Author: fvmun

Within the International Labour Organization, in the Committee on Working Conditions, delegates debated the first key issue: how to guarantee people working in the arts and entertainment sectors protection against job insecurity and physical and psychosocial risks. During this debate, the press team was able to ask questions to the employers of Spain and to the government of the Russian Federation, spokespersons for the two different draft resolutions.

SOLENE KREMSER: According to your delegation, what are today the main physical, psychosocial, and professional risks faced by workers in the arts and entertainment sectors?

RUSS GVT: For the Russian government, the main risks concern mental health. Indeed, in Russia, workers are covered, including those working in the performing arts and entertainment sectors. Freelance workers, however, are not covered in the field of mental health. Nevertheless, mental health is a topic that is very rarely addressed in Russia, which is why it will be a priority in this debate.

EMP ESP: Indeed, they face many risks, such as social or financial exclusion, due to their low and irregular pay. Their professions are often considered as passions or voluntary work.

JUDITH GINGOLD: Some States believe that the creation of a new UN organization such as UN ART is costly. How do you justify its necessity?

RUSS GVT: The creation of new structures is unnecessary, just like the creation of new organizations such as UN ART. We discussed this during an information point on the first resolution: our delegation does not see the point of creating new structures when the United Nations already has several, and in various fields. This is far too costly and requires excessive administrative organization.

EMP ESP: Unlike the delegation of the Russian government, we believe that UN ART is necessary. However, we recognize the importance of the costs involved and therefore propose advertising campaigns to enable the creation of this crucial organization. The idea would be to offer artists training and retraining programs, as well as tools that would allow them to manage their problems through forums.

S.K.: The MIND-C program (Mental Inclusion and Development for Creators) and discussion groups are strongly emphasized in these resolutions. Why is there such a focus on mental health?

RUSS GVT: Mental health is essential both for artists and for the quality of artistic and entertainment productions. Workers in these two fields are exposed to high levels of stress, professional uncertainty, psychological pressure, and sometimes social isolation.

EMP ESP: In Spain, we say that “there is no health without mental health.” Mental health is one of the best ways to move this issue forward. Many delegations agree on its importance, and it is a way to find solutions that are more or less acceptable to everyone.

J.G.: How would an international fund financed by the G20, proposed by delegates during the debates, help reduce inequalities between developed and emerging countries within the cultural sector?

RUSS GVT: This international fund represents concrete solidarity. It provides financial resources to countries that lack them and that do not have the budgetary capacity to financially support artists.

EMP ESP: Giving to countries in order to reduce inequalities is important, because some countries do not have the means to help their artists. The problem is that this issue is not at the heart of international discussions, and funds therefore do not benefit artists, even though this is an essential and significant issue. We find this truly regrettable and believe that it deserves to be studied by the entire international community.

S.K.: What would be the advantage of creating a specific branch of the ILO for the protection of arts and entertainment workers rather than strengthening existing mechanisms?

RUSS GVT: We believe that this would allow for more targeted expertise adapted to artists.

EMP ESP: Existing mechanisms for artists are very rare, and it is therefore necessary to create this new branch of the ILO in order to introduce a new set of actions aimed at helping artists.

J.G.: How can sustainable funding for measures to protect arts and entertainment workers be guaranteed without penalizing national budgets?

RUSS GVT: To ensure sustainable funding, we must rely on a percentage of GDP that will depend on each country and will therefore be adapted to its economic capacity.

EMP ESP: The best approach for our delegation is to promote awareness and cooperation, as requested by the UN. We could propose advertising campaigns so that individuals, companies, and wealthy countries can support countries with fewer resources. This process would of course be voluntary, in line with UN values, where cooperation takes precedence.

S.K.: Why should the protection of arts and entertainment workers be an international priority today?

RUSS GVT: Today, we all consume culture. It is not only a right, but also a freedom, which we must protect for both men and women.

EMP ESP: Artists suffer greatly and are very rarely taken into account, even though their art contributes to everyone’s mental health. This is why the protection of workers should be essential in contemporary international issues.

J.G.: What balance should be found between the responsibility of governments and that of employers to guarantee decent working conditions in this sector?

