A/HRC/40/52 society,25 while the representative of Canada affirmed that a civilian-led approach, engaging civil society and communities, was the most effective way to prevent violent extremism. 26 B. Value of civil society in countering terrorism 12. Beyond the political rhetoric, recent studies27 demonstrate the necessity of the role of civil society in channelling discontent and allowing for constructive engagement with States, and in directly undermining the factors leading individuals to be drawn to terrorism and violent extremism, the conditions conducive to terrorism as identified by the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, and in the agenda of the United Nations on preventing and countering violent extremism. 28 Where civil society actors are present in areas where the State is unable or unwilling to govern, they often play an intermediary role, owing to their credibility and access to remote communities. They can meaningfully generate peace and development, including implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and can clearly articulate the sources of grievances identified as factors leading to terrorist and extremist violence. As recruitment in certain regions is localized, with their invaluable knowledge of local drivers and local trends, civil society actors can help fill a government gap by providing alternative narratives and developing locally driven initiatives that respond to community-specific needs. 13. Furthermore, it is now clear that government action can be a prominent accelerator of recruitment. 29 By requesting State transparency and by promoting effective accountability where human rights violations have been committed by both State and nonState actors, civil society restores confidence in national and international counter-terrorism efforts and the essential yet fragile trust between individuals, communities and the authorities in countering terrorism. Civil society can also meaningfully assist in channelling the grievances and desperation exploited by terrorist and violent extremist groups, providing peaceful alternatives and improving relationships between the State and its citizens. 14. The cost of stifling civil society to prevent any perceived threat of terrorism far outweighs its benefits. Any effective counter-terrorism strategy needs to strengthen, not weaken, civil society. There is growing evidence that the instrumentalization of agendas to counter terrorism and to prevent and counter violent extremism is leading to a lack of trust in State authorities. By contrast, civil society can be seen as an impartial actor. A strong, resilient and vibrant civil society is both a sign of an open and inclusive society, and a buffer against repressive State practices and impunity. Restricting civil society’s ability to operate is short-sighted, ineffective and futile and can itself be a contributing factor to violence. 15. In the present report, the Special Rapporteur examines the international framework (sect. II) and the role it plays in allowing restrictive measures to develop and proliferate at the national level (sect. III), before looking at the specific impact of the combined measures on civil society (sect. IV), including the lack of accountability mechanisms to adequately address the cumulative effect of the security framework used to restrict civic space, and presents a set of conclusions and recommendations (V). 25 26 27 28 29 See www.un.org/en/counterterrorism/hlc/statements.shtml. Ibid. UNDP, Journeys to Extremism in Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point to Recruitment (2018). Security Council resolution 2178 (2014), Secretary-General’s Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism (A/70/674). Institute for Economics and Peace, Global Terrorism Index 2017 (2017). 5