The primary aim of the global Summit of the Future, which took place on 22 and 23 September at the United Nations (UN) headquarters in New York, was to strengthen international cooperation and thus bolster the international community’s ability to realise the aspirations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as numerous other international commitments, including the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Summit was supposed to breathe new life into the badly derailed SDGs and strengthen the UN’s weakest pillar, human rights.
It resulted in three outcome documents: the Pact for the Future, an action-oriented agreement to address global challenges through a multilateral, rights-based approach, and two annexes – the Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations. The Pact includes commitments in five areas: sustainable development and financing for development; international peace and security; science, technology and innovation; youth and future generations; and transforming global governance.
From the outset of the process leading to the Summit, civil society was meant to play a crucial role in the deliberations, an appropriate emphasis given its importance in addressing global challenges. Yet the negotiations ultimately proved frustrating from the perspective of civil society; moreover, the Summit’s outcome documents do not adequately reflect the contributions made by civil society, nor do they offer entry points for further advocacy on their behalf.
This policy brief reflects on the four-year period leading up to the Summit and takes stock of its processes and outcomes from the perspective of civil society. It notes that civil society organisations (CSOs) and activists approached the process with cautious optimism. They engaged in every possible way and offered valuable input for the Pact’s successive drafts. However, their access and involvement were limited despite some efforts to the contrary, particularly by the EU and its member states. In light of these disappointing outcomes, this brief argues that the EU and its member states should do more going forward to enhance civil society’s participation in global governance.
Unfulfilled Promises
In September 2020, as the UN commemorated its 75th anniversary, its General Assembly adopted a relatively concise declaration on the future of the organisation and global governance more broadly. The text ended with a request to the UN Secretary-General to develop recommendations “to advance our common agenda and to respond to current and future challenges.”
This declaration, adopted in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, referenced the first words of the UN Charter, “We the Peoples”, and emphasised the need to address problems that affect the world’s majority, including hunger, human rights, the environment, pandemics, and growing digital divides. It also placed women and girls at the centre and pledged to “listen to and work with youth.” In his subsequent Our Common Agenda report of 2021, UN Secretary-General António Guterres doubled down on these ambitions. He suggested a renewed social contract between states, individuals, civil society, and the private sector – one that should be “anchored in human rights.” He also proposed to hold a high-level Summit of the Future “to forge a new global consensus on what our future should look like, and what we can do today to secure it.”
Secretary-General Guterres received significant support in this process from the EU and its member states, which were keen on an agenda focused on global challenges and committed to the strong inclusion of a variety of stakeholders beyond states. Eventually, in 2022, UN member states agreed to convene the Summit in September 2024. They then determined the scope of the Pact during a ministerial meeting in September 2023, and the drafting process began in November that same year.
Throughout the process, a pair of states co-facilitated the consultations and negotiations for each of the main outcome documents: Germany and Namibia for the Pact for the Future, Sweden and Zambia for the Global Digital Compact, and Jamaica and the Netherlands for the Declaration on Future Generations. Based on submissions from civil society and other stakeholders, including from academia and the private sector, the co-facilitators prepared initial drafts of each outcome document and circulated them in early 2024. These drafts then went through successive rounds of reviews. After a new draft was published, the co-facilitators held virtual consultations during which stakeholders could advocate for additions and stronger language.
The Pact for the Future's first draft contained only one mention of the role of civil society and nothing about civic space.
The Pact attracted the most heated debate. Its first draft lacked the ambition needed to solve the most pressing global problems. It contained only one mention of the role of civil society and nothing about civic space, despite the fact that growing restrictions on civic freedoms in countries across the globe are a major obstacle to achieving the SDGs. From civil society’s perspective, this meagre result was particularly disappointing given the initial emphasis on the role of civil society in UN and global governance reform.
The EU and UK, seeking more diverse inputs, were early to consult with civil society in New York. The EU also involved representatives from various capitals and five prominent international CSOs in an attempt to open up the process beyond those based in New York. Some states, such as Denmark, also conducted national consultations on the Summit’s outcome documents, a valuable practice that should be expanded in future.
Midway through the negotiation process, in May 2024, the UN hosted a civil society conference in Nairobi, Kenya, to create room for civil society representatives to contribute ideas. The conference, which was also attended by the co-facilitators and other states, encouraged civil society to form coalitions around areas of common interest. CSOs used the space to advocate for commitments on areas of concern, from the climate crisis to gender justice. Larger CSOs also facilitated the presence of people from the groups they advocate for to ensure that their voices were heard. Save the Children, for example, supported the participation of children from six African countries. However, this was a rare exception in a process in which the voices of younger and coming generations were largely excluded.
As a co-facilitator of the Pact, Germany played a key role in refining the document’s language based on the feedback that civil society provided in Nairobi. Input our own organisation, CIVICUS, offered in the presence of the German ambassador, for instance, resulted in the inclusion of language on civic space in the final draft. German and EU representatives also participated in civil society-led discussions in Nairobi.
Limited Access
From the Summit’s inception, civil society representatives strongly advocated for the process to be open, participatory and inclusive. The UNMute Civil Society Initiative, supported by over 300 CSOs from around the world as well as numerous states, demanded that the UN open up participation through the use of information and communication technologies, including by organising hybrid meetings to broaden access for stakeholders beyond states. The campaign also stressed the need to narrow digital divides between the Global North and South as well as gender, class and other divides. It proposed concrete procedural changes to give civil society the opportunity and time to provide input, attend meetings and participate in negotiations.