RUSS GVT: In our view, the key is communication. There is a huge lack of communication between employers, governments, and employees, which hinders the adoption of measures that cover tripartite interests.

EMP ESP: Employers who contribute to the functioning of the economy need a framework with few economic constraints. A balance must be found between these constraints and decent working conditions, which must be granted to artists. A middle ground must be found in order to preserve the voluntary nature on which UN cooperation is based, even though this is difficult.

S.K.: Physical risks are often underestimated in artistic professions. Which preventive measures should be prioritized?

EMP ESP: Physical risks can be caused by a lack of prevention. Violence and harassment can be addressed through several of our proposals, such as the creation of a regional or international hotline allowing artists to speak out about the violence they have suffered. Discussing this issue shows us that there is far more violence than we think, and this awareness allows us to place their cause at the heart of international discussions, which encourages action.

It is 11 a.m. when the Haitian delegation is faced with a crucial choice.
A choice that repeatedly emerges in FAO debates: should ecology be prioritized when a country is regularly struck by climate disruption, natural disasters, and environmental shocks? Or should the economy take precedence when a nation is among the most vulnerable in the world? For Haiti, this dilemma is anything but abstract. Agriculture forms the very foundation of the country’s survival, both economically and socially. An overly rapid ecological transition could worsen poverty and food insecurity. The Haitian delegation sums it up clearly: “Without economic development, it is impossible to implement true ecology.”

Thus, Haiti argues that economic development must come before ecology—not out of disregard for the environment, but because without financial stability, no sustainable transition is possible. This position makes Haiti a starting point for understanding the divisions running through the committee. In vulnerable countries, ecology can be seen as an objective, but not as an immediate priority. Haiti is not an isolated case. Countries such as Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Kenya face the same reality. These states are among the most affected by climate change, while having very limited means to respond to it. All acknowledge the importance of ecology, but their priority remains clear: feeding their population and ensuring a minimum level of stability. For them, ecology is a long-term goal that can only be achieved with strong financial and technical support from the international community. As one African delegate stated during the debates: “You cannot protect the environment when you are already struggling to survive.” For developed countries, ecology is an assumed priority. Nations such as Germany, France, Canada, and Japan clearly place environmental concerns at the heart of their agricultural policies. Thanks to their financial resources, research capacities, and technologies, these countries can invest in sustainable agriculture without jeopardizing their economies. Their vision is based on a rapid, structured, and regulated transition. The German delegation summed up this approach with a phrase that became central to the debates: “We must produce more cleanly, but not produce less.” Between these two blocs stand emerging countries such as Brazil, India, China, and Mexico. Their position is more nuanced. These nations aim to make ecological progress without slowing their economic development or undermining their role in global food supply. They advocate for a gradual transition, adapted to national realities, and based on innovation and cooperation. For them, it is not a matter of choosing between ecology and economy, but of advancing both simultaneously. Finally, some wealthy countries such as Qatar or Saudi Arabia place primary emphasis on economic security and international trade. Their strategy relies on technological innovation and commerce to guarantee stable access to food. For these states, ecology matters, but it must never threaten economic stability or immediate food security. As the debates unfold, one idea becomes clear: the real divide is not between ecology and economy, but between countries that can afford an immediate transition and those that must first survive. The FAO thus reveals a deep global fracture, where the ecological transition cannot be uniform. It must take into account the economic realities of each state, or risk further exacerbating inequalities between countries.

Mathys Pastel

Meeting within the International Labour Organization (ILO), the FAO committee debated ways to sustainably feed a growing global population. The discussions and adopted resolutions highlighted alliances between states, structured around agricultural innovation, local adaptation, and international cooperation in the face of food insecurity.

Over the past 50 years, the world population has grown from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 8.4 billion in 2024, leading to a sharp increase in food demand, while food insecurity has risen by 30%. This ever-growing demand has driven intensive agricultural productivity, characterized by the use of pesticides and the conversion of land into arable fields. The international community is facing a central dilemma: meeting rising food needs while ensuring food security, all while respecting environmental limits and sustainability imperatives.

