Category: SDGs 2025

Prof. Mariateresa Garrido

Associate Professor, UPEACE, Deputy Director, Global Center for Peace Innovation | COSTA RICA

Short Bio: Dr. Mariateresa Garrido is an Associate Professor in the Department of International Law at UPEACE, the Doctoral Committee Coordinator, and the Deputy Director of the Global Center for Peace Innovation. She is an international lawyer and holds a Doctorate from UPEACE and her main research area is related to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and the protection of journalists in Latin America. Dr. Mariateresa Garrido is also researching the interaction between human rights and Information and Communication Technologies, using mixed methodologies and legal research to explore the linkages between the law and new technologies.

Event: SDGs Conference 2025 

Date: September 24, 2025

SPEECH: I would like to begin with an important question: Where do wars start? From the UNESCO charter, we learn that war starts in the minds of people. War doesn’t start with AI or technology. War starts with the information we consume, in the information we distribute and engage with, and with the information we create. This implies an important social change that comes from the Fourth Industrial Revolution, specifically from the creation of information networks, how they operate, and how we are part of the distribution process.

In today’s networks, information is the main good that we are discussing and distributing, creating. Then, it is essential to understand the information creation process. Coming from the idea of the minds of people, it’s in our minds where the separation of us vs. them is created. It usually relies on the creation of stereotypes and highlighting the differences that create divisions; in other words, division is fueled by not knowing each other and the lack of understanding of what can make us a common group. These ideas impact us deeply. On one side, they lead us to the use of stereotypes that secure separation, and on the other side, they help us to justify the creation, consumption, and distribution of a very particular type of information. In consequence, information as a tool must be evaluated as a chain.

When we talk about misinformation or disinformation as a tool for warfare, we’re usually looking at the idea of the creation of this type of information. Thus, when we refer to disinformation campaigns, we limit its study to an operation in which information has been purposely created to produce some harm. In this scenario, we recognize the use of bots, mass distribution of content specially designed for social media and internet-based platforms.

On the side of misinformation, we refer to information that might not have been created with the purpose of causing some harm, but it ends with conversations that are misleading. One example of this happened recently in Costa Rica when one congressman visited an area affected by intense rains, and when sharing about it with the media, he sent a picture of him in the affected place but from a previous visit. We know that he visited the area, but when he sent an image that was not from that very specific moment, he was misleading the media and the population in general. In conclusion, the main difference between misinformation and disinformation is the purpose and the goals for which they are created.

Continuing with the idea of the information chain, once it is created, it is massively distributed, permeating the information ecosystem, in both digital and non-digital networks. The digital distribution usually starts in social media, which is one of the biggest dissemination channels for this type of information because it is fast, emotional, and easy to relate to the situations people are facing. Then we also have media taking over, in some cases, traditional media using breakout news, without an exhaustive checking process.

Some of the problems we see in the distribution process are the existence of echo chambers. These are networks created around our interests and that impede us from receiving information that is posted outside those chambers. So, thinking of the idea that war starts in the mind of people, if we’re only receiving information that is confirming our stereotypes and biases, then it is extremely easy to use information as a tool for warfare, because it is endorsing the preexisting believe of us vs. them. Then, the question is, how do we break this cycle? What do we do? The answer is simple: analyze the information. Some of the questions we can ask ourselves are: What is this information bringing to me as a person? How am I part of this echo chamber? Am I contributing to the distribution of misinformation or disinformation?

Disinformation campaigns rely on the use of emotions to ensure a connection with the audience. Thus, if it is relying on us vs. them, outrage and stereotypes, fear, anxiety, and conflict, then it is very likely that we are receiving disinformation.

To move away from the temptation to share that content, we need to consider our responsibility and find a path to disrupt the cycle, and it is precisely on this point that we go back to our minds. 

If we are conscious of who we are in the network society, how this information is getting to us, then it’s easy to take effective actions to break the cycle by doing something different. To counter the effects of these campaigns, it is worth identifying the main beneficiary of the information, the context, or the group for which disinformation is relevant, and considering the larger effects of the division that it is causing.

