On 21 April 2025, UN officials and civil society gathered at the Palais des Nations in Geneva for a side event on the margins of the Regional Forum for Sustainable Development to discuss the implications of the UN80 reform agenda, with a specific focus on  civil society engagement in the reform process and implications for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the UNECE region.

Organised by the ECE Regional Civil Society Engagement Mechanism and supported by the European Union-funded Women Power 2030 programme, the side event moderated by Dr. Nelya Rakhimova from RAD Platform e.V., enabled  a frank exchange on a question that is becoming increasingly urgent: “Will ongoing UN reforms strengthen or constrain civil society’s role in shaping sustainable development?”

 

In her opening remarks, Dr. Nelya Rakhimova framed the discussion within the broader context of a deepening crisis of multilateralism. While marking the 80th anniversary of the United Nations, she noted that the system is facing growing geopolitical fragmentation, declining trust, and increasing financial pressures. Against this backdrop, the UN80 reform agenda, expected to affect more than 40 UN entities, funds, and programmes, raises fundamental questions about the future capacity and priorities of the UN system. 

She highlighted that current discussions on restructuring, including potential staff reductions of up to around 20%, risk disproportionately affecting stakeholder engagement functions, which are often among the first to be constrained under resource pressure. At the same time, she emphasised that these institutional challenges are unfolding alongside a broader crisis for civil society, marked by shrinking funding, increasing repression, and reduced access to decision-making spaces. 

For many communities, the UN has historically served as one of the few platforms to raise concerns and influence change beyond national contexts. In this light, she underscored that civil society is not an external actor but a core component of multilateralism, “the oxygen of the UN,” sustaining cross-border cooperation, innovation, and accountability. She stressed that meaningful civil society engagement is not optional, but a foundational element of an effective and legitimate UN system, particularly in a period of transformation.

A reform moment shaped by crisis

Speakers drawn from UN entities, human rights institutions and civil society mechanisms  highlighted how the UN80 initiative is unfolding in a context of overlapping pressures: a deepening financial crisis within the UN system, growing geopolitical tensions, and shrinking civic space across many countries.

Paul Ladd, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), emphasised that declining assessed contributions are already affecting the UN’s ability to meaningfully engage civil society. Using the UNECE Regional Forum on Sustainable Development as an example, he noted that limited resources are forcing difficult trade-offs, with core participation mechanisms increasingly under strain.

At the same time, civic space is being eroded not only financially, but politically and structurally. Participants pointed to:

• reduced access to public information,
• weakening adherence to frameworks such as the Aarhus Convention,
• and rising polarisation, including in digital spaces.

These dynamics risk undermining one of the core pillars of SDG implementation: inclusive, accountable, and participatory governance. It is therefore important that civil society actively engage by looking for and taking opportunities for engagement. 

Human rights and participation at risk—and at stake

From the perspective of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Birgit Kainz-Labbe of the Civic Space Unit, emphasised that the UN80 process still remains  undefined, but precisely for that reason, “this is a critical moment to shape its direction.” It is important to reaffirm the UN Charter and especially the “we the people’s” human right to participate as part of Charter obligations. 

She underscored that “human rights and participation cannot be treated as secondary considerations in reform discussions”, but must instead serve as a foundation for how the UN evolves. While a Human Rights Working Group will be established as an outcome of UN80, the key challenge is ensuring that it affects real change. It is therefore important that civil society is very concrete about its wishes and expectations. At the same time, she pointed out that civil society engagement remains siloed with limited coordination across movements and insufficient efforts to learn from existing positive practices. “We are not good at mapping what works for civil society,” she noted, highlighting a gap between the proclaimed human right of everyone to participate in decision-making and civil society participation modalities in reality. 

Birgit’s intervention also pointed to the political nature of participation. Strengthening civic space within UN processes will require:

• actively building alliances with supportive Member States,
• revitalising and using existing initiatives such as the “UNmute Civil Society” campaign within UN80,
• and ensuring that participation is embedded across all levels, from national processes to global negotiations.

She further stressed that technology, data governance, and digital security are becoming central to the future of civic engagement; raising new questions about access, inclusion, and protection.

Overall, her message was clear: the outcome of UN reform is not predetermined, but without deliberate action to ensure human rights are protected there is a real risk that participation will be weakened rather than strengthened.

Civil society perspectives: reform, but not at any cost

Civil society speakers brought a strong and, at times, converging message: reform is needed, but the current process raises serious concerns.

Oli Henman, Major Groups and Other Stakeholders Coordination Mechanism, highlighted the crucial role of civil society in the UN, through the Economic & Social Council (ECOSOC) processes, including the annual review of the SDGs and the importance of building on existing structures. He pointed to the importance of linking UN80 discussions with broader debates on UN reform and the post-2030 agenda, including ongoing consultations on the future of sustainable development frameworks and priorities.

