A/HRC/38/18 demands of stakeholders remained a complex undertaking. Regional investment banks, such as the European Investment Bank and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, were cited as providing few avenues for public participation. 25 Many entities did not necessarily reflect and seek to address the gender-specific barriers, challenges and restrictions that women and girls — and those working on gender equality, including for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning persons — faced in their engagement. 30. Submissions described restrictions concerning the modalities of meetings, including those whereby civil society interventions could take place only following interactions with Member States, and that often the time left for civil society was limited. Other submissions included reports that States would invoke points of order, 26 block accreditation by unilaterally vetoing applications, including the withdrawal of status, 27 question the formal speaking role of organizations and interrupt representatives during formal interventions. Other means described included: the exclusion of civil society organizations on a “no objection” basis or de facto vetoes over their participation, including accredited organizations; using the General Assembly resolutions that determined the modalities for the meetings as a means to limit the type of civil society organizations that could participate; or, in many cases, limiting participation only to Member States.28 It was suggested that the abuse of points of order could be addressed if bureau members or committee chairs called to order those States that interrupted civil society organizations. 31. The lack of predictability was highlighted as an obstacle to effective engagement. In some cases, the terms of participation at a meeting were at the discretion of its chair. For instance, while the rules and procedures of the Security Council provided many opportunities for NGO participation at its open sessions and its Arria meetings, access ultimately depended on which Council member chaired the meeting. At forums of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, organizations needed to coordinate and had one speaking slot on behalf of larger groups, which, given the limited time available during the High-level Segment and the general debate of the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, had been a source of frustration. In some instances, there were physical barriers to civil society presenting oral statements, in particular, lack of sitting space in the meeting venues. 32. Another factor identified as deficient was the prohibitive costs linked to participating at regional and international events, especially in Geneva and New York, which had resulted in weak civil society representation from the Global South and a predominance of civil society from the North in meetings on regional and international policymaking. That was further exacerbated by increased restrictions on the freedom of movement, including travel bans, onerous application processes and denials of entry visas. Some contributors expressed their discontent in relation to security measures, especially during major meetings at the United Nations, which had limited civil society access to meeting venues or had denied them the opportunity to bring advocacy materials to meetings. 29 D. Other channels for civil society interventions 33. Some regional and international organizations and forums allowed for other avenues for civil society interventions and submissions. For instance, through the Aarhus Convention secretariat, civil society organizations could submit comments to the documents that were subject to negotiation and had the possibility to take the floor on an equal footing with government representatives, time permitting. At the annual session of the Committee of Experts on Public Administration, inputs from civil society organizations were formally incorporated into meeting reports. A number of organizations, for example 25 26 27 28 29 10 CEE BankWatch Network. Civic Space Initiative. Submission by the Government of Ireland. See also Human Rights Watch, “The Costs of International Advocacy Report”, available at www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/chinaun0917_web.pdf. Submission by the Government of the United States. Frontline Defenders, International Drug Policy Consortium, World Uyghur Congress.