We must recognize that it will be specific people or groups who are creating this type of information and disinformation campaigns, with clear goals and intentions. They need society to think about a specific topic, and they are disseminating information to increase division and polarization. This is why, before sharing, it is crucial to stop and say: Is it worth sharing?

These are simple questions to explore, and that I want to leave you with, because if war begins in the minds of people, so does peace. We need to be intentional in the creation of peace, and for that, awareness of the type of information we consume and share is essential. If we can fight the temptation of sharing content that promotes division and polarization, we can do our part to build the society we want.

As we say at the University for Peace, if you want peace, work for peace. This work starts with us, in the most private space – our mind – and from there it impacts our networks and our society. If you can identify how the information is affecting you and stop the distribution cycle, you’re already building peace.

As users, we’re not powerless, we can create change by bringing unity when we recognize the us vs. them dynamic, dismantling echo chambers by accessing different ideas and consuming information that challenges our believes, and stopping the cycle by impeding the limitation of these types of contents. Change doesn’t happen suddenly, but remember, if you want peace, work for it.

Sophie Farthing

Head of Responsible Technology Program, Human Technology Institute | AUSTRALIA

Short Bio: Ms. Sophie Farthing is Head of the Responsible Technology Program at the Human Technology Institute at the University of Technology Sydney. A human rights lawyer, her work encompasses human centered approaches to new and emerging technologies, with a current focus on AI governance and regulation. Previously, Ms. Farthing was the Senior Policy Adviser to the Australian Human Rights Commissioner. She has held legal policy roles at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Sydney, at National Council for Civil Liberties in the United Kingdom and was appointed the Research Assistant to Baroness Hale of Richmond in the United Kingdom Supreme Court. Ms. Sophie Farthing recently served on the Australian Human Rights Commission Expert Reference Group on Neurotechnology and Human Rights.

Event: SDGs Conference 2025 

Date: September 24, 2025

SPEECH: As a human rights lawyer, I have been working in AI, governance, and technology policy for almost a decade now. The Human Technology Institute, based in Australia, is coming to this fourth industrial revolution, looking to see how we can ensure new and emerging technology is adopted in a way that is human-centric, so that we get the benefits from this very powerful technology, and we do not steer towards that dystopian future that we definitely all fear. First, I would like to give a proper framing for what civic technologies are. Like artificial intelligence, there is no fixed definition, but as we think about civic technologies, we are looking for the positive examples. The ones where the use of technology is transparent, where there is accountability, and it is used for the public interest. Therefore, when we are talking about the revitalization of the Sustainable Development Goals, we are in an incredible era where there is so much potential and a lot of peril.

Artificial intelligence is one technology, and there will be other examples of civic technologies that are going to be relevant to the SDGs. My focus on AI is because of how transformative this technology is. So, if we are thinking about potential, it is incredible what AI is going to be able to achieve because it is pervasive and now touching on all parts of societies and economies in very different ways. We surely have a huge digital divide, and we are getting an AI divide as well. As we have had past technologies that have completely transformed societies, that is what AI has the potential to do if we make the right choices with the right questions. If we approach the AI in the right way, then we will be able to use these technologies to revitalize and to work towards the attainment of the SDGs.

I also would like to note that we steer between two extremes, with a polar extreme headline of “AI could wipe out humanity,” which had many political ramifications, to the claim that “AI can be worth trillions,” referring to huge productivity and jobs. But what we are doing at the Human Technology Institute is focusing on examples showcasing how AI is being used now. We can get very distracted with the AI debate, and that is certainly occurring in particular environments globally. We can talk about the promise of AI transition from the promise of AI as one extreme to claiming that it will wipe us all out, taking our jobs. We must have practical conversations to make the right choices.

I would like to elaborate on the promise and the peril when it comes to using AI to achieve the SDGs, and the best way to do this is by speaking of examples. As I am coming from Australia, I have got a very particular example of AI from my country and how we are approaching it. During the week, I have met an obstetrician who specializes in high-risk pregnancies in Australia, where there is an excellent health system, but in our rural and remote areas, there are a lot of challenges. This woman`s health professional was talking about diagnostic tools; the majority are powered by AI. She was saying that this new tool is not replacing what she does when she goes out to rural and remote Australia, but it is speeding up the time she must make a diagnosis quickly and therefore see more people and offer more help. These kinds of examples about health are very incredible when it comes to the use of AI. Ending hunger is another area with life-changing impacts of AI. I spoke with another person from Mali who has developed an app that is launching this week. The application will provide local people, including farmers and non-farmers, with information about growing food using the land around them, with the kind of information about weather and possible crops that could be planted. This is about the accessibility of information.