Oli gave an overview of the three workstreams of the UN80 process, including the first on mandate review, the second on the UN budget and the third on internal reform across agencies.  He highlighted that civil society, through MGOS, has been pushing for greater transparency and better opportunities to engage with the 31 Work Packages under the third work stream on internal UN reforms. The MGoS co-chairs have been engaging regularly with the Executive Office of the Secretary-General of the UN, since a side event at the 2025 HLPF with USG Guy Ryder. There have been a series of demands for a more transparent process so that civil society groups can engage constructively with each of the 31 Work Packages and make practical recommendations.

There will be a high-level Special Event on UN reform at the HLPF 2026 in New York on Thursday 9th July with MGOS participation, and the MGOS plenary session on the 10th July will focus on UN reform and engagement of civil society. Revitalising UnMute Civil Society is also being considered with some Member States (including Denmark) and efforts are being made to push for clearer pathways for CSO participation across all UN entities. 

He re-emphasised the importance of broad inclusion at the UN, given the financial and geopolitical hurdles faced in participating in UN meetings, he also suggested that there should be further efforts to ensure digital inclusion, with attention paid to equity and safeguards. 

Human rights under pressure: why efficiency cannot come at the cost of accountability

From a human rights perspective, Pooja Patel, International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), emphasised that efforts to improve efficiency within the UN system must not come at the expense of human rights or meaningful civil society participation. Drawing on ISHR’s engagement with the UN80 process, she warned that reforms framed as technical or administrative are already having tangible impacts on the human rights pillar. 

She highlighted that seemingly procedural changes can carry significant political consequences. Proposals to reduce reporting by Special Procedures to the General Assembly, for example, risk limiting one of the few avenues through which independent experts bring human rights violations to the attention of the full UN membership, closing doors and reducing leverage for justice. For affected communities and human rights defenders, this translates into reduced visibility, fewer opportunities for accountability, and diminished leverage in their efforts to seek justice. 

She further stressed that these risks are compounded by a deeper structural issue: the chronic underfunding of the UN’s human rights pillar, which accounts for only a small fraction of overall UN resources, around 1%. In this context, reforms driven by efficiency and financial pressures risk further undermining the independence and capacity of human rights mechanisms, for example putting at risk the work of special rapporteurs, restricting already limited civil society access, and weakening the balance between the UN’s core pillars. 

These developments, she noted, have direct implications for SDG implementation. The 2030 Agenda is grounded in human rights, and progress on inequality, justice, and inclusive institutions depends on strong accountability mechanisms and active civil society engagement. If civic space at the international level continues to shrink, this will be reflected in weaker SDG outcomes. 

She concluded by calling for greater transparency in reform processes, the protection of the integrity and independence of the human rights pillar, and guaranteed space for safe and meaningful civil society participation. The reform should not only protect the human rights pillar of the UN but ensure meaningful civil society engagement and be seen as an opportunity to renew the values and credibility of the UN, with human rights at its core. At a time of overlapping global crises, she underscored, efficiency must not be conflated with effectiveness, and a credible UN system depends on keeping people, communities, and civil society at its centre.

UN Women and UNFPA merger: reform or regression? Risks to the UN’s gender architecture

From a feminist perspective, Hanna Gunnarsson from Women Engage for a Common Future (WECF), and a Women’s Major Group member, as well as member of the “Feminist Cross-Coalition on UN80”, focused on the proposed restructuring of the UN gender architecture, particularly discussions around a potential merger between UN Women and UNFPA.

Hanna questioned whether and how the proposed reforms are being driven by evidence. There is an astounding lack of clarity about the legal and operational implications of the proposed merger including risk analysis on the impact on mandates, and discussions on alternatives. She cautioned that, in its current form, the reform process risks undermining multilateralism itself. Across recent briefings, Member States have expressed frustration over the lack of transparency, insufficient evidence, and limited clarity on legal and operational implications. This raises concerns that structural reforms are being advanced without the intergovernmental grounding required for legitimate and durable outcomes.

Importantly, she noted a growing convergence between Member States and civil society concerns. Both have highlighted the absence of robust cost-benefit analysis, the lack of clarity on implementation scenarios, and the failure to meaningfully assess alternatives. In this context, decision-making risks being shaped by incomplete information, undermining accountability and trust in the system.

She further warned that, in the current political climate, the risks to gender equality mandates are not hypothetical. Within highly politicised negotiation spaces, including those shaping outcomes under the General Assembly, there are no guarantees that commitments on gender equality and sexual and reproductive health and rights would be safeguarded in a restructuring process. Reopening institutional arrangements at this moment therefore creates a real risk of regression. 

These risks are particularly acute in the UNECE region. While the region includes some of the strongest financial and political supporters of gender equality institutions, it is also marked by deeply uneven civic space and an increasingly organised anti-gender movement that actively shapes global narratives and funding dynamics. In this context, restructuring without clear evidence of improved impact risks sending a signal that existing institutions are failing, potentially weakening political commitment and financial support from key donors.

