Anti-rights actors have had a substantive impact on our human rights framework and the progressive interpretation of human rights standards, especially rights related to gender and sexuality.

When it comes to the impact of conservative actors in international policy spaces, the overall picture today is of stasis and regressions.

We have witnessed the watering down of existing agreements and commitment; deadlock in negotiations; sustained undermining of UN agencies, treaty review bodies and Special Procedures; and success in pushing through regressive language in international human rights documents.

Commission on the Status of Women (CSW)

The CSW, held annually in March, has long been one of the most contested sites in the UN system. In March 2015, conservative efforts set the tone before events or negotiations even began; the outcome document of the Commission was a weak Declaration negotiated before any women’s rights activists even arrived on the ground.

At 2016’s CSW, the new Youth Caucus was infiltrated by large numbers of vocal anti-abortion and anti-SRHR actors, who shouted down progressive youth organizations. Again, intensive negotiations resulted in a lacklustre text, which included regressive language on ‘the family.’

Precisely when addressing women’s human rights is of urgent importance, the CSW has been rendered a depoliticized and weakened space. Using it to advance rights has become harder and harder since progressives’ energy is taken up trying to hold the ground against conservative backlash.

Human Rights Council (HRC)

As the intergovernmental body responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe, the HRC is a key entry point for conservative actors. In recent years, this mechanism has been the scene for a number of damaging anti-human rights moves.

In conversation with other anti-rights actors, one strategy of conservative states, and blocs of states, is to aggressively negotiate out positive language and to introduce hostile amendments to resolutions, most often resolutions focusing on rights related to gender and sexuality.

To take one example, during the June 2016 session of the HRC, opposition was mounted towards a resolution on discrimination against women by the member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and allies. During contentious negotiations, multiple provisions were removed, including women’s and girls’ right to have control over their sexuality, sexual and reproductive health, and reproductive rights; and the need to repeal laws which perpetuate the patriarchal oppression of women and girls in families, and those criminalizing adultery or pardoning marital rape.

The HRC has also been the site of pernicious conservative initiatives to co-opt human rights norms and enact conservative “human rights” language, such as that of the Russia-led “traditional values” resolutions, and more recently the “Protection of the Family” agenda.

Human Rights Committee

In 2015, moving their sights to another front, a number of religious right organizations began to target the Human Rights Committee, the treaty monitoring body for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a pivotal human rights instrument.

Anti-human rights groups mobilized in hopes of cementing their anti-abortion rhetoric into the treaty.

When the Committee announced it was drafting a new authoritative interpretation of the right to life, over 30 conservative non-state actors sent in written submissions, advocating their misleading discourse on ‘right to life’ - that life begins at conception and that abortion is a violation of the right - be incorporated in the Committee’s interpretation of article 6.

Conservative groups targeting the Human Rights Committee was a shift considering that historically anti-human rights actors have repeatedly attempted to undermine and invalidate the essential work of the treaty monitoring bodies, including the Human Rights Committee.

SDG negotiations and Agenda 2030

Anti-human rights actors were involved in lobbying towards the development of the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, focusing again on rights relating to gender and sexuality. These efforts had limited traction in their attempts to embed regressive language in Agenda 2030.

However, after successfully pushing back against progressive language in the final text, conservative actors then pivoted to another strategy. In an attempt to evade state accountability and undermine the universality of rights, several states have repeatedly made reservations to the Goals.

On behalf of the African Group, Senegal claimed that African states would only “implement the goals in line with the cultural and religious values of its countries.”

The Holy See also made a number of reservations, stating it was “confident that the related pledge ‘no one will be left behind’ would be read” as meaning “the right to life of the person, from conception until natural death.”

Saudi Arabia went one step further, declaring that the country would not follow any international rules relating to the SDGs that reference sexual orientation or gender identity, describing them as running “counter to Islamic law.”

General Assembly (GA)

Anti-rights actors have made increasing headway at the UN General Assembly (GA).  Most recently, during the 71^st session in 2016, the GA was the scene of feverish anti-rights organizing in opposition to the new mandate created by the Human Rights Council resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity in June 2016: the Independent Expert on SOGI. Four separate attempts were made to undercut the mandate in GA spaces.

One approach was to introduce a hostile resolution at the Third Committee^[1], led by the African Group, which in essence aimed to indefinitely defer the new mandate. While this approach was not successful, such an attempt in the GA to retroactively block the creation of a mandate brought forward by the Human Rights Council represented a new and troubling tactic - anti-right actors are now working to directly undermine the HRC’s authority respective to the General Assembly.

Another approach targeted the Fifth Committee (responsible for administration and budgetary matters) as an entry point to attack the mandate. In an unprecedented move a number of States attempted (again, unsuccessfully) to block the funding of UN human rights experts, including the new IE on SOGI^[2],.

While these multiple efforts were unsuccessful in blocking the creation and continuation of the new mandate, the significant support they received, the novel strategizing employed, and the strong alliances built along regional lines through negotiations point to difficulties ahead.

[1] The Third Committee of the GA deals with agenda items relating to a range of social, humanitarian affairs, and human rights issues.  Each year it discusses and issues resolutions on issues including the advancement of women, the protection of children, family, and youth.

[2] While UN Special Procedures experts (i.e. Special Rapporteurs, Working Group members and Independent Experts) work pro bono, some funds are generally allocated to facilitate country visits on the invitation of the national government, and support staff.