Created around 10 a.m., the two different resolutions presented by Germany and Russia illustrate a collective response to this challenge by organizing more or less durable alliances between states around shared priorities.

In the first resolution, an initial bloc of allies formed around Germany, France, Canada, Japan, and Italy, who share common visions such as research, innovation, and support for the Sustainable Development Goals defined by the United Nations. These alliances are shaped by the clauses that define them. For example, Clause 8, introduced by Germany, calls for the creation of a UN-controlled global research center aimed at developing efficient and sustainable agricultural practices. Clause 11, proposed by France, reinforces this momentum through the creation of a Global Fund for Sustainable Agriculture. Added to this are Clauses 9 and 10, put forward by Japan, which call for the publication of annual reports on sustainable food production as well as education programs for farmers and consumers. Together, these clauses institutionalize a long-term alliance based on transparency and accountability.

Local Adaptation and Protection of Livelihoods

Furthermore, the resolution reflects a strong alliance among several Global South countries such as Bangladesh, Cameroon, Colombia, and Morocco. These states share vulnerability to climate hazards and a heavy dependence on agriculture for their populations. This alliance is defined by clauses centered on small-scale farmers, as well as provisions such as Clause 7, introduced by Bangladesh, encouraging the adoption of nature-based solutions. The Bangladeshi delegation warned: “Without climate adaptation, food security is at risk.” Clause 6, supported by Cameroon, emphasizes sustainable water management. Together, these clauses define a lasting alliance built on local adaptation and the protection of livelihoods.

The second resolution, introduced by Russia, led to the formation of several alliances, including one with Haiti, Ethiopia, Mexico, and Brazil. These states share a strong dependence on agriculture and vulnerability to climate shocks.

Their clauses encourage regional sharing of agricultural technologies, particularly among countries facing similar climatic conditions, thereby strengthening South–South cooperation. The focus is placed on flexible agroecology, restoration of degraded land, reduction of post-harvest losses, and strengthening local food systems. Ethiopia plays a leading role in promoting regional cooperation, soil restoration, and the reduction of pollution linked to food transportation.

These resolutions do more than propose technical solutions to the global food crisis. They outline a network of durable alliances bringing together less developed countries, emerging powers, and major agricultural actors around shared principles: cooperation, flexibility, environmental sustainability, and respect for farmers’ sovereignty. These convergences integrate technological innovation, agroecology, waste reduction, and multilateral governance. While the objectives and interests of these states may differ, collective initiative makes it possible to envision a fairer and more sustainable future, at the crossroads of agricultural worlds and innovation.

Judith Gingold

Early this morning, in a room at the ILO, the United States delegation made itself noticed by applauding and leading the entire assembly to do the same. Will their enthusiasm and ability to rally the group succeed in convincing the rest of the world to join their cause?

The creation of an international fund managed by the UN is at the heart of the debates. Funded by all states—through mineral, financial, or material resources—it would aim to redistribute medical resources fairly, particularly vaccines. Proposed by the United States, the idea quickly sparked tensions and alliance strategies.

In the ILO room, a sense of mistrust emerged. In the background: political stakes that led several delegations to form alliances opposed to the United States. “We are not with you,” declared UN OCHA as the US delegation approached. This explicit confrontation was later reinforced during a discussion between two delegates: “No one wants you, no one trusts you.” Doctors Without Borders shared the same viewpoint, voicing doubts about the intentions of the United States delegation. According to them: “They don’t need resources” and “they are unilateral and only want the benefits.”

Bringing Everyone Together for Health

Nevertheless, some delegations, such as Brazil, wished to form alliances with more developed countries like the United States but feared they did not share the same values. This lack of trust led to the formation of a strong alliance among the majority of delegations. It was notably led by the Pakistan delegation and supported by the Philippines, who, with a small embarrassed smile, said: “The United States makes promises, but their current government leads us to believe that these promises are not intended to help developing countries.”The United States delegation defended its position to ease tensions: “We do not want war; we want to bring everyone together for health.” However, other delegations seriously doubted their intentions. China, for example, found their promises paradoxical, given that it had cut UN funding.

The US delegation highlighted the gap between politics and ideology: “Health issues are international and therefore completely separate from politics.” For them—and for many of their opponents—“The only solution is multilateralism.”