She also highlighted the operational implications: disruption to country-level delivery, uncertainty for staff, and risks to core areas such as gender-based violence response, sexual and reproductive health services, and Women, Peace and Security programming. These are not abstract concerns, but issues with direct consequences for communities on the ground.

Finally, she stressed that the current reform discourse cannot be separated from the broader financing crisis facing the UN system. Framed against declining contributions and pressure to “do more with less,” there is a real risk that austerity is being repackaged as reform, thus streamlining precisely those parts of the system that are already underfunded and politically contested.

She concluded that reform must be Member State-led, transparent, and grounded in robust evidence, while explicitly safeguarding existing mandates and ensuring meaningful civil society participation. At a time of global backlash and democratic erosion, she emphasised, this is not the moment to weaken the UN’s gender architecture, but to protect and strengthen it.

Update: UN Women and UNFPA merger Since the event, the Deputy Secretary-General has published the analysis of the proposed merger between UNFPA and UN Women: “Strategic Merger Assessment of UNFPA and UN Women: Final Consolidated Report” (released 24 April 2026). Read the full report. According to the UN80 Initiative’s Progress and Next Steps (April 2026), the process is moving forward. The full assessment will be reviewed by the Executive Boards in May and June. The Secretary-General is expected to submit proposals to the General Assembly in September based on these discussions. Related analysis on institutional arrangements (including with DESA) did not recommend structural changes. Feminist response by IPPF: “The assessment report does not provide any evidence, data, cost-benefit analysis or convincing financial arguments for why the merger of UNFPA and UN Women will make ‘the UN deliver more consistent and measurable impact at scale for women and girls, including adolescents and youth, on the ground’. On the contrary, the lack of evidence and data underpins the fear that this is a politically motivated process; aiming to undermine peoples’ rights, hard-won gains and weaken UN institutions that specifically focus on SRHR and gender equality for all.”

A fragmented region, uneven participation

Discussions also underscored the specific dynamics of the UNECE region, highlighting its complexity and internal contradictions. Civic space varies significantly across countries, with some maintaining strong traditions of participation while others face increasing restrictions. At the same time, regional processes are often shaped by Global North perspectives, while the region itself plays a significant role in shaping global political narratives. As highlighted in the V-Dem Democracy Report 2026, the region is experiencing rapid political shifts, with several countries showing signs of democratic regression and, in some cases, movement towards more authoritarian forms of governance.

Against this backdrop, participants emphasised the need to make more strategic use of regional platforms, including the RFSD, to strengthen civil society engagement. They also highlighted the importance of reinforcing coordination at the national level, ensuring that civil society actors are not only present, but meaningfully included in shaping national positions and processes. Particular attention was given to the need to protect and include those most affected by shrinking civic space, whose perspectives remain essential to ensuring that regional and global processes remain grounded in lived realities.

Looking ahead, there was a shared recognition that regional civil society mechanisms, such as the ECE Regional Civil Society Engagement Mechanism, are likely to become increasingly important in a more regionalised UN system. A call was made for civil society organisations to “get information systems back on track” and be very present in debates on AI governance. Beyond GDP discussions are important developments to change to metrics on measuring progress beyond the economic metrics. This raises urgent questions around the sustainability, resourcing, and political positioning of civil society. It also points to the need for greater vigilance: as global governance spaces evolve, there is a risk that actors seeking to restrict rights and participation at the national level may shift their focus towards regional arenas, making these spaces even more contested in the years ahead.

Key tensions moving forward

The discussion highlighted a set of unresolved tensions that will shape the future of the UN80 process. Efforts to increase efficiency risk weakening values and human rights; participation is under threat  while moves towards consolidation raise questions about the loss of expertise and accountability. At the same time, there are growing concerns about who sets priorities and whose knowledge is recognised, particularly as global frameworks continue to struggle to reflect local realities. These questions are unfolding in a broader context marked by declining public trust in multilateralism, shifting political cycles, and an increasing role for private sector actors.

Looking ahead, participants emphasised that reform must remain Member State-led, transparent, and grounded in evidence, while safeguarding human rights and gender equality commitments. There was a clear call to strengthen meaningful civil society participation, with clearer processes and more accessible entry points, and to invest in stronger collaboration across movements. Regional and national engagement mechanisms will play a critical role, particularly in contexts where civic space is shrinking. More broadly, participants stressed the need for renewed mobilisation of progressive civil society actors, both within UN processes and beyond them.

While much of the discussion focused on institutional reform, participants also pointed to the deeper political urgencies. These debates are not only about structures and processes, but about values, human rights,  people’s rights and lived realities. In this context, there was a strong emphasis on strengthening grassroots engagement at the UN, building alliances across sectors, and sustaining spaces for connection and collective action. This is not only a moment to defend existing gains, but to rethink how civil society inspires, organises and works together in a rapidly changing world.

 

---

  
This event was supported by Women Power 2030, a programme funded by the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of the organisers and speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.