The 1 for 8 Billion nongovernmental organization has campaigned for financial transparency and declarations of conflicts of interest in the United Nations secretary-general selection process since the group’s launching in 2014.
The need for financial disclosures from UN senior staff is well established within the system; indeed, confidential financial disclosure statements are required for senior staff positions. The UN Ethics Office administers the UN’s financial disclosure program and reviews the statements for conflicts of interest. Furthermore, the secretary-general encourages voluntary public disclosure of such statements by senior officials. At a minimum, candidates for secretary-general should be held to the same standard.
While the requirement for financial disclosures was not part of the official 2015/16 secretary-general selection process, our direct advocacy led to some candidates voluntarily sharing relevant information. For example, one candidate at the time, Danilo Turk, told us that his campaign was funded by the government of Slovenia, with a spending limit of 40,000 euros (approximately $46,000). Such disclosures were the exception, not the rule.
Following the 2016 race, our advocacy with countries in the General Assembly continued. Our breakthrough arrived in the form of a 2023 resolution encouraging future candidates to voluntarily disclose their sources of funding. This is the first time a secretary-general candidate’s funding had been mentioned in an Assembly resolution: “Invites candidates during future processes to voluntarily disclose any funding sources they have relating to their candidature;” (Resolution 77/335)
Over the next two years, the idea gained momentum, and in 2025 a resolution was adopted, making the requirement to disclose funding unequivocal, The resolution stated: “Each candidate should disclose her or his sources of funding at the time of the nomination.”
Disclosures in the 2026 race so far
As required by the 2025 resolution, it is positive that each nominee in the current selection process is making a financial disclosure alongside their vision statement and CV as part of their application package.
Here is a synthesis of the financial disclosures made so far, submitted by candidates’ nominating states at the time of their application (ordered by nomination date):
• Rafael Mariano Grossi (nominated by Argentina on Nov. 26)
“It should also be noted that the candidate will finance all activities related to the selection process using his own funds.” (translated from Spanish to English, link to original source)
• Michelle Bachelet (nominated by Chile, Brazil and Mexico on Feb. 2)
“It should also be noted that the activities related to the selection process will be financed by public resources.” (link to original source)
• Macky Sall (nominated by Burundi on March 2)
“It should also be noted that the activities related to the selection process will be financed by personal and public resources.” (link to original source)
• Rebeca Grynspan (nominated by Costa Rica on March 3)
“With regard to the financing of the campaign, the resources will be drawn from public and private sources.” (link to original source)
• Virginia Gamba (nominated by the Maldives on March 11)
“It should also be noted that Ms. Gamba’s activities related to the selection process will be financed by civil society through in-kind donations provided by the International Model United Nations Association (IMUNA), and by her personal resources.” (link to original source)
We welcome the example set by Gamba for including information related to in-kind support she is receiving and hope any other candidate receiving such assistance will make appropriate declarations promptly.
Proposals for stronger financial transparency
While initial disclosures submitted as part of candidate nominations are a positive starting point, pressure is growing for more comprehensive reporting throughout the race.
1 for 8 Billion is calling on all candidates to disclose the precise sources, the extent of funds available from each source and the activities being funded as well as to commit to regularly updating their disclosures as the race develops, including a full account of resources used at the end of the process.
It would be neither rational nor credible for financial disclosures to be solely communicated at the time of nomination, before the bulk of campaign expenditure takes place. Moreover, a financial disclosure that includes funding sources but omits the value of the funds involved is unsatisfactory, since the scale of funding available is paramount to the relevance of the disclosure. Values are also needed to enable a comparison of the varying access to resources across the field of candidates — a useful indication to understand whether the playing field is level. It could also trigger a useful conversation on spending limits, a widely accepted component of national elections across much of the world.
Funding disclosures without funding values would also mark a step backward from the 2016 race when, as mentioned above, the value of funds available was voluntarily disclosed by at least one candidate.
At present, what nominating countries in the 2026 process have conveyed so far is reductive and vague. For example, stating that “private” funds will be used without elaboration, or that “public” funds will be used without mentioning which multiple nominating states’ governments are footing the bill raises more questions than answers.
Furthermore, no candidate has yet declared the values involved. In part this may be due to timing — the disclosures made to date have been submitted by the nominating state at the time of nomination, consistent with Resolution 79/327. At the beginning of the campaign, it is understandable that the quantity of funding required may not be known and the task of securing further funding sources may be ongoing. For these reasons, subsequent reporting is vital.
The request for updates to the financial disclosure is also consistent with Resolution 79/327, which places an expectation for the joint respective presidents of the General Assembly and the Security Council to keep this information current as the race progresses: “The President of the General Assembly and the President of the Security Council should jointly maintain and regularly update a public list of candidates, including the name, nominating State(s), vision statement, curriculum vitae and campaign financing disclosures, published on a dedicated United Nations web page;” [emphasis added]
Pressure from member states is growing for candidates to produce more comprehensive and regularly updated financial reporting. In a meeting on March 5 of the General Assembly’s Working Group on the Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly, the ACT coalition of 27 member states stated: “Our group recalls that OP 42h calls on candidates to disclose their sources of funding and OP 42i stipulates that those candidates holding positions in the UN system should consider suspending their work during the campaign. We emphasize that the purpose of these clauses is to avoid conflict of interest, gain an unfair advantage, and ensure transparency to the process. These calls should not be taken as mere formalities and we call on candidates to update their financial disclosures throughout the process.”
During the discussion, Germany advanced similar points in its national capacity: “We must express our disappointment regarding the low level of detail provided in the financial disclosures of the candidates nominated to date. Member states require transparency regarding the sources of campaign financing. We encourage candidates to continuously inform member states in more detail, as was the case in other comparable processes.”
Best practice elsewhere in the UN system includes the election of the WHO director-general, where states backing candidates as well as the candidates themselves must “disclose their campaign activities (for example, hosting of meetings, workshops and visits), together with the amount and source of all funding for campaign activities.” To promote an inclusive, fair process, equal travel support of “an economy-class airline ticket and a per diem” is provided to all candidates participating in candidate forums.
The rationale for financial transparency is to improve public confidence in the selection process. It is vital to enable scrutiny of perceptions of patronage and undue influence. As noted in our detailed explainer on nominations, candidates are standing to become international civil servants who pledge not to take instruction from any government or any other external authority, a rule enshrined in Article 100 of the UN Charter.
To build confidence in this regard, 1 for 8 Billion is also calling on candidates to publicly disclose any information which could be perceived as a conflict of interest, including relevant roles and associations held, as well as making a commitment to not make promises to member states to secure support for their candidacy. We are also concerned about the possibility of candidates gaining unfair advantage through the misuse of pre-existing UN employment and ask candidates to consider pausing their UN roles to ensure appropriate separation of campaign activities and official duties, consistent with Resolution 79/327.
We call on all candidates to follow best practice, ensure their financial disclosures are comprehensive and regularly updated and declare all relevant conflicts of interest. Such actions are vital to build confidence in the judgment of candidates, the integrity of the selection process and, ultimately, in the credibility of the office of the secretary-general of the United Nations.
This is an opinion essay.
We welcome your comments on this article. What are your thoughts on the SG candidates' financial disclosures so far?
Related Posts
Ben Donaldson is a UK-based adviser to the 1 for 8 Billion campaign.
![[Re]Group - A Playbook for Turbulent Times -Subscribe Now](https://passblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/re-group_unf2026_square_600.500@2x.webp)
Ben this is a very important point because one of the candidates has a lingering problem of hidden IMF debt contracted during his regime which needs to be clarified sooner than later!