My computer scientist colleagues at the Human Technology Institute are globally leading a Bayesian statistical analysis and deep machine learning, looking at the education system in New South Wales, the state in which I come from. They have taken huge swaths of data held by the New South Wales Department of Education. After organizing that data and feeding it into their very spectacular mathematical formulas, they receive incredible algorithms. 

What they are doing is looking at all this data that has been held for decades, and they are trying to understand why some kids finish school particularly strongly, and some finish at a disadvantage. One of the interesting findings is the unexpected causal relationships. Not only the correlation, but they are using AI to understand causation, which is the lower socioeconomic status that might indicate how well a child finishes school, if they finish school at all. In fact, they are finding a sense of belonging. These kinds of examples of AI use are the ones we need to really lean into when it comes to achieving the SDGs. We, of course, have a lot of frightening examples of how AI is undermining human rights and dismantling democracy. We must have a kind of environment in which healthy and well-functioning democratic institutions can operate. And AI is really undermining that ecosystem when it comes to misinformation. Social media is another good example of how powerful business models that are driving particular social media trends are having impacts on the health of young people and all of us. Seeking to understand how AI is reshaping public discourse in Australia and everywhere around the world is really important when we think about this promise and peril. How do we get the most out of AI?

We could have many different futures when it comes to AI and achieving the SDGs, but we need to be very careful about our decision making. We need active leadership at this point in time. As we are talking about AI revitalizing the attainment of the SDGs, it is addressing that global divide which is hugely significant. We are talking about the benefits of AI streaming to developing countries and even echelons within developed countries. We need good governance, ethical regulation, and human rights protection at the very core of all those regulatory instruments.

Dr. Martin Burt

Founder, Poverty Stoplight & Fundación Paraguaya | PARAGUAY

Short Bio: Dr. Martin Burt is a world-renowned social entrepreneur and microfinance pioneer who has developed two social innovations: the financially self-sufficient agricultural school model and the Poverty Stoplight, a new poverty metric and coaching methodology that is currently being implemented by more than 665,000 families and 1000 organizations in 60 countries. He is the Founder and CEO of Fundación Paraguaya, a social enterprise named Latin America’s most impactful and innovative development organization by the Inter-American Development Bank. In public service, Dr. Martin Burt has served as Chief of Staff to the President of Paraguay, was elected Mayor of the capital city of Paraguay, Asunción, and was appointed Vice Minister of Commerce. Dr. Burt has written books on economics, development, municipal government, poetry, and education. He holds a PhD from Tulane University.

Event: SDGs Conference 2025 

Date: September 24, 2025

SPEECH: I have been working in poverty for more than 40 years, concentrating on street vendors with the microfinance movement. There must be a time when we got really frustrated because we did not understand how some street vendors came out of poverty, and some did not. Why did some people who increased their family income not fix their teeth or their bathroom? Why the promise of trickle-down economics by investing in the bottom of the pyramid sometimes worked and sometimes did not.

So, we looked at what the World Bank said about $3 per person per day, which did not match reality at all. Then we analyzed the Sustainable Development Goals. We asked the poor people with whom we work: “What does it mean for you to be not poor?”. They were ready to list us the requirements of having an income, clothes, nutritious food, drinking water, having adults and children to sleep in different bedrooms, education etc. And then they added: you must have a motivation, self-esteem, and be able to control your emotions. What is more important? Drinking water or controlling your emotions. The response was controlling emotions. There are no such subjective indicators among the SDGs, but we kept asking what is more important? Self-esteem or housing? The response was self-esteem. How do you measure poverty with subjective indicators?

We did a visual survey using three colors: green to represent non poverty, yellow to represent poverty, and red to represent ultra poverty. Any family in the world can self-diagnose their level of multidimensional poverty and come up not with an index that aggregates information for decision makers at the top, but a dashboard that disaggregates information for decision makers at the family household level. All these indicators that we were told, in addition to being objective and subjective, are actionable and achievable in five years.