Chloé Arnaud and Lilou Fréchet

Multilateralism has been facing many challenges nowadays. In the Youth Assembly committee, the delegates from 16 countries meet to discuss current issues affecting youth at the international level. The main topic is : how can the young generation be part of multilateralism? What can we do to have an impact on this issue and get involved? During the session, the committee focused on analyzing these issues from different perspectives, looking for realistic proposals that can generate a positive impact on society.

Firstly it is important to understand what multilateralism is and where it takes place in our society. In today’s world, multilateralism is when different countries decide to work together through international organizations and agreements to solve global problems such as climate changes, international security and economic cooperation. With this, nations can share responsibilities, negotiate peacefully, and create common rules to promote stability.

With the help of Mr. Alain Le Roy, the committee was able to hear the voice of a representative of peace. He was also able to answer questions such as : “Alongside the rise of nationalism, we’re also seeing the rise of youth. What is your view on young leaders?” and “How can you make your voice heard and use it to create positive change?”

In conclusion, the debate in the Youth Assembly committee showed that multilateralism is not only a concept led by governments and international organizations, but also a space where young people can, and should participate. Through dialogue, cooperation and the exchange of ideas, delegates demonstrated that the youth has the capacity to contribute to global discussions and propose realistic solutions to current challenges.

This session highlighted the importance of giving a voice to the new generation, as their involvement is essential for the future of international cooperation. By encouraging participation, responsibility and mutual respect, the Youth Assembly reinforces the idea that multilateralism can be strengthened when young people take an active role in shaping a more cooperative and inclusive world.

Ana Luísa Franzen – Leah González Gallardo 

Artificial intelligence is playing an increasingly important role in the world of work, including in the arts and entertainment sectors. On this second day of debates in the Artificial Intelligence Committee at the ILO (International Labour Organization) offices, delegations, notably from Morocco and South Africa, discussed the impact of AI on artists and entertainment workers. These discussions aim to address risks related to automation, job insecurity, and the safety of cultural sector workers.

The Moroccan government emphasized the importance of protecting artists’ health and safety. According to the Moroccan delegation, “labour laws and social protection systems must apply to artists to ensure decent working conditions.” To reduce job insecurity, the delegation reiterated its support for the cultural sector, stating that “financial aid, festivals, and cultural projects help create more stable employment opportunities for artists.” They also highlighted the importance of training to help workers adapt to new technologies. On the international level, Morocco stressed that “cooperation between states is essential to regulate the use of AI and protect copyright in art and entertainment.”

The South African government highlighted its measures to protect artists. The delegation explained that “workers’ health and safety are ensured through occupational safety laws, regulation of cultural venues, and protocols applied during events.” Regarding employment stability, the delegation stated that “subsidies, training, and access to social protection help reduce job insecurity for entertainment workers.” Finally, the South African government emphasized that “countries must share best practices and harmonize international labour standards to better protect artists globally.”

Both the Moroccan and South African governments share the view that protecting artists in the face of challenges posed by artificial intelligence is essential. They agree on the importance of ensuring the health, safety, and employment stability of cultural sector workers, while strengthening training and social protection. The AI Committee debates are thus expected to focus on enhanced international cooperation and the development of common standards to regulate the use of AI and ensure a safer future for artists and entertainment workers.

In Room IX of the International Labour Organization in Geneva, debates are in full swing. Each teenager finds themselves defending a position that is different from their own regarding artificial intelligence. The stakes are high: defining workers’ rights in the face of the growing influence of AI and establishing social justice.

It is currently 11:27 a.m., and the room has been buzzing for nearly two hours. Today, participants must answer a crucial question: what is the impact of AI on workers? Delegates are required to build a strong resolution that could help workers threatened by AI and turn artificial intelligence into a safe and supportive tool for everyone. “AI is a force for the world,” declare many delegations, including the workers’ delegation of India.

