Two years into the pandemic, the prospect of yet another virtual event may not have felt enticing for the thousands of women’s rights activists who each year and in ever-increasing numbers gather around the annual session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW).

The most important global forum on women’s rights, the CSW is held each March at the United Nations’ (UN) headquarters in New York. Following the effective cancellation of its 2020 edition just days after the declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic, and a 2021 edition that passed without much fanfare, 2022’s 66^th session was again held in what was described as a ‘hybrid’ format – a somewhat deceptive word that meant government delegations could meet face-to-face but the bulk of the world’s civil society would have to participate online.

But given the urgency of the issues being discussed in this forum, civil society had to put their doubts about the quality of access to one side. Passing up the opportunity was not a luxury they could afford. And they knew the drill, so they tried to make the most out of what might turn out to be an opportunity to democratise access.

Following two weeks of frenetic activity, 25 March saw CSW’s last formal meeting to adopt the session’s Agreed Conclusions, the formal outcome document of CSW sessions that makes recommendations for governments, intergovernmental bodies, civil society and other key stakeholders.

But even as the complacent applause of the closing event echoed in cyberspace, civil society had already moved on. In the momentary calm between the feverish session and the challenging task of monitoring the implementation of commitments, they took stock of the experience to draw lessons for the job ahead. Their conclusions were ambivalent.

At the intersection between gender and climate

Although it’s almost as old as the UN itself, it was in the mid-1990s that CSW became a centrepiece of the global women’s rights architecture, when it developed into the key forum for assessing progress and gaps in the implementation of the landmark 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action.

CSW’s 2022 priority theme, ‘achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls in the context of climate change, environmental and disaster risk reduction policies and programmes’, represented a historic opportunity: for the first time CSW was standing at the intersection between women’s rights and climate change, environmental degradation and crisis and disaster.

This theme attracted a host of civil society organisations (CSOs) working on climate change, which were not necessarily part of the typical CSW crowd. It had the potential to give renewed visibility to those working to highlight the impacts of climate change on women and girls and devise women-led solutions.

Economic empowerment

CSW66’s review theme – the theme emerging from the Agreed Conclusions of its previous session – was ‘women’s economic empowerment in the changing world of work’. This pointed to pressing issues following two years of a pandemic that has disproportionately impacted on women – pushing them out of the labour market by the millions, subjecting them to increasingly worse conditions of work and exploitation, and worsening an already uneven distribution of care work within families. The need for a space to advocate for women’s social and economic rights and pandemic recovery programmes that prioritise these had never been greater.

Civil society pointed out that, at the current rate of progress, it will take centuries for women to achieve economic equality. It advocated for states to support women’s economic empowerment and challenge the gender stereotypes and rigid gender roles that hold women back.

Sexual and reproductive justice

Age-old battles around sexual and reproductive rights inevitably continued to be acted out at CSW66. Feminist and LGBTQI+ groups reaffirmed women’s right to make decisions over their bodies and lives. They sought to shield abortion rights at a time when a violent backlash threatens to set the clock back decades and framed access to abortion as a matter of both public health and basic social justice. And they continued to demand the recognition and inclusion of women ‘in all their diversity’, an expression that was at the centre of deep controversy when it came to finalising CSW66’s Agreed Conclusions.

Activists highlighted that the gender-based violence and discrimination queer and trans women and gender non-conforming people experience daily was reinforced by exclusion at CSW, as a result of a narrow and bigoted understanding of the very concept of ‘women’. They pushed instead for an intersectional, multifaceted definition of women ‘in all their diversity’.

But those resisting the call for gender justice were also vocal as CSW increasingly turned into a battleground of the broader culture war. Although virtual meetings denied anti-rights groups their familiar tactics of intimidation and crowding out events, they remained highly active online, pushing petitions to convey to state delegates the message that ‘abortion is not the solution to climate change’, claiming that climate change was being used as an ‘excuse’ to push for so-called ‘gender ideology’, and decrying the alleged exclusion of so-called ‘pro-life’ CSOs from CSW.