Other Chapters

• Key opposition actors
• Key opposition discourses
• Key opposition strategies and tactics

Read the full report

Other Chapters

• Key opposition actors
• Key opposition discourses
• Key opposition strategies and tactics

Read the full report

The theme of the Fourth High-level Dialogue on Financing for Development, 23-24 March 2010: The Monterrey Consensus and Doha Declaration on Financing for Development: status of implementation and tasks ahead. It had four round tables on: the reform of the international monetary and financial systems; impact of the financial crisis on foreign direct investments; international trade and private flows; and the role of financial and technical development cooperation, including innovative sources of development finance, in leveraging the mobilization of domestic and international financial resources for development.

There was also the informal interactive dialogue involving various stakeholders that focused on the link between financing for development and achieving the Millennium Development Goals. 

Barcelona, Spain

Metzineres

Womxn Take Drugs.

DEAL WITH IT.

AWID en los medios

Compilación de noticias sobre la organización y/o el trabajo de AWID

• Presentan disco con canciones para reír y reivindicar. La Nación, may 2018
• Día Internacional de la Mujer: la realidad de las mujeres latinoamericanas. La opinión digital, mar 2018
• Para fortalecer la resistencia global, hay que dar recursos a lxs jóvenes feministas. Open Global Rights, nov 2017
• Llamado mundial a las mujeres frente a la reunión de la OMC. Bilaterals, nov 2017
• Tejiendo la resistencia a través de la acción: Las estrategias de las Defensoras de Derechos Humanos contra las industrias extractivas. Movimiento 4, sep 2017
• Romani: banca internacional habilita a que se “lave olímpicamente” el dinero del narcotráfico. La diaria, ago 2017
• Global: Nueva guía y reporte sobre acciones de defensoras de derechos humanos ante proyectos extractivos empresariales. Business and human rights resources, ago 2017
• Cumbre sobre el Mundo del Trabajo: Un futuro mejor para las mujeres en el trabajo. Organización Internacional del Trabajo, jun 2017
• “Los Movimientos Importan”, arte visual colectivo en favor de las mujeres. El heraldo de Saltillo, mar 2017
• Violencia de género contra las mujeres en los medios, y la necesidad del activismo cotidiano. IFEX, dic 2016
• Ahora más que nunca. La razón, sep 2016
• Brasil: Cerró ayer la mayor conferencia sobre derechos de las mujeres. Fondo indígena, sep 2016
• Alerta Máxima Feminista ante involución de derechos de las y los migrantes en la 46 ª Conferencia de Población y Desarrollo. Calala, may 2015
• Todas las personas podemos ser defensoras de los Derechos Humanos de las mujeres. ALC noticias, ene 2015

Notas de prensa

Notas de prensa, dosieres y kits

Kits de social media

• Un Tributo a lxs defensorxs de derechos humanos que ya no están con nosotrxs
• Serie de arte visual digital «Los Movimientos Importan»
• Foro de AWID 2016

Contacto para medios

Email de contacto

+1 416 594 3773

Acerca de la investigación ¿Dónde está el dinero?

La encuesta mundial ¿Dónde está el dinero? es un pilar fundamental de la tercera edición de nuestra investigación orientada a la acción: ¿Dónde está el dinero para las organizaciones feministas? (abreviadamente, ¿Dónde está el dinero? y WITM). Los resultados de la encuesta se desarrollarán y analizarán en mayor profundidad mediante conversaciones exhaustivas con activistas y donantes, y se contrastarán con otros análisis e investigaciones disponibles acerca del estado del financiamiento para las organizaciones feministas y por la igualdad de género en todo el mundo.

El informe completo ¿Dónde está el dinero para las organizaciones feministas? se publicará en 2026.

Para conocer más información acerca de cómo AWID ha arrojado luz sobre el dinero destinado en favor y en contra de los movimientos feministas, consulta nuestra historia ¿Dónde está el dinero? y nuestros informes anteriores aquí.

Difusión del Borrador Cero del Documento Final

• El Borrador Cero del documento (con fecha 16 de marzo), preparado por los facilitadores, fue difundido para su discusión durante la segunda sesión redactora a realizarse del 13 al 17 de abril de 2015.
• Durante la sesión de apertura, el WWG pidió que se incorporara al Borrador Cero la asignación de recursos específicamente para la igualdad de género y el empoderamiento de las mujeres, tal como lo estipulan el Consenso de Monterrey y la Declaración de Doha.

Download the full guide

Click on the image to open the PDF

Download "Toward a feminist funding ecosystem" (PDF)

Download the individual infographics

Where we are now	Where we want to be	Current funding by sector
Download & share	Download & share	Download & share

The key objective of the WITM survey is to shine light on the financial status of diverse feminist, women’s rights, gender justice, LBTQI+ and allied movements globally. Based on this, we hope to further strengthen the case for moving more and better money, as well as shift power, to feminist movements.

Le processus de l’Organisation des Nations Unies (ONU) sur le financement du développement (FdD) vise à traiter  différentes formes de financement du développement et de coopération pour le développement. Selon le Consensus de Monterrey, ce processus comporte six axes clés :

• La mobilisation des ressources financières nationales au service du développement.
• La mobilisation des ressources internationales au service du développement : investissements étrangers directs et autres flux financiers privés.
• Le commerce international, comme moteur  du développement.
• L’accroissement de la coopération financière et technique internationale pour le développement.
• La dette extérieure.
• L’examen des questions systémiques : amélioration de la cohérence et de la constance des systèmes monétaires, financiers et commerciaux internationaux en faveur du développement.