Continuing its regular session for 2015, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations today recommended 55 organizations for special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, and deferred action on the status of 45 others.
The 19-member Committee vets applications submitted by non-governmental organizations, recommending general, special or roster status on the basis of such criteria as the applicant’s mandate, governance and financial regime. Organizations enjoying general and special status can attend meetings of the Council and issue statements, while those with general status can also speak during meetings and propose agenda items. Organizations with roster status can only attend meetings.
Action on several applications were postponed because Committee members requested further information from the candidates about, among other items, details of their respective organizations’ projects, partners, expenditures, sources of funding and relationship with United Nations system actors.
The Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations will meet again at 10 a.m. Thursday, 29 January, to continue its session.
Special Consultative Status
The Committee recommended that the Economic and Social Council grant special consultative status to the following 55 organizations:
International Islamic Youth League (Sierra Leone);
Islamic Chamber Research and Information Center (ICRIC) (Iran);
Kawish Resource Center (Pakistan);
L’Observatoire Mauritanien des Droits de l’Homme et de la Démocratie (Mauritania);
League of Persons with Disabilities (Kenya);
Ligue Marocaine de la citoyenneté et des droits de l’homme (Morocco);
Mouvement National des Jeunes Patriotes du Mali (Mali);
Northern CCB (Pakistan);
Organization for Research and Community Development (Afghanistan);
Peivande Gole Narges Organization (Iran);
Réseau des Plates Formes d’ONG d’Afrique de l’Ouest et du Centre (REPAOC) (Senegal);
Reyhaneh Nabi Art & Cultural Center (Iran);
Roshd Foundation (Iran);
Sahkar Social Welfare Association (Pakistan);
Samoa Umbrella for Non-Governmental Organisations Incorporated (Samoa);
Sindh Community Foundation (Pakistan);
Society of Collective Interests Orientation (Pakistan);
Support Humanity Organization (Pakistan);
The Founder’s Development Organization Badin (Pakistan);
The Society for Recovery Support (Iran);
United Deeds (Actions concertées) (Côte d’Ivoire);
Users and Survivors of Psychiatry in Kenya (USP-K) (Kenya);
Visión para el Desarrollo (Peru);
Women Support Centre (Kyrgyzstan);
Women’s Empowerment Group (Pakistan);
Zamani Foundation (Nigeria);
“Dialogue of Cultures - United World” International Public Charity Fund (Russian Federation);
African British Returnees International Ltd. (United Kingdom);
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (United States);
Asociación de Técnicos Superiores y Peritos Judiciales de Andalucía (Spain);
Canterbury Business Association Incorporated (New Zealand);
Centre Européen de Recherche et de Prospective Politique – CEREPPOL (France);
Dacia Revival International Society Inc. (United States);
ESOFE Association pour l’éducation, la santé et la promotion des femmes et des enfants au Cameroun (Switzerland);
Ethiopian Social Assistance Committee (United States);
Fonds Tara (France);
Foreign Mission Board of the National Baptist Convention of the United States of America (United States);
Friendship Ambassadors Foundation, Inc. (United States);
Global Forum on Human Settlements (United States);
Global New Car Assessment Programme (United Kingdom);
Groupement Romand d’Etudes des Addictions GREA (Switzerland);
Health and Humanitarian Aid Foundation (United States);
IBREA Foundation (United States);
International Geothermal Association Incorporated (Germany);
International Thai Foundation Ltd. (United Kingdom);
Korean Association for Supporting SDGs (ASD) (Republic of Korea);
Mayama, Asociación Civil (Mexico);
Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic (Canada);
Nonprofit Non-Government Expert Society on Space Threat Defense (Russian Federation);
Peramangk Heritage Association Incorporated (Australia);
Sam Kader Memorial Fund (United States);
Samdong International Association, Inc. (Republic of Korea);
Schools Without Borders (United States);
Asociación para la Promoción de la Libertad y el Desarrollo Sostenible (Guatemala);
Fundacion luz Maria (Argentina);
The Committee postponed consideration of the following 45 organizations:
International Development Information Organization-DevNet (China) — as the representative of Turkey asked whether there was a typo on the organization’s application.
International Volunteer Organization for Women Education Development (Ghana) — as the representative of India asked how the organization was running its administration without incurring any cost, as stated in its application.
Kaushalya Gramodyog Sansthan (India) — as the representative of India questioned whether membership in the organization was free of cost or whether there was a membership fee associated with it.
