. Targeted, but not named, were Hungary and Poland, countries that receive massive subsidies from the EU budget, but flout calls by Brussels to meet commitments on fundamental freedoms.
“The time has come to accelerate the fight against the erosion of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in the very heart of the EU,” said the letter, signed by leaders from the centre-right, centre-left, centrist and green parties.
The letter was addressed to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, which currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency, as well as Ursula von der Leyen, the head of the commission, the EU’s executive arm that hands out the cash. Unless there are changes, the European Parliament has already vowed to veto the multi-year, one-trillion-euro budget — along with a massive pandemic recovery fund — that was thrashed out between heads of government at a summit in July.
Parliament members are due to sit down with representatives from the member states on Thursday to seek a compromise, with MEPs insisting on stricter conditions around civil rights. The summit deal in July was seen by some as not putting enough pressure on countries to respect core EU values, especially after Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban hailed a “huge victory” against conditionality after the talks.
In their letter on Wednesday, the MEPs insisted that EU member states approve a parliament proposal from April 2019 which would firmly link EU spending to the rule of law, which they vetoed at the time. Without its formal approval, “it will be impossible for us to move forward” on the EU budget, the group leaders said.
The EU budget is deeply intertwined with the 750 billion euro post-virus recovery fund, that parliament does not have a say over. But given the historic recession afflicting Europe, member states are under huge pressure to implement the plan and the budget as soon as possible, hopefully by the end of the year.
Recent events in Hungary and Poland suggest the countries have little intention of addressing EU concerns over attacks on media freedom, LGBTI rights and the independence of the courts. A day after the summit in July, the editor of Hungary’s top independent news site was fired, seen as another sign of the Orban government’s attacks on opposition media. In Poland, the UN’s AIDS programme this month voiced deep concern about the “intensifying persecution” of LGBTI people, as well as crackdowns on human rights defenders.
In UN Dispatch of 20 February 2019 Mark Leon Goldberg described “..How the UN Is Impacted By The Budget Deal Between President Trump and Congress”.
The United States averted another government shutdown last week .. the budget also has big implications for US foreign policy in general — and for the United Nations in particular. The United States is the single largest funder of the United Nations, so decisions in Congress have outsized influence over how the United Nations and its many agencies operate.
Here is what you need to know about how the budget deal between President Trump and Congress will impact the United Nations.
UN Peacekeeping is underfunded.
The budget deal includes$1.551 billion for the “Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities” account. This is the budget line that funds most of America’s contributions to United Nations peacekeeping operations, including key missions in Mali, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lebanon and more. The $1.551 billion appropriated by Congress falls short of this rate by nearly 3%. At issue is an arbitrary “cap” of 25% that Congress imposes on US dues to UN peacekeeping, despite the fact that at the UN, the US had agreed to pay 27.9%. The gap between what is assessed and what is paid by the United States results in an underfunding of UN peacekeeping operations and the accumulation of arrears by the United States, now to the tune of $750 million.
This underfunding of UN peacekeeping is contributing to a major cash crisis for UN Peacekeeping operations. Last month, the UN Secretary General sent a letter to every UN ambassador, warning them that a $2 billion shortfall means the UN only has a few months of cash on hand to sustain its peacekeeping operations. This budget passed by congress only adds to the these uncertainties facing UN Peacekeeping.
The UN regular budget is properly funded
The “Contributions to International Organizations” account funds the regular budget of the United Nations and also the core budgets of some UN agencies, like the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organization. The Congressional deal includes over $1.3 billion for this account, which represents a funding level commensurate with the rates the United States is assessed as a dues paying member of the UN. In other words, it is the proper funding level.
The caveat here is that the Trump administration may still try to withhold, or slow walk, the disbursement of these funds in an attempt to punish the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Last year, the White House sought to withhold $27 million in payments to the UN, which it calculated was roughly the amount that the UN would spend to fund the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and also the UN Human Rights Council. ..
The Budget Deal Thwarts the Trump Administration’s Attempt to Kill UNICEF
In its budget request last year, the White House sought to completely eliminate an account known as “International Organizations and Programs.” (UNICEF is also funded through this account)…
Congress did not agree to these gratuitous cuts, and maintained a funding level for this account consistent with previous budgets, to the tune of $340 million. The budget also includes consistent funding levels for global health programs like the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Additionally, the budget includes consistent levels of funding for refugee related programs, including the UN Refugee Agency and the UN Relief and Works Agency, which supports Palestinian refugees. (Alas, it is likely that the administration will nonetheless withhold the disbursement for UNRWA for political reasons.)
In sum, with the exception of UN Peacekeeping, American commitments to the United Nations remained consistent with America’s traditional role as the indispensable member state of the UN.
The EU should do more to promote democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights across the EU, including through support to civil society organisations, says an article in the European Sting of 18 January 2019.
MEPs endorsed on Thursday the position of the Civil Liberties Committee to triple the funds allocated in the long-term EU budget (2021-2027) for the Rights and Values Programme, up to 1.834 billion euros (the European Commission had proposed €642 million). Parliament’s mandate to start negotiations with EU ministers was approved with 426 votes to 152 and 45 abstentions. With a general objective to protect and promote the rights and values enshrined in Article 2 of the EU Treaty through support to civil society organisations at local, regional, national and transnational level, the Programme seeks to promote equality and non-discrimination, encourage citizens’ engagement and participation in the democratic process, and fight violence.
MEPs decided to specifically mention the protection and promotion of democracy and the rule of law as the main aim, as these are a prerequisite for protecting fundamental rights and for ensuring mutual trust among member states and of citizens’ trust in the European Union, says the text.