UN Secretary General António Guterres – a self-declared feminist – offered a veiled acknowledgement of these confrontations in his opening remarks. Without explicitly mentioning sexual and reproductive rights, he declared that tackling gender injustice requires ‘a united front, protecting hard-won gains on women’s rights while investing in lifelong learning, healthcare, decent jobs and social protection for women and girls’. He warned that ‘we are seeing a pushback on women’s rights’ and concluded: ‘we must push back on the pushback’.

The elephant in the room: decision-making power

Through the ages, women have known the indignity of being subjected to rules they’ve had no role making. They’ve had to put up with countless men in positions of authority legislating over female bodies. Women’s rights organisations all over the world have experienced the frustration of unsuccessfully calling for their countries’ legislative bodies – generally overwhelmingly made up of men – to pass laws that benefit women. They know that women’s exclusion from decision making only perpetuates the gender stereotypes that have kept them away from power in the first place. They are acutely aware that fairer political representation is a key that opens all kinds of doors. It was no surprise to see civil society repeatedly bring up issues of representation in CSW66, as in previous sessions.

Underrepresentation and its effects are replicated in all decision-making spaces, at every level, including the UN. Even at CSW, where given its subject matter women are more present than anywhere else, those who are most affected by the issues it is supposed to be dealing with continue to be severely underrepresented.

Given that the climate crisis is impacting most severely on women in the global south, and particularly Black, Indigenous, rural and migrant women, women and girls living with disabilities and LGBTQI+ people, their voices should have been listened to at CSW66. While they had a platform to express their concerns at CSW, it would be hard to argue that their views were given proper consideration, or that they informed the session’s conclusions and recommendations.

Expectations and access

Having discouraged civil society from traveling to New York for weeks on end, just three days before CSW66 began the UN announced that civil society would again be allowed inside UN headquarters. By then it was too late for most people to make their way to New York. Civil society warned that the exclusion of their voices would make this CSW less progressive than it could have been.

A limited number of CSOs were included in public sessions; most CSO engagement took the form of participation in online side events and parallel events organised by civil society or supportive UN member states. They shared their advocacy calls with permanent missions at the UN by email and social media.

Most from civil society participated virtually, trying to make the most out of the potential of online events, which at least eliminate some of the usual barriers – getting visas, traveling long distances at great cost, getting accreditation to access UN headquarters. They noted, however, that access challenges faced by women in real life were replicated online, and that virtual participation entails its own challenges. Many faced internet issues and difficulties due to time zone differences and language barriers, on top of disorganisation resulting in late notices, last-minute changes and confusing instructions. Civil society was simply excluded from some spaces, while some sessions filled up quickly with limited numbers of participants allowed. A hybrid format risked offering the worst of both worlds and didn’t provide a level playing field.

Relatively few organisations participated in person, often at great cost. Malawi’s Green Girls Platform, for instance, was able to send only one person for three days due to limited funding. This is problematic because advocacy is a long-term effort, and to see results grassroots CSOs should be able to participate fully throughout, and not in the odd CSW or climate conference, but in successive iterations of these global meetings.

Despite the barriers, expectations were mostly met around being able to raise issues, have meaningful discussions, connect, collaborate with and learn from other activists and organisations from around the world and join forces to speak with a shared voice. Civil society hosted and participated in an array of events that showcased the first-hand experiences and demands of groups from adolescents and young women to female workers and Indigenous environmental human rights defenders.

The session’s conclusions: a missed opportunity

But when it came expectations of winning ambitious policy pronouncements translatable into change on the ground, it was a different story. As usual, CSOs weren’t allowed into the formal negotiations of the Agreed Conclusions.

Although negotiation spaces are closed to civil society, there are various ways in which CSOs and activists normally try to influence the outcomes. Many CSOs start preparing for CSW at about the same time as their governments, as much as a year in advance. They prepare briefs and factsheets and send these to the UN Women Expert Group and office of the UN Secretary-General, in the hope that they will be added to the evidence base used to prepare the reports that guide states in their negotiations. They cultivate relationships with some delegations and form CSO coalitions to gain collective access to zero drafts and subsequent versions, learn about the content and tone of ongoing negotiations, alert over red lines and provide input and wording suggestions.

