UN Headquarters, New York

At the outskirts of the global 2030 Agenda process, civil society from the UNECE Region met to discuss what they had observed from their Member States during the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development.

ECE-RCEM members observed a significant shrinking of political space for gender justice throughout the HLPF process. Issues related to women’s rights, gender equality and gender-diverse realities were largely marginalised, treated superficially, or absent from substantive discussions. This reinforced broader concerns about the rollback of gender equality commitments within multilateral spaces and the increasing reluctance of Member States to engage with gender as a structural and political issue.

The level of political leadership from ECE Member States was notably weak. Progressive countries such as Sweden and Finland participated with much smaller delegations than in previous years, signalling reduced political engagement with the 2030 Agenda. At the same time, Hungary received visible approval and positive reactions in the room, highlighting a troubling normalisation of regressive and anti-rights positions within HLPF spaces and a lack of pushback from other states.

Civil society participants described a prevailing sense of resignation and political fatigue. While many events, statements and side discussions took place, they were accompanied by an “it is what it is” atmosphere, with limited strategic mobilisation or challenge. This contributed to a perception of the HLPF as a procedural exercise rather than a space for accountability, urgency or transformative change.

ECE-RCEM members also noted a striking avoidance of discussions on the war in Ukraine, despite its far-reaching global consequences. The absence of meaningful engagement on this issue, and on how geopolitical conflicts intersect with sustainable development, energy security and social protection, underscored a pattern of selective silence that undermines the credibility of the “leave no one behind” commitment.

Discussions on UN reform revealed internal contradictions within the UN system. Some agencies, particularly UNFPA, were perceived as maintaining more progressive and rights-based positions, while others, including UN Women, appeared increasingly constrained by political pressures. This raised concerns about incoherence, uneven ambition and the weakening of feminist leadership within the UN architecture.

Although Member States frequently referenced civil society engagement mechanisms, such as dialogues, feedback groups and advisory committees, these were largely experienced as formalistic. There was little evidence that civil society inputs meaningfully influenced national positions or policy directions, reinforcing concerns that participation is increasingly procedural rather than substantive.

Finally, a critical and recurring gap was the absence of political economy analysis. There was almost no discussion of resources, power, or accountability, including questions of who benefits from current economic systems, who profits from crises, or how inequalities are being reproduced through development and “green transition” narratives. Without addressing these structural dynamics, commitments to the SDGs risk remaining depoliticised and disconnected from lived realities.