Access Denied
Access Denied
The UN’s Shrinking Space for Civil Society
Civil society is under unprecedented pressure both globally and within the United Nations (UN). Nearly thirty years ago, the then UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, observed that “nongovernmental organisations are an essential part of the legitimacy without which no international activity can be meaningful”[i]. Yet even after the UN’s recent 80th-anniversary gathering in New York, restrictions on access and participation persist, while organisations and activists face mounting existential threats mirroring global trends that undermine their ability to engage effectively, meaningfully, and safely in UN processes.
According to the CIVICUS Monitor, a participatory platform tracking civic conditions worldwide, over 72 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where civic space is severely restricted. This global crackdown, compounded by funding cuts and a deepening crisis of multilateralism, is now reflected within the UN itself; ultimately weakening multilateral processes, eroding legitimacy, accountability, and the quality of policy outcomes.
Full and unhindered participation of civil society organisations is therefore essential across UN human rights bodies such as the Human Rights Council (HRC), the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), and the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) (the review body for the Sustainable Development Goals). Whether or not they hold ECOSOC status, civil society bring expertise and represent constituencies often under-represented in government delegations, offering perspectives vital to informed decision-making and the effective implementation of human rights, peace, and development goals.
Civil Society’s Participation Challenges at the UN
Meaningful participation of civil society at the HRC in Geneva, for instance, has the potential to advance stronger human rights protection standards. The Council’s mandate requires arrangements and practices to ensure ‘the most effective contribution’ of non-governmental organisations[ii]. Civil society can influence decision-making through multiple channels, including written submissions, parallel events, oral statements during official debates and panels, and engagement on draft thematic and country-specific resolutions. In Geneva, organisations also benefit from informal engagement opportunities, such as access to state representatives and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights staff, available even to those without ECOSOC status. Other Geneva-based bodies and mechanisms are formally “civil society-friendly,” allowing submissions, statements, and events. Practices such as considering shadow reports, civil society briefings with Committee members, and consultations of independent mechanisms, including Special Procedures and investigative bodies, demonstrate the value of these participatory avenues.
Access to UN negotiations in New York, however, remains far more restricted compared to Geneva, highlighting a lack of system-wide consistency. For many civil society organisations, this limits their ability to influence key decisions at New York-specific processes, including CSW, HLPF, and the UN General Assembly Third Committee on Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Issues. Draft resolutions during high-level weeks are often circulated only among those with close diplomatic connections, leaving others without timely opportunity to provide input. Side event spaces during high-level sessions require member state approval, limiting both speakers and topics. This restricted access mirrors broader national realities, where repressive governments dominate, and accountability actors are systematically side-lined. A further challenge is the lack of transparency in how civil society input is considered, which undermines trust in multilateralism and deters contributions that could address global crises.
Financial constraints and chronic underfunding of Civil Society
The UN human rights landscape is far less favourable for civil society than UN declarations and formal engagement opportunities suggest. Civic space is rapidly shrinking within the UN, and civil society actors increasingly rely on self-organisation, self-funding, and informal engagement opportunities. Funding opportunities provided by the UN to support contributions to human rights mechanisms are almost non-existent, and these challenges are now compounded by the financial constraints of the UN itself.
The UN’s financial liquidity crisis[iii] affects civil society, as resolutions and mandates cannot be fully implemented. This constrains the ability of civil society, as well as victims and survivors, to engage with human rights mandate holders, Special Procedures, or investigative bodies, while engagement continues to carry the risk of reprisals, as highlighted by the latest Secretary-General’s report on reprisals and the most recent Human Rights Council resolution. These dynamics discourage civil society participation, forcing many actors to self-censor and refrain from engaging with the UN. Taken together, these trends undermine both the effectiveness and democratic legitimacy of UN processes.
Chronic underfunding further exacerbates these challenges, disproportionately affecting human rights organisations and civil society actors, particularly those from the Global South. Only a small number of well-resourced organisations can maintain a presence at UN headquarters, giving them greater access to decision-makers and influence over international resolutions. Coordination with local and grassroots civil society is often limited, further reducing inclusive engagement.
The human rights pillar is particularly under-resourced, receiving just five percent of the UN’s regular budget[iv], and faces additional risks from upcoming UN80 budget cuts.[v] Over time, the earmarking of funds and prioritisation of other sectors has led to chronic underinvestment in human rights, signalling to member states that these areas are of lesser importance; limiting collaboration with civil society, deepens marginalisation, and restricting human rights organisations from addressing crises or driving reform.
Civil society recommendations
Restricted access for civil society has profound implications for both the legitimacy and quality of decisions within the UN system. When civil society voices are excluded from negotiations and decisionmaking spaces, resulting policies often fail to reflect local realities or address the needs of affected communities. This disconnect weakens the implementation of global commitments, undermining trust in multilateral institutions, silencing accountability actors, and ultimately eroding the principles of international law that the UN was created to uphold.
Civil society coalitions such as UNMute demonstrate the power of coordinated and strategic advocacy. By targeting policy processes and working closely with supportive member states, these coalitions have advanced civic participation, protection, and inclusion within UN spaces. Their efforts amplify marginalised voices, promote diversity across regions, and help bridge the gap between UN headquarters and realities on the ground, reinforcing the legitimacy and effectiveness of multilateral action.
To rebuild trust and credibility, the UN must take three urgent steps.
First, ensure access, participation, and protection from reprisals. Civil society must be meaningfully included at all levels of UN engagement, not only at headquarters but also through regional and national mechanisms. Implementing the UN Guidance Note on the Protection and Promotion of Civic Space is essential to embed participation, protection, and promotion as core principles. The UN must also strengthen measures to prevent and address reprisals against civil society actors engaging with the system, including by improving the Annual Report on reprisals and creating a dedicated mechanism.
Second, guarantee sustained and transparent funding. Meaningful participation cannot be achieved without financial investment in civic space and human rights programmes. UN leadership must be held accountable for aligning funding priorities with its commitments to protect and promote civic freedoms, ensuring that resources reach grassroots and Global South organisations that are often excluded from decision-making spaces.
Third, institutionalise civil society voices across the UN system. Civil society engagement must move from the margins to the centre of multilateral processes. This means embedding participation within UN decision-making, financing, and oversight structures, and creating consistent, transparent channels for dialogue. Open town halls with Secretary-General nominees and the establishment of an International Civil Society Day would be important steps toward institutionalising accountability, inclusion, and dialogue across the system.
These priorities are urgent to restore confidence in multilateralism and to ensure that global voices shape and hold the rules-based international order accountable.
Jesselina Rana is a human rights lawyer from Nepal and the UN Advisor at CIVICUS, where she leads the New York Hub.
Sigrid Lipott works as a UN Advisor at CIVICUS, leading CIVICUS‘ UN Geneva Hub.
[i] Cyril Ritchie, Coordinate? Cooperate? Harmonise? NGO policy and operational coalitions, Third World Quarterly, Vol 16, No 3, 1995
[ii] Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Working with the UN Human Rights Programme – A Handbook for Civil Society, New York and Geneva 2008.
[iii] Siehe beispielsweise das Schreiben des UN Generalsekretär: https://www.un.org/pga/wp-content/uploads/sites/108/2024/01/SG- Letter-on-Liquidity-Crisis.pdf Siehe auch den gemeinsamen Brief der Zivilgesellschaft zu den Auswirkungen der Liquiditätskrise: https://www.civicus.org/documents/Liquidity-crisis-impact-on-HRDs-and-rights-holders.pdf