We have now moved from having national development plans, municipal development plans to having family development plans for the world. At the family level, poverty can be eliminated in the short term. This is why we think that we must reconsider everything we are doing with the SDGs because they are third industrial revolution. With this current crisis, we are in the fourth industrial revolution, and now we have AI bots and avatars to coach every single family in their own language, in their own priorities. We are very encouraged with our work on the poverty stoplight. We are working in 14 States in the United States, in 100 communities in the UK. in addition to aroma communities in Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, in the favelas of Brazil, in the township of South Africa. At the family household level, change is possible. So, let’s hope that the fourth industrial revolution allows this.

Hon. Mr. Thanasis Chimonas

Vice Mayor for Social Integration of Migrants and Refugees, The City of Athens | GREECE

Short Bio: Hon. Mr. Thanassis Chimonas is the Vice Mayor for Social Integration of Migrants and Refugees at the City of Athens. He studied Literature and Film at the University of Strasbourg and Journalism in London. As a globally recognized author, his novels and short stories have been published in France, Germany, Israel, and North Macedonia, while he has also worked as a columnist for major media outlets such as Ta Nea, Athens Voice, Liberal.gr, and Fos ton Spor. Hon. Mr. Chimonas has also served as Secretary of Culture, parliamentary candidate for Athens A, and candidate for the European Parliament with political party, PASOK, as well as a member of the Political Council and candidate for the European Parliament with political party, To Potami.

Event: SDGs Conference 2025 

Date: September 24, 2025

SPEECH: “We are living, dear friends, through very difficult times. This is not some cliché. We all witness it every single day. Bloody wars rage in every corner of the Earth: in Ukraine, in Gaza, in Sudan, and elsewhere. Hundreds of thousands of victims – among them a vast number of civilians, women, children, and the elderly – are paying the price of political and geopolitical choices they never made themselves. Political assassinations are back and shaking humanity. And the victims now belong not only to one faction or the other.

They span the entire ideological spectrum. Racism, intolerance, xenophobia, and racial and religious discrimination tend to become normalized. They are no longer marginal behaviors. They threaten to become definitively mainstream, part of everyday life.

We see mass demonstrations erupting in major European cities, not to defend solidarity or rights, but to declare hostility against migration. We see far-right and Alt-Right parties increasing their strength everywhere. In many countries, they are winning or about to win elections. And worst of all, these parties are often accepted as partners in governing coalitions, fully legitimized. Democracy, freedom of speech, human rights – all those things we took for granted for decades are under threat and shrinking. I will not hide behind generalities. I live in a country, Greece, which is ruled by an authoritarian and racist regime. We do not have a dictatorship, a junta like that of the colonels, in the dark period of 1967–74. We do not have tanks in the streets. The government of Mr. Mitsotakis was elected in the most democratic manner, with comfortable victories in two consecutive elections. Only, in 2025, authoritarian regimes are not installed through military coups. They are consolidated from within the very institutions themselves. They are born in parliament. They begin as elected governments and gradually restrict democracy, transforming it into a one-man democracy.

In the country where I live, most of the mainstream media is controlled. They were openly bribed during the pandemic under the pretext of so-called public information. Scandals follow one another, but ordinary citizens are often forced to search the internet to learn the details that the major channels conceal.

I will give you an example: Two and a half years ago, fifty-seven people perished in the deadliest accident in the history of Greek railways. And yet, this tragedy is being covered up with reports of dubious credibility. The relatives of the victims are mocked not only by the systemic media but also by armies of government trolls online. In my own field, that of migration, things are even worse. A few months ago, a politician with a heavy far-right past was appointed minister. He had been the leader of the youth wing of a pro-Nazi party in the 1980s and later the representative of the French Front National’s franchise in Greece. When this minister became embroiled in scandals, he was replaced by another politician of similar views, notorious for his far-right ideas and the son of perhaps the most important far-right ideologist in Greece – a man (the father) who, among other things, had written a book claiming that Jews are not humans.

