Share & more
For 26 years, Benjamin Davis was a fixture at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), rising from economist to head of its Rural Transformation and Gender Equality Division (ESP), whose overarching mission, like that of FAO itself, was “leave no one behind”.
On 30 September, Davis left the vast, imposing, labyrinthine headquarters in Rome, after his contract was not extended. He says the decision was linked to his work drawing attention to the humanitarian situation in Gaza, where famine was declared in August 2025, and where 59% of the population continues to face “crisis” levels of hunger.
The episode adds to a growing list of controversies around governance, accountability, and political influence at the three Rome-based UN agencies working on food and agriculture.
It also comes amid a polycrisis: ongoing tensions in two key agricultural trade routes, the Black Sea and the Strait of Hormuz; a Super El Niño that could disrupt crop production and increase disaster risks; and record levels of hunger where about 266 million people across 47 countries and territories needed urgent assistance in 2025, more than double the number a decade earlier.
The World Food Programme (WFP), one of the world’s largest humanitarian agencies, has come under scrutiny for its renewed partnership with Palantir, the data analytics firm and military contractor that has worked with both the Israeli army and the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It also has a new leader, Luke Lindberg, an “America First” Trump appointee with no experience in emergency response.
The usually low-profile International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) is facing questions over allegations that Kenyan government officials and businessmen embezzled funds from an initiative it financed.
Now it is the FAO’s turn.
Last week, a video surfaced of Davis speaking at a side event during a global FAO conference in Rome. He said he was forced into early retirement in part because of his participation in moments of silence for Gaza and his work drawing attention to the situation there. The comments raised concerns among FAO staff and aid workers.
“I felt as though I couldn’t just leave quietly. I just wanted people to know what transpired, what happened, and just to see for themselves.”
On Tuesday, FAO Director-General Qu Dongyu, who has a history of going off script at events, appeared to address the furore at an event on forests. He said the agency does not allow officers to “play the game… of human rights”, those who want to do so should go to Geneva where there is a dedicated agency on human rights, and that staff who violate regulations should be “fired” regardless of seniority.
“Staff members are really distraught, about Ben’s personal situation for one, but also that they have the head of their organisation talking about firing people at will,” a source close to the FAO told The New Humanitarian.
The FAO has not responded to requests seeking comment on either video.
Davis spoke to The New Humanitarian about what happened, why he spoke out, and why calling for human rights is not a political game.
This interview was edited for length and clarity.
The New Humanitarian: Were you told why your contract wasn’t renewed?
Benjamin Davis: I was told the director-general is very upset with me, that I’ve caused the organisation to lose legitimacy and to lose its reputation and I was given two examples.
First, the moments of silence, which have been held every Thursday at lunchtime, saying that my division had organised them. I defended myself by saying that the moment of silence – it’s not organised by me. It’s an informal group of staff, and it’s an authorised activity. It’s coordinated with the security service.
May 22, 2025 was the first silence. It was in the context of the ceasefire, the total blockade, the slow resumption of aid, and the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, where people were being gunned down trying to get food aid. People felt that this was an outrageous situation, and so it was a moment of silence.
The second one was specifically around technical work that we had done last year, in the publication of a brief in May of 2025. We combined analysis of caloric availability with the implications under international humanitarian law. It was up for a few weeks, and then the legal office made us take it down because they said we had gone beyond our mandate. We’re not allowed to make any kind of interpretation of international humanitarian law.
On July 1, I got an official memo saying that while (the FAO) had extended my contract to the 30th of September, they would no longer extend it beyond that date. The (director-general) had lost confidence in my ability to perform my duties in senior management in accordance with the standards of conduct of international civil servants… which were around impartiality and leadership.
The New Humanitarian: Can you tell us why you spoke out, initially internally, about the situation in Gaza, and now about what happened to you?
Davis: I mean, I think these are transcendental, momentous, historical moments of massive import for what we do for food and agriculture, and the silencing of discussion. It fits into a pattern, particularly on the issue of Gaza and Palestine. It fits into a pattern that’s happening everywhere. It’s happening in other agencies. It’s happening in US universities. It’s happening in Europe.
I think there’s a feeling [among FAO staff] that there’s some fundamental principles that the United Nations is based on. That’s our reason for being, right? And we need to speak up for those principles, defend those principles, and make sure they’re part of the discourse and that they’re taken into account. Because otherwise, why are we here?