But the Summit process did not reflect these calls. While many states claimed to value civil society’s perspectives and contributions, few actually consulted their domestic civil society ahead of the negotiations. Moreover, while there were virtual briefings and consultations, civil society groups pointed out that these excluded many: they were only held in English, took place exclusively on US Eastern time, and their format only allowed for a series of short statements rather than real dialogue.
CSOs had to lobby states to advocate on their behalf in negotiations that were often opaque.
CSOs thus had to lobby states to advocate on their behalf in negotiations that were often opaque. In the case of the Pact and the Global Digital Compact, civil society representatives could not even observe the discussions and had to rely on friendly states for information. CSOs could observe negotiations on the Declaration on Future Generations – but these were less consequential as a declaration has a lesser legal status and thus less potency in setting international norms.
Civil Society’s Priorities
Despite the many restrictions, civil society made the most of the opportunities it had. CSOs gathered the perspectives of those they exist to serve and brought them to the table. They provided feedback through written submissions and sought to strengthen the Pact’s language. They continued to call for more systematic ways to ensure civil society participation in UN processes and mechanisms, and seized the opportunity to push for stronger commitments on key human rights issues, including women’s rights, LGBTQI+ rights, indigenous peoples’ rights, and environmental rights.
In addition, civil society put forward major cross-cutting demands, starting with a call for recognition of its vital roles in ongoing struggles for peace, democracy, inclusion, justice, and accountability. With regard to the SDGs specifically, CSO representatives made it clear that civil society’s involvement is needed both to implement the goals and ensure that dedicated resources are not misused.
But the conditions that enable civil society to effectively play its full range of roles are deteriorating. As shown by the CIVICUS Monitor, just over two percent of people now live in countries where civic space is open – meaning fundamental freedoms of association, expression and peaceful assembly are fully respected – while over 85 percent live in countries with serious restrictions on civic space. This means that in most parts of the world, people are finding it increasingly hard to mobilise for economic, political and social change. These trends are also playing out at the UN: as many as 40 states have recently meted out reprisals against people and organisations for cooperating with UN bodies and mechanisms.
In most parts of the world, people are finding it increasingly hard to mobilise for change. These trends are also playing out at the UN.
In light of this grim reality, in the run-up to the Summit CSOs sought strong commitments by states to protect and expand civic space. And they insisted they want the UN to start with itself – by strengthening civil society’s roles within the UN system and reforming UN institutions to better align with the UN Charter’s principles. This is a matter of democracy and inclusion, but also of effectiveness: without full participation from civil society, global governance institutions are sure to continue to fall short of their potential.
Conclusions and Recommendations
From the perspective of civil society, the UN Summit of the Future has clearly not delivered what UN Secretary-General Guterres, the EU and civil society itself had in mind. Despite promising initial ideas for a “UN 2.0,” where civil society would play a more prominent role alongside states in addressing common problems such as the climate crisis, digital divides and pandemics, the lead-up to the Summit quickly became a state-driven intergovernmental process, further complicated by geopolitical manoeuvring by states.
That said, CSOs still have a range of ideas to make the UN more accountable, democratic and effective, which they will continue to push and pursue in important global governance forums. The EU and its member states should take note and provide more support going forward.
- As a starting point, the UNMute Civil Society initiative continues to make five concrete calls to improve civil society participation in the UN system. These are: using digital technologies to broaden participation and inclusion; bridging digital divides by focusing on connectivity for the most excluded; changing procedures and practices to ensure effective and meaningful interaction and participation; creating an annual Civil Society Action Day as an opportunity to assess progress on civil society participation; and appointing a UN civil society envoy. The designation of a civil society envoy in particular could serve as a first step in enabling further progress on other fronts. Over the years, different UN Secretary-Generals have created various envoy roles to signal that an issue is important and to help coordinate inter-UN action. A civil society envoy could promote best practices in civil society participation across the UN system, ensure that a diverse range of civil society voices are involved in the UN’s work, and promote the UN’s engagement with civil society groups around the world.
- Second, the We the Peoples campaign, backed by over 200 CSOs and more than 100 parliamentarians around the world, has proposed a World Citizens’ Initiative to allow people to mobilise to collect signatures to put an issue on the UN agenda. This mechanism could ensure that issues that demonstrate a high level of global public support are considered, including during the high-level General Assembly week and in the Security Council. It would also make it easier for the UN to focus on pressing issues – and give added weight to the efforts of states pushing for progress – while encouraging people to pay attention to and identify with the UN.
- Third, another proposal is to establish a UN Parliamentary Assembly to complement the General Assembly and give a voice to citizens in addition to governments. This could serve as a corrective to state-centric decision-making as well as a source of scrutiny and accountability for the decisions the UN makes – or fails to make.
- Finally, as the time approaches for a new UN Secretary-General to be selected, civil society is mobilising via the 1 for 8 billion campaign, which pushes for an open, transparent, inclusive, and merit-based selection process that reflects the UN’s ideals and enables civil society input. Civil society’s proposals are concrete and realistic, because they do not require an amendment to the UN Charter, but they are also ambitious: they boil down to limiting the position of UN Secretary-General to a single, non-renewable term, ensuring that multiple candidates are presented for the General Assembly to choose from, and eliminating backroom deals.
If they really want to promote and amplify civil society voices in multilateral decision-making, the EU and its member states should support these initiatives. Doing so would not only give new impetus to civil society priorities after the disappointing Summit of the Future – it would also serve the Summit’s overarching goal of revitalising international cooperation in a world in transition.
The authors are part of CIVICUS, the global alliance of civil society organisations and activists dedicated to strengthening citizen action and civil society throughout the world.
.png)