While AI offers many advantages, it also represents a danger for numerous workers. “We must be careful that AI does not replace humans,” warns the delegation of the Indian government. This is a major debate that concerns several categories of workers around the world, such as secretaries, journalists, artists, and translators. Clara Nguyen, president of the committee in which the debates take place, shares her perspective: “I believe that AI can be used in a positive way, but for that, we need to establish a regulatory framework.” This view is shared by many delegations, who insist on the importance of creating regulations.

This passionate debate resonates even more strongly as the delegates know that they themselves will be the first concerned as future workers. Tomorrow, they will face artificial intelligence and its developments, issues that sometimes generate anxiety among them. As the workers’ delegation of India pointed out: “I am afraid, because AI dominates the world of work. Many jobs will be eliminated because of it.” Despite this fear, the delegation remains optimistic and reflects the confidence of tomorrow’s professionals: “I remain confident in myself.” These young delegates understand that today’s debates may be the ones that will animate conference rooms tomorrow.

Lilya Kabbaj – Elisa Develay

In Room II of the International Labour Organization, Jasmine, Charlotte, and Rita, committee chairs for FerMUN 2026, are preparing to oversee debates on the informal economy. On this first day, discussions focus on how countries can promote access to social protection for all individuals working in the grey economy.

At 11:53 a.m., the silence that has settled over the room is broken only by the movement of admins carrying messages from one delegate to another. It is time for delegates to draft their amendments, following a relatively eventful lobbying phase that led to the formation of two alliances. On one side, governments and workers, along with some employers from developed and occasionally emerging countries, seek to formalize the informal economy in order to make access to social protection administratively easier for the workers concerned. As stated by the delegation of the U.S. government: “No formalization of the economy, no social protection.” Opposing them are governments and employers from emerging countries, whose economies largely depend on the grey economy, as well as some workers, who believe that the methods proposed by developed countries—often less affected by informal economies—are too harsh. This is precisely the position of the Chinese employers’ delegation, which advocates for the gradual formalization of informal jobs in order to progressively reduce the informal economy, while constantly seeking economic stability.

A Generally Calm Assembly

“90% of Ethiopia’s economy is informal,” declared Ethiopian workers and employers. This explains their desire to transform the informal economy in order to secure better wages and improved working conditions for workers. Within the first session, some disagreements emerged, particularly between developed and emerging countries over the issue of financing certain measures. Ultimately, the countries concerned reached a consensus through dialogue, concretely illustrating the core values of the United Nations. Despite these disagreements, the assembly remained relatively calm—perhaps too calm, according to the committee chairs. They noted a slight lack of confrontation between differing viewpoints, as well as alliances that do not always seem aligned with the positions of the countries represented. This is notably the case with alliances between employers and workers, who often have opposing interests. Perhaps these interests will begin to surface during the open debate phase, weakening the alliance formed earlier.

Cyrielle Bouline & Djabeur Chahine

How can we ensure that all people engaged in professional activity earn a living wage in order to guarantee a dignified existence and reduce economic disparities? In a world where inflation is constantly evolving and wages grow at different rates, the labour rights committee raises this crucial question.

On Wednesday, January 7, at the premises of the International Labour Organization, the committee on labour rights begins drafting its resolutions. Faced with major challenges, alliances and mistrust quickly start to take shape.

Boundaries are blurred and the general buzz fills the room. On both sides, delegates are hard at work: laptops are overheating, brows are furrowed, and resolutions begin to appear on screens. Among all these voices, Brazil stands out for its determination and draws in other emerging countries. Their objective? To reduce economic inequalities and guarantee an adequate minimum income by adopting a long-term perspective and calling for this goal to be led by a new branch of the ILO.

11:30 a.m. Alliances begin to form. However, many delegations are confused: developed countries such as Germany or the United States are aligning themselves with emerging countries. The United States remains isolated, hesitant, and avoids asserting itself in discussions. Many delegates explain this restraint by pointing to the rise in anti-American sentiment reinforced by recent international events. “I understand why the United States is aligning itself with emerging countries given recent events,” stated the government of India.

As lobbying progresses, a growing divide emerges between workers, governments, and employers. The two resolutions oppose one another. The one presented by Canada, supported by a majority of governments and employers, opts for a more restrictive approach based on controls and inspections. In contrast, Brazil’s resolution proposes numerous support mechanisms.