Kottayam Social Service Society (India) — as the representatives of Pakistan and India asked why the organization’s financial statement mentioned “administrative income” instead of administrative costs.
Liberia Youth Initiative for Peace and Sustainable Development (LYIPSUD), Inc. (Liberia) — as the representative of Cuba asked for more information about the organization’s civil society cooperation framework, and about how the organization would contribute to the work of the Council.
Light House (Bangladesh) — as the representatives of China, Iran and Sudan asked for more information about the organization’s sources of income and its expenditures.
Martina Centre for Sustainable Development (Nigeria) — as the representative of the United States asked about the nature of the “consultancy fees” listed on the group’s application, as well as for details on how the organization’s microcredit schemes and agricultural land-use schemes were helping people.
Mongolian Family Welfare Association (Mongolia) — as the representative of Nicaragua asked whether the organization’s membership was national or international in nature.
Muzaffarabad Poverty Alleviation Programme (MPAP) (Pakistan) — as the representative of India asked for more information about the organization’s funding and about the nature of the group itself.
NGO’s Computer Literacy Shelter Welfare, Rawalpindi Cantt. (Pakistan) — as the representative of Pakistan questioned the sharp decrease in the organization’s funding between 2011 and 2012, and asked for details about one of the organization’s audits.
Nigerian Network of Women Exporters of Services (Nigeria) — as the representative of the United States requested clarification about how to access the website describing the organization’s body of work.
Participatory Development Action Program (Bangladesh) — as the representative of Cuba asked whether the group was already accredited with any specialized agency, fund or programme of the United Nations.
Peace and Life Enhancement Initiative International (Nigeria) — as the representative of the United States asked why the organization’s expenses exceeded its income.
Pukar Foundation (Pakistan) — as the representative of India questioned whether the group planned to undertake international activities or establish international offices.
Rajasthan Samgrah Kalyan Sansthan (India) — as the representative of India asked about a deficit in the organization’s budget.
Raleigh-Ghana (Ghana) — as the representative of Nicaragua asked for clarification on the organization’s income and expenses.
Samarthanam Trust for the Disabled (India) — as the representative of Pakistan asked for clarification about the sources of funding for a midday meal programme provided by the organization and about the percentage of the group’s members that were female.
Sambhali Trust (India) — as the representative of India asked about a discrepancy between the organization’s budget section and its audit report. The representative of Pakistan asked whether the group was national or international in nature and how its funds were utilized.
Shack Dwellers International (South Africa) — as the representative of Nicaragua asked whether the group was affiliated with any countries in Latin America.
Shivi Development Society (India) — as the representative of Pakistan had concerns about the organization’s membership fees.
Sukalyan Welfare Society (India) — as the representative of India asked for more details on activities undertaken by the organization, as well as how it would contribute to the work of the Council.
Support to Deprived Peoples (S.D.P) (Pakistan) — as the representative of India asked why some of the funds received by the organization had not been utilized.
Sustainable Environment Development Initiative (Nigeria) — as the representative of the United States sought more information about, and recent examples of, the group’s activities.
Takal Welfare Organization (Pakistan) — as the representative of Pakistan asked for more details about “income generated through contracts”, as described in the organization’s application, and why the organization did not allow other groups or entities to become members.
The National Alliance of Women (India) — as the representative of India had questions about how the organization’s membership was chosen. The representative of Pakistan had concerns about the organization’s sustainability, and asked how the group was paying for its work if its organizational costs were listed as zero.
The Well Being Foundation (Nigeria) — as the representative of the United States had questions about the organization’s income and its expenditures, and as the representative of Nigeria raised similar concerns.
Women for Women, A Research & Study Group (Bangladesh) — as the representative of China queried how the organization spent its money, and whether it received financial support from sources not listed on the application.
African Relief in Action “ARIA” (United States) — as the representative of Gabon asked for clarification on the organization’s activities.
Association Africa 21 (Switzerland) — as the representative of Sudan asked for more detailed information about the organization’s budget and the countries in which it worked.
Azerbaijani American Cultural Association, Inc. (United States) — as the representative of Iran had questions about the group’s total income and its expenditures, and how it would contribute to the work of the Council. She also asked for more information about the organization’s work in the environmental arena.
Canadian Pugwash Group (Canada) — as the representative of Sudan raised questions about the organization’s sources of funding, in particular Government funding, and about whether the group had any relationships with other organizations.
Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes (United States) — as the representative of Sudan raised concerns about the organization’s large Government-sourced budget, and about its lack of information on activities and expenditures.
Count of Monte Alea Foundation, Inc. (United States) — as the representative of Nicaragua asked what countries the organization worked with, as well as what types of partner organizations were involved with it.
Dóchas - The Irish Association of Non-Governmental Development Organisations (Ireland) — as the representative of Burundi asked for more information on how Government funding was utilized by the organization.
EIVHGI - Europäeischer Interessenverband - Handel - Gewerbe – Industrie (Austria) — as the representative of China raised a question about the organization’s activities in his country.
Engineers Without Borders - USA, Inc. (United States) — as the representative of Nicaragua requested additional information about the countries with which the organization worked.
European Muslims League (Switzerland) — as the representative of Israel raised a question about one of the group’s funding organizations.
IDEAS Centre (Switzerland) — as the representative of Cuba asked for specific information about the organization’s work in the Latin American and Caribbean region. Similarly, the representative of Sudan asked whether the group had any activities based in Africa or contact with any organizations working on that continent.
International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care, Inc. (United States) — as the representative of Cuba asked for additional information about the organization’s work in Latin America, in particular, about the local partners with which it worked.
Korea Human Rights Foundation (Republic of Korea) — as the representative of China raised a question about the organization’s expenditures.
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (United States) — as the representative of Nicaragua requested additional information on the group’s budget and other financial information.
Queensland Association of Independent Legal Services Inc. (Australia) — as the representative of Sudan inquired about Government support received by the organization, and asked about both financial “interest” and “income”, as stated in its application.
RARE (United States) — as the representative of China asked about the organization’s activities in his country.
Shia Rights Watch Inc. (United States) — as the representative of Mauritania asked for clarification on a number of points, including membership fees and budget.
India Water Foundation (India) — as the representative of Pakistan asked for a detailed breakdown of the Foundation’s expenditure in writing.
A representative of Asociacion para la Promocion de la Libertad y el Desarollo Sostenible (Guatemala) said the association represented 8 of Guatemala’s 10 largest companies, including firms in the food, electrical, energy, construction and other industries. The group’s strategic plan focused on entrepreneurship and inclusive economic development for indigenous communities, best practices in business and creating an institutional human rights policy in the business sector. The association partnered with indigenous groups in Canada and the United States and had the support of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The Committee then granted special consultative status to the association.
A representative of Fundacion luz Maria (Argentina), responding to questions from Nicaragua’s representative, said indeed the foundation would like to expand to other countries in Latin America and elsewhere, if its grants and fundraising activities permitted. It had signed cooperation agreements with entities involved in gender issues and women’s and children’s rights issues, and had partnered with the United States-based International Association of Women Judges, among others. The association’s board members were its primary source of funding. In January, the foundation met with United States and Costa Rica-based organizations to discuss setting up a community centre and a shelter for victims of domestic violence and other forms of abuse in Santiago del Estero, Argentina.
The foundation was recommended for special consultative status.
A representative of India Water Foundation (India) said it focused on water’s role in people’s lives, the environment, food production and energy, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. Its experts worked with Indian Government officials and with counterparts in neighbouring countries, among them Nepal, Myanmar, Bhutan, United Nations programmes and conferences in Nairobi, Thailand, India and Pakistan. Regarding the Indian delegate’s question about whether the Foundation had offices outside of New Delhi, he said it had a satellite office in Mohali and a project office elsewhere in the country.
To a question from Pakistan’s representative as to why the organization asked to be categorized as a national, not regional, he said its activities were mainly in India, but it was pursuing activities abroad in the 2015-2016 period. The representative then asked for a detailed breakdown of the foundation’s expenditure in writing.
The foundation’s application was deferred.
A representative of The Well Being Foundation (Nigeria) said the group was founded in 2004 to work in maternal, newborn and child health, and later in the HIV/AIDS area. It later opened offices in Lagos and Abuja.
The representative of Sudan asked if the Foundation worked outside Nigeria and what private sector organizations funded it. The representative said it was headquartered in Agara, had an office in Agara, and a shared office in Ghana and the United Kingdom. The President supplied most of the funding. It also received some financing from the Nigerian Government; Johnson & Johnson was about to fund a training programme for midwives in Abuja. Nigeria’s representative asked for a breakdown of the Foundation’s expenditures.
The Committee deferred the Foundation’s application.