A/HRC/42/48 2018, the space allocated to civil society was reportedly predominantly managed by NGOs on behalf of the Government.64 3. Ability to influence decision-making processes 63. Most of the interlocutors from all the various engagement groups with whom the Independent Expert interacted either were unable to evaluate, or voiced overall scepticism about, the impact of their advocacy work on the decision-making processes of global governance spaces. Public participation was described as primarily tokenistic, deemed a box-ticking exercise, with no seat at the negotiation table. 65 Several civil society representatives stated that they felt as though they were secondary partners and believed that it was not worth investing their time in participating in the spaces. Overall, as pointed out in one submission, the obstacles faced by members of the engagement groups may stem from a lack of political will from host Governments, but also from a misconception among decision makers of the role of these groups and the added value of involving them in decision-making processes.66 64. Members of the engagement groups reportedly have very limited space to shape the annual agendas of the global governance spaces – which is the prerogative of the country hosting the summit – unless their agenda is in line with the focus of the host country. 67 In order to be heard in principle by G20 member States, members of the engagement groups have to select topics that match the respective framework agendas. Furthermore, there is a lack of continuity from presidency to presidency, which reduces the scope for effective advocacy by civil society. The G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group reportedly does not share the agenda of its meeting with civil society invitees, which can speak only during a single short session out of the three two-day meetings per year.68 Furthermore, ahead of that meeting, civil society representatives send their policy documents to the chair and co-chairs of the Working Group, requesting them to share them with all the G20 delegates in order to have a constructive exchange; however, on several occasions, the delegates reportedly received the documents only once the session with civil society had started. 69 65. Another issue of concern is the timing of the meetings of the engagement groups vis-à-vis the summits of the governance global spaces. It is important that civil society summits, where common positions and recommendations are formulated, should take place well ahead of the ministerial and leaders’ summits in order for host Governments to be in a position to take account of these recommendations in the drafting of outcome documents, and therefore for civil society to have a substantive impact on the decision-making process. 70 In one instance, a Government holding the G20 presidency delayed official recognition of the Civil 20 steering committee, composed of several local non-government organizations, as well as the appointment of an official chair of Civil 20. As a consequence, the C20 summit could take place merely two months prior to the G20 summit. 66. There are, nevertheless, good practices that the Independent Expert believes are worth emulating. Women 7 reported that for the gender equality ministerial meeting during the French presidency in 2019, the G7 gender equality ministers themselves or their representatives attended the Women 7 Summit, which was being held on the margins of this ministerial meeting. The group was therefore able to share its recommendations directly with its target audience.71 When Germany held the presidencies of G7 and G20, the German 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Mdlalose and Thompson, “Are Brics civil society talkshops just ticking boxes and not making real ‘jam’?”. See also the submission by Patrick Bond and his reference to “co-optation of potential dissent”. See, for instance, the submission by Patrick Bond. See the submission by Women 7. See the submission by Atsuko Miwa, Co-Chair, Civil 20 Japan 2019, and Director, Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center. See submission by Transparency International. Ibid. See the submission by Amnesty International. See the submission by Women 7. 15