Regarding the activities to be funded with EU money, Parliament suggests awareness-raising campaigns on European core values and the rights and obligations derived from EU citizenship. Initiatives to reflect on the factors that lead to totalitarian regimes occurring and to commemorate their victims were also suggested. MEPs also want to support town-twinning projects, human rights defenders and whistle-blowers, measures countering hate-speech and misinformation, and protection of victims of violence, among others.
MEPs agreed that, in exceptional cases, when there is a serious and rapid deterioration of the situation in a member state and the founding values are at risk, the European Commission may open a call for proposals, under a fast-track procedure, to fund civil society organisations to facilitate and support the democratic dialogue in the country.
Success in passing the “win-win resolution” in the UN Human Rights Council [https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2018/03/26/chinas-win-win-resolution-gets-the-votes-in-the-un-council/], is just the visible part of a larger and more ominous assault on the human rights system as it has been built up (however incomplete and painstaking) over the last decades. Julian Borger in the Guardian of 27 March 2018 (“China and Russia accused of waging ‘war on human rights’ at UN”) describes how the two countries lobbied to cut funding for human rights monitors and for a senior post dedicated to human rights work. This all seems to fit very well with the trend started in 2016 and which I tried to describe in early 2017 in a series of posts, of which the last one was: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2017/02/24/2017-10-need-to-reset-for-human-rights-movement/.
The Guardian piece makes states – inter alia- the following: According to diplomats and activists China and Russia have used the UN budget panel (5th committee) to cut funding for human rights monitors and for a senior post in the secretary general’s office in NY. The cut, first reported in Foreign Policy, means that the human rights work that was the responsibility of that official will be spread around other posts with other priorities.
Last week, Zeid was due to address the UN security council on plight of civilians in Syria but before he began, Russia called a procedural vote to stop him speaking on the grounds that the council was not the proper forum for discussing human rights. “The fifth committee has become a battleground for human rights,” Louis Charbonneau, the UN director for Human Rights Watch, was quoted in the Guardian. “Russia and China and others have launched a war on things that have human rights in their name.”
“China has real political momentum at the UN now,” Richard Gowan, a UN expert at the European Council for Foreign Relations, said. “It is now the second biggest contributor the UN budget after the US, and is increasingly confident in its efforts to roll back UN human rights activities. It is also pushing its own agenda – with an emphasis on ‘harmony’ rather than individual rights in UN forums. And a lot of countries like what they hear.”
A western diplomat at the UN conceded that human rights were losing ground at the UN, in part because China had become a more assertive voice, prepared to lead lobbying campaigns, and because Beijing is increasingly leveraging its vast and growing investments in the developing world to win votes for its agenda at the UN.
In a year that deep cuts were made to UN budgets, resourcing for human rights also activities took a big hit. The UN General Assembly’s approved approximately 50% less funding for some human rights posts than requested. Funds to support the work of treaty bodies were cut, but the need to adequately fund treaty bodies was reaffirmed, establishing a mandate for future resource requests.
Decisions directly affecting human rights activities were caught up in a powerful push – particularly by the US – for deep cuts to the proposed biennium budget. The approved UN regular budget for 2018 -2019 of $5.397 billion, is almost $200 million below what the Secretary General had sought, and 5% less than the budget approved for 2016-2017.
‘The percentage of the UN budget directed to support the human rights pillar is already tiny. To then carve off funding for posts already agreed as essential, makes no sense,’ she added. ‘The General Assembly ignores the fact that investing in human rights protection is a smart choice. ISHR’s Tess McEvoy said on 4 January 2018. (for more information on the budget cuts see https://www.ishr.ch/news/unga72-human-rights-funding-takes-hit-key-mandate-reaffirmed).
On27 February 2018 the OHCHR announced that Norway has pledged to increase its funding for the UN Human Rights Office, giving some USD 18m dollars – a year over four years. Generally there is impressive support for human rights from Scandinavia (Denmark is doubling its funding for 2018 USD 10m, and in 2017, Sweden was the second biggest donor with some USD16m).
However, even with a record USD142.8m in voluntary contributions last year, the UN Office still fell short of the funds needed to respond to all requests for assistance. Therefore it has just launched appeal for extra-budgetary funding for 2018 – with as most ambitious target yet, amounting to USD278.3m.
The OHCHR hopes that the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights will encourage all UN Member States to make voluntary contributions. If you want to see how much individual States gave to the UN Human Rights Office in 2017, please see: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/AboutUs/FundingBudget/VoluntaryContributions2017.pdf
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay. on Thursday 31 January launched an appeal for US$130.4 million in 2013, telling donors that the UN Human Rights Office could respond to more of the many requests for assistance she receives if additional resources were made available. Despite reducing its expenditure by more than 7.5 percent in 2012, the UN Human Rights Office experienced a funding shortfall for the third year in a row. “As a result, 46 posts have been cut or frozen, a decision which will affect our ability to respond to ongoing challenges, such as discrimination, climate change, HIV-related issues, protection of human rights defenders and support for various key human rights bodies”, Mrs Pillay said.
“Clearly, preventing crises costs vastly less than responding to them once they have occurred,” the High Commissioner said. “It is a disturbing paradox that raising funds to respond to crisis situations is so much easier than raising funds to prevent crises from happening in the first place. Imagine all the suffering, destruction and loss of life that could have been avoided if we were able to prevent or mitigate only some of the crises the world is witnessing today……… This prevention role – which is generally less visible than our responsive role – is of crucial importance and deserves strong donor support and attention.”
Twenty years ago, when the Office of the High Commissioner was created, the international community made the decision to invest more in human rights, but this sector remains severely underfunded, especially compared to the high degree of public recognition the UN gets for its human rights work.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 