The second minister did exactly what one would expect of him, exactly what he was placed there to do: he adopted a series of extreme racist measures, a disgrace not only for my country but also for the European Union, which insists on looking the other way. Imprisonment (under certain circumstances) of migrants and refugees without even examining whether they qualify for asylum. -a measure that applies to everyone, women with children, the elderly, and the disabled. Deportation, even for legal migrants who have lived in the country for years. Demonization – almost criminalization, of NGOs that work to provide aid to migrants and refugees. The Greek government has even boasted of deliberately worsening the quality of meals in migrant facilities, in order to make their lives unbearable.

Unfortunately, Greece is not an exception. It is an extreme example, but not unique. Similar phenomena can be found in many countries of the so-called “enlightened” West. Even in giants such as Germany, France, and the UK. The argument is always the same: “We must adopt some harsh measures so that the far right does not come to power.” But when you truly want to defeat the far right, you do not act like them. You do exactly the opposite. Otherwise, you become the far right yourself. Therefore, the problem is not only the regimes of Orbán, Meloni, or even Donald Trump. Conservatism existed and will always exist. The real issue is the parties that are elected under liberal or center-left banners, that promise to be bulwarks against the far right but ultimately become Trojan horses. It hurts me to admit this, but right now, the only ideological space that presents a coherent narrative is that of the “hardcore”.

What do we have to counter their flimsy and repulsive, yet seductive, arguments? The quota of actors in Hollywood films? How can we contribute to the integration of migrants and refugees when we are making cuts to everything that concerns them, as well as to culture, to education, under doctrines such as “Rearm Europe”? Because true inclusion is not achieved with weapons or with exclusions of the cancel-culture kind. It is achieved through culture, education, sports. Through play from the earliest age. We are obliged to stand against the racist, to fight him, not to fear him. But we will not wag our finger at the ordinary citizen who, perhaps influenced by the surrounding atmosphere and the misinformation of which he is also a victim, feels uncomfortable when he sees people around him who are different than him. This guy is not our enemy. He is a misled potential ally. And we must approach him with respect, listen to him, and convince him with arguments and truths.

We must come forward with ideas. With proposals. With a narrative that is not defensive but offensive. We must work with migrant communities, with civil society. We must put forward arguments of substance. We do not need, and must not, imitate our opponents with fake news or unethical methods. We have something far stronger: The truth. And it is enough to say it clearly, to shout it loudly.

The future, of course, appears bleak, dark, unpredictable. For many years, after the Second World War, humanity lived through a relatively calm period. It seemed that we had learned from the mistakes of the past. But all signs suggest that this is changing.

The Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci once wrote: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” Gramsci wrote this in prison, shortly before he died, when Italy was ruled by fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. And we all know what followed.

Today, we find ourselves once again in such an interregnum. Around us, the “morbid symptoms” multiply. Authoritarianism, disinformation, disappointment, and the sense of deadlock. We must, therefore, help this “new” to be born. To nurture it, to protect it, to bring it into the light. Before it is too late.

H.E. Epsy Campbell Barr

Former Vice-President of Costa Rica | Costa Rica 

Short Bio: Honorable Ms. Epsy Campbell Barr is the Former Vice President of Costa Rica, and she was the first Afro-descendant and the first woman to be appointed as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship. Ms. Barr is a global leader in inclusion, development, human rights, and sustainability. She was also twice elected as a congresswoman of the Republic of Costa Rica. Ms. Barr is an Independent Expert of the United Nations and a promoter of business and employment opportunities in new technologies and cybersecurity for people from historically marginalized sectors. From 2021 to 2024, she was the President of the United Nations Permanent Forum of Afrodescendants. As an international activist, she founded the Global Coalition Against Systemic Racism and for Reparations, a large international organization that develops actions in countries to combat racism through art, culture, and education.

Event: SDGs Conference 2025 

Date: September 24, 2025

 SPEECH: We gather at a time when humanity stands at a crossroads, as there are poverty and exclusion around us; scarcity in the lives of billions, as entire populations fear war and extermination. We witness the impression of power that denies people their voice, while the institution of multilateralism, built to ensure peace and cooperation, is strained and weakened. Racism continues to divide and dehumanize. Sexism and systemic exclusion of women prevent humanity from truly contributing to our share of the future. Resources are concentrated in a few, while millions remain trapped in a circle of poverty. The climate crisis is no longer a distant threat; it is here. The vast communities from the Caribbean, from the Pacific Islands to the Arab world, our democracies are fragile, often unrepresentative of the needs and aspirations of the people.