It’s the silencing of any discussion of these very basic principles, which I just can’t abide by.
That’s why what the DG (the director-general) said struck such a deep chord within the staff, because it’s saying human rights have nothing to do with the work of FAO and FAO had nothing to do with human rights. It strikes at the heart of what the United Nations is, really.
I felt as though I couldn’t just leave quietly. I just wanted people to know what transpired, what happened, and just to see for themselves.
One, there was a real lack of due process within the whole thing – because I’m being disciplined without due process, which is kind of the HR issue. But more fundamentally, again, it’s the silencing of any discussion of these very basic principles, which I just can’t abide by.
What I really discovered over the past week is that just by the way people have responded, there’s a real thirst for any kind of moral leadership of any sort, of vision, back within FAO.
The New Humanitarian: What did you think when you saw comments from the director-general, ostensibly referring to you and your situation?
Davis: I didn’t know what to say or think. I was shocked. Though again, not surprised, because this is kind of typical behaviour whenever he goes off script.
When I think about what he said, I mean, it fits in with things that he said in the past. There has been a very subtle pressure within the organisation not to use the word “human rights”. You can say “rights-based”. You can say “rights approaches”, but to say “human rights” is frowned upon. I know of other divisions that have had to delete references to human rights.
He’s talked about this for a long time – that we’re a technical agency, the politics is New York, and what he said about human rights is Geneva. I understand what he’s saying, but I also think it’s absurd to say that our technical work takes place in a vacuum. Everything we do is in a political context, and you have to measure that political context in everything you do at any point in any country office anywhere.
And human rights – that’s like the central part of “leave no one behind”, and it has to be infused in everything we do, right? We’re not a human rights organisation, but we are an organisation that’s based on a human rights perspective.
The New Humanitarian: Would you say that for all the Rome-based food agencies, even though there are different mandates, that human rights should be part of the core consideration?
Davis: It could, of course. Again, they don’t need to have a human rights council because it’s not looking at human rights abuses. It’s understanding how a human rights approach underscores the leaving no one behind philosophy and understanding why people are left behind, which is around rights being violated.
The New Humanitarian: Beyond the Rome-based agencies, there is a general reluctance within the humanitarian sector to self-criticise and the issues have become incredibly political. Do you have any reflections on navigating this situation as somebody who has had decades of experience working in this space?
Davis: I mean, FAO in particular is a member-based organisation, right? So the member countries have a very important role, and they all disagree with each other, and they’re fighting constantly now. I recognise that it is a very tough job mediating between all these conflicting political agendas and uses of wordage, and so I’m very sympathetic to the sensitivities. And these things go up and down; they ebb and flow.
All the stuff around gender has been around for years. It’s taken on new strength with the election of [US President Donald] Trump, which changed the whole balance of power in all these debates.
I understand you pick and choose your battles, and you decide where you’re gonna [fight]. Within the division, we’ll pick and choose our battles. We’ll even modify language as long as this doesn’t become a question of principle and undermine what we do. So it’s a constant tension. I realise that, and I understand they’re under a lot of pressure.
This is a recurring thing depending on the topic, right? Whether it’s the role of livestock in climate change, the role of GMOs [genetically-modified organisms]… and historically in FAO, there would be multiple opinions. You have the agroecologists, and you have the pro-GMO guys, and they coexist, and whoever’s stronger depends on whoever the DG is and that kind of thing, which I think is fine. I think that’s okay. I don’t think it’s necessarily worse now.
Maybe talking about rights, this is maybe the worst? But talking about sensitive subjects, this has come and gone. I guess my work hasn’t been particularly controversial or sensitive most of my career. This is the only time I’ve ever run into this problem.
The New Humanitarian: What advice do you have for others who are in a similar position as you, or who feel like you?
Davis: I mean, everyone has a different set of risks, constraints, family situations, so I don’t judge anyone whether they take action or not.
But I tell people that any step, any activity, anything, no matter how small, is important, just to feel as though you’re doing something to stand up for your beliefs and your principles. I don’t expect people to follow me out the door. For me, it was very easy – I’m old and I was near retirement. I had nothing to lose, right?
I would have liked some more of the senior managers to step up and just go to the minute of silence – that kind of thing. But I tell people – because a lot of people are bummed out, they don’t know what to do, they’re very disheartened – I say, just do whatever little you can do. Don’t despair.
Edited by Irwin Loy.