But this time around, negotiations leading to the session’s Agreed Conclusions took place face-to-face in New York, while most CSOs were online. This deprived civil society of a key point of entry: personal connections with like-minded state delegates.

The resulting Agreed Conclusions were predictably hailed as ‘ground-breaking’ and ‘historic’, due to them being the first to recognise the connections between climate change and gender inequality. But civil society expressed disappointment at the document’s limited ambition and gross omissions, as well as its inclination to let both government and private sector polluters off the hook.

Feminist CSOs could claim some victories, but the anti-rights camp also got its share.

The outcome text is clear about the impacts of climate change and environmental degradation on women and girls and references the ‘multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination and marginalization’, but falls short of recognising women ‘in all their diversity’. It stresses the need to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive healthcare services but also recognises ‘the importance of implementing family-friendly and family-oriented policies’, legitimising anti-rights discourse about the integrity of the family – traditionally defined as made up of a man and a woman – which enables attacks on the rights of women and LGBTQI+ people.

The term ‘women environmental human rights defenders’ didn’t make it into the text, but a reference was included to those women human rights defenders ‘working on issues related to the environment, land and natural resources as well as the rights of indigenous peoples’.

The conclusions also underscore the principle of free, prior and informed consent as essential for addressing the overlapping layers of discrimination faced by Indigenous women and girls. They contain strong language on eliminating, preventing and responding to all forms of violence against all women and girls, both online and offline, commit to bridging the gender digital divide and recognise the contributions and need for protection of female journalists and media workers.

But climate-related commitments are weak across the board, to the point that environmental CSOs see them as a mere add-on to the usual Agreed Conclusions. According to WECF International, a global network on women and sustainable development, they denote the lack of ‘any sense of urgency’.

The document avoids dealing with the funding of climate transition and overlooks the role of fiscal policy as a key mechanism to achieve gender equality in the context of climate, environmental and disaster risk reduction. It doesn’t mention the need to remove subsidies to fossil fuel industries. Indeed, consistent with years of denial in UN climate discussions, it doesn’t once mention the industry chiefly responsible for the crisis. It more broadly avoids calling the private sector to account.

It also provides an easy way out for states: the expressions ‘as appropriate’ and ‘where appropriate’ are used 10 times in the 20-page text, allowing states to claim they are not in a position to comply with a variety of recommendations. It enables yet more delay, even though as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently made clear, the time to act on climate change is almost up.

Pushback against participation: another wasted opportunity

Participants from the global south acknowledged the presence of the elephant in the room as they pointed out that UN arrangements for civil society participation are ‘pretty bad’ from a global south perspective, and that some ‘solutions’ advanced – such as encouraging states to include civil society in their delegations – are tone deaf, given that many states are in the hands of authoritarian and misogynistic governments that are closing down civic space and taking away women’s rights.

With its Methods of Work also on the agenda, CSW’s latest session offered an opportunity to fix this by deepening civil society engagement with the process. But conservative pushback prevented any changes being made to allow civil society participation in the negotiation of outcome documents. CSOs were not even given observer status. For the foreseeable future, civil society at CSW will continue to be allowed only in side events, interactive dialogues – with the addition of a new one with young people a positive development – and the so-called general discussion, dedicated to reviewing the status of gender equality and identifying goals attained, gaps and challenges in commitment implementation.

Fortunately something is clear to civil society: CSW’s Agreed Conclusions don’t represent a ceiling but a minimum threshold, and there is a long process beyond them. They are meant for everyone to take back home and push to be translated as much as possible into progressive legislation, programmes and policies that lead to actual change on the ground. This is what feminist civil society will keep doing, with the aim of seeing progress before it’s time to meet again for CSW67.

With thanks to all the interviewees whose inputs informed this piece: Eucharia Abua, African Girls Empowerment Network; Zarin Hainsworth, National Alliance of Women’s Organisations, UK; Terry Ince, CEDAW Committee of Trinidad and Tobago; Helen McEachern, Cherie Blair Foundation for Women, UK; Joy Hayley Munthali and Dorothy Kazombo Mwale, Green Girls Platform, Malawi; Wanun Permpibul, Climate Watch Thailand; and Misun Woo, Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development. All interview quotations are edited extracts. Full interviews are available here.