We are not merely living through a crisis. We are living in a change of era. The global crisis is not only economic; it is social, environmental, and cultural. It is a crisis of leadership and civilizational values. It is too often that the leadership today is built on individualism and ruthless competition. Patriarchal communities are accommodating wealth, resources, and empowered without concern of the common good. It is extractive, even predatory, consuming the earth’s resources without caring for the future generation. It is a leadership that embraces the doctrines to justify the means. A leadership that excludes diversity, rather thrives on violence and confrontation that denies the dignity of those who are different. This is the model of leadership that has brought us to the edge where survival itself is at stake.

Despite this challenge, humanity has a shared compass, which is the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by all nations. The SDGs represent more than a checklist. It is a common agenda to guarantee rights for all people, to build peace, equality, and sustainability. The goals remind us that development must mean eradicating poverty in all forms, ending hunger, and ensuring dignity through access to health and education. It ensures gender equality not as a favor for women, but as a necessity for humanity. They are protecting our planet, oceans, forests, biodiversity, because there is no plan B and no planet B. SDGs are ensuring that women and men share power and responsibility in equal measure at every level of decision making. The SDGs are about translating promises into lived realities. They are about ensuring that no one is left behind because, more than a slogan, it becomes the measure of our collective consensus.

Let us be clear: a promise, no matter how noble, is not enough. Commitments on paper do not feed hungry children, do not heal our wonder planet, and do not empower silenced voices. We must go beyond rhetoric and good intentions. Delivering on the SDGs means building political will, allocating resources, strengthening institutions, and holding ourselves accountable. It means aligning the energy of civil society, the innovation of the private sector, and the responsibility of governments. It requires courage, the interest to redistribute resources, and to stand firmly for human rights. Yes, this is a time of extraordinary challenge, but it must also be a time of collective and joint actions. We are called to be part of what I call the shining generation. A generation that refuses to surrender the despair and still transforms pain into labor of birth, as with childbirth, the deeper the pain, the closer we are to bringing it into life. Despite the intensity of today’s crisis, we are closer than ever to delivering a new era of peace, justice, and sustainability. That is why each of us, wherever we are, must promote change. Starting with the immediate impact we can make in our communities, in our institution, and in our own leadership. We cannot despair and fail to take hold. The SDGs call us to act now and known more than clearly that Goal 17 is to strengthen coordination and partnership across all the sectors, all the identities, and all the people. Only together in unity can we transform the promise into a reality to finish the task.

We must also change how we lead. The future will not be secure with the same leadership that created today’s crisis. We need a new leadership that is transformative and compassionate, that chooses cooperation over confrontation. Inspire through example, not fear. Listen deeply, especially to the voices that are long ignored. Operate with a clear framework of principles and values. Understand and live the principle of Ubuntu: I am because we are. This is the leadership that nourishes and protects, that heals and restores. It is a leadership that embodies the strength with empathy, care, and collaboration. It is a leadership that knows strength lies in lifting others up. And it is a leadership that brings self-leadership, the capacity to go beyond one’s own ego. They cultivate humility to align personal conduct with universal values. Without self-leadership, we cannot lead orders with integrity.

The task before us is urgent but not impossible. The sustainable development goals are promises we made to the poor, to excluded ones, to the planet, to the future generation. That promise must be kept, but promises are only fulfilled when people, leaders, the community, and each of us decide to act. The SDGs are not the responsibility of the governments alone. They are the responsibility of all humanity. So let us leave this conference with a renewed determination to act together across borders, culture, and generations. Let us embody a new leadership that is both bold and compassionate. Let us make the principle of Ubuntu real in our life. At the end of the day, our lives are intertwined. My humanity is bound up with yours. Your future is linked to mine, and only together only as a human family, can we finish the task. Let us deliver the promise of Sustainable Development Goals. Let us ensure justice, sustainability, and dignity for every person, everywhere.