Despite their disagreements, delegates mingle and spread out across the room. Everyone seems open to discussion and to proposals from other countries. And if this were the very spirit of multilateralism?

A Vital Intervention

At midday, Mr. Delautre, an economist specializing in employment policies, was able to shed light for students participating in FerMUN 2026 on the issue addressed by Committee 1, during a session held in Room IV of the Labour Rights Committee. He discussed the challenges and initiatives that could influence the evolution of a living minimum wage.

“I have always been passionate about economic issues and wanted to open myself to the international sphere,” said Guillaume Delautre, a member of the ILO, explaining his decision to pursue studies in economics. He later undertook training in labour law, which enabled him to build a career within the French administration.

During this session, Mr. Delautre provided valuable insights into the work of Committee 1, which focuses on labour rights. The living wage system aims to be updated through calculations of the cost of living in each country, in order to adjust the legal minimum wage accordingly. This intervention encouraged reflection on the difficulty of personalizing minimum wages for each individual, particularly in sectors such as agriculture. During the session, he also shared experiences from his travels around the world, from Egypt to Rwanda, via Geneva. He expressed a particular appreciation for the city of Abidjan in Côte d’Ivoire.

Delegates showed great curiosity, listening attentively and asking relevant questions, which Mr. Delautre was happy to answer. Feedback on the content and perspectives shared during this hour was overwhelmingly positive. “I found the intervention enlightening, especially regarding the distinction between a living wage and a living income. It helped me better understand the situations faced by farmers, for example,” testified the Swiss government delegation.

The presence of this expert provided young delegates with new insights and important knowledge that will support them throughout the debate. An engaging exchange that brought this first morning to a thoughtful close.

Nomin SANJAAJAMTS – Dalanda Eden DIALLO

7 January 2025. Tensions are growing in Room IX of the ILO. The United States is at the centre of discussions, despite receiving surprising criticism for its stance on working conditions. Some major powers are divided, with opinions differing.

Maintaining a balance between the health of artists and athletes and the economic interests of the country is the objective of the Chinese employers’ delegation. It then reveals the emergence of conflicts between the American and Chinese governments. 

The Russian government delegation expressed its desire to raise awareness about artists’ mental health. It emphasised the importance of addressing the shortcomings of the freelance system, particularly in the entertainment industry. Unsurprisingly, Russia refused to join forces with the United States. But the reason was unexpected, to say the least: the Russian government highlighted a contrast between the ideas and objectives of the two countries, stating that the United States favours the minimum wage and that ‘workers’ rights are not widely respected’. The debates revealed a striking paradox: Russia called out the United States for its failure to respect human rights, a symbolic reversal for a country long considered a model of democracy. 

On the other hand, Russia has formed an alliance with the Saudi Arabian government. According to the latter, “the relationship between the state and workers is not very well developed”. He admits that his country faces various problems and that working conditions present a real challenge. The Saudi government has acknowledged its difficulties in forming alliances during the lobbying phase. Could this be evidence of a lack of integration of developing countries in international decision-making? Despite this, the state has allied itself with Russia and China, while rejecting Europe and the United States – criticised not only by members of the international community, but also by their own workers. 

They particularly highlight the mistreatment of workers by employers, who use language as a tool for destabilisation. 

A disorder in priorities

It was also this delegation of American workers that caused a stir in the assembly by attempting to ally itself with the Chinese and Russian governments, fundamental enemies of its country. Although this was rejected by the presidency as unrealistic, there is a clear divide between the American government and its workers.

Faced with the crisis in working conditions, we can almost speak of a coalition of emerging and developing countries against the United States, criticising a disorder in their priorities regarding the conditions of their workers. Can we talk about propaganda on the part of Russia, China and Saudi Arabia? Or, on the contrary, are we really witnessing a reversal of geopolitical situations? Are the United States, once the world’s policeman, now disrupting human rights? One might also wonder whether the FerMUN debates accurately reflect reality, or whether they are merely a simulation produced by students who sometimes take liberties with the actual positions of the countries they represent. The finalisation of the resolution may answer these questions.

Hélène Khukhunaishvili & Agathe Sanchez