The Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations today recommended 27 organizations for special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, 1 organization for general consultative status and deferred action on 37 others.
The 19-member Committee vets applications submitted by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), 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.
Action on applications were deferred due to Committee members requesting 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. on Friday, 29 May, to continue its session.
General Consultative Status
The Committee recommended that the Economic and Social Council grant general consultative status to the following organization:
Perfect Union (France)
Special Consultative Status
The Committee recommended that the Economic and Social Council grant special consultative status to the following organizations:
Mountain Area Information Network (United States);
Social Welfare Corporation, "Miral Welfare Foundation" (Republic of Korea);
International Union of Railways (UIC) (France);
World Animal Net, Inc. (United States);
World Organization for Early Childhood Education (China);
Active Help Organization (Pakistan);
Development Generation Africa International (DGAI) (Nigeria);
Disease Management Association of India (India);
Global Academy Institute of Technology Foundation Inc. (Philippines);
Healthy Start Initiative (Nigeria);
Managing Committee of Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences (India);
Martina Centre for Sustainable Dev (Nigeria);
Muzaffarabad Poverty Alleviation Programme (MPAP) (Jammu and Kashmir);
National Women's Welfare Society Darwha, Distt. Yavatmal (India);
Peace and Life Enhancement Initiative International (Nigeria);
Pukar Foundation (Pakistan);
Rajasthan Samgrah Kalyan Sansthan (India);
Samarthanam Trust for the Disabled (India);
Sambhali Trust (India);
Shivi Development Society (India);
Support to Deprived Peoples (S.D.P) (Pakistan);
Sustainable Environment Development Initiative (Nigeria);
Warbe Development Foundation (Bangladesh);
Advocates for International Development (United Kingdom);
Centre catholique international de Genève (CCIG) (Switzerland);
Ecumenical Alliance for Human Rights and Development (EAHRD) (Switzerland).
The Committee deferred applications of the following organizations:
Kirkon Ulkomaanavun Säätiö (Finland) — as the representative of Israel asked the group to elaborate on international sources of funding and on investments;
Public Interest Advocacy Centre Ltd (Australia) — as the representative of China sought a detailed explanation on how the entity uses funding from the Government;
Specified Non-profit Corporation, Health and Global Policy Institute (Japan) — as the representative of China asked the entity to correct a reference to Taiwan on its website to follow the United Nations terminology;
Utah China Friendship Improvement Sharing Hands Development and Commerce (United States) — as the representative of China sought to clarify how it contributes to the work of the Economic and Social Council as the group’s administrative expenditure is zero;
World Without Genocide (United States) — as the representative of Sudan asked the group to withdraw the description of a crisis in Darfur as “genocide” from its application, wondering if the organization was an official spokesperson of the Member State that labelled the situation as “genocide”. He asked a number of questions, including about its budget and financial sources, to verify it was a non-profit organization. The representative of South Africa noticed a contradiction that, while the organization claimed to work to eliminate genocide, but failed to mention the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted in 1948 in the application. The representative of the United States said that it was beyond the capacity of non-governmental organizations to conform to all United Nations Security Council resolutions and United Nations terminology. The representative of Iran asked the group to provide more information about contracts and private-sector funding it is receiving. The representative of South Africa disagreed with his United States counterpart, saying that non-governmental organizations are knowledgeable in the areas of their mandates. The representatives of Greece and Israel echoed views expressed by the United States. The representative of China said that non-governmental organizations must, according to resolution 96/31, abide by the purpose and the charter of the United Nations and resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. The representative of Turkey supported the view of South Africa. The representatives of Pakistan, Cuba, Mauritania, India and Uruguay also engaged in a procedural discussion on ways to move forward with the application. The representative of Sudan requested the entity to provide a reason for choosing a particular situation in Sudan as an example in the application, and to provide a breakdown of the budget. The representative of South Africa sought an explanation as to why the organization ignored historical context, such as colonialism, slavery and transatlantic slave trade, leading up to the crisis;
Youth Service America (United States) — as the representative of Nicaragua asked the group to provide a list of countries in which they operate. The representative of South Africa asked why it defined youth as those from ages between 5 and 25;
Ambedkar Center for Justice and Peace (India) — as the representative of India requested more adequate responses about a question concerning indigenous people and human rights, and the role of Government employees who are members of the organization;
Dalit Foundation — Ahmedabad (India) — as the representative of India asked if the organization implemented any project with the Government and how it maintained independence from the State when its chairman comes from the governmental Planning Commission. He also requested a breakdown of income sources;
ELA-Equipo Latinoamericano de Justicia y Género (Argentina) — as the representative of Nicaragua asked the organization to elaborate on its plans in Central America;
Ethnic Community Development Organization (ECDO) (Bangladesh) — as the representative of India asked what contributions the organization made to United Nations conferences and requested clarification about the approach regarding indigenous peoples.
Heavenly Shower of Peace Church of God (Nigeria) — as the representative of South Africa asked the entity to elaborate on its aim and goals;
Human Rights Sanrakshan Sansthaa (India) — as the representative of Pakistan asked why the entity had to include a large number of Government officials on its executive board. The representative of India requested details of the election procedure for board members;
India Water Foundation (India) — as the representative of Pakistan sought further information on the entity’s regional activities;
Insan Dost Association (Pakistan) — as the representative of Pakistan asked why the organization charged so little in fees on its membership, but received substantial funding from beneficiaries;
Instituto Igarapé (Brazil) — as the representative of South Africa asked if the entity had no membership as the application listed no individuals and organizations as members;
International Human Rights Commission Relief Fund Trust (Pakistan) — as the representative of India requested an explanation about the nature of its engagement with other organizations in India;
International Police Commission Philippine Command Association Inc (Philippines) — as the representative of the Philippines said the organization pretended to have association with national police and United Nations entities, and engaged in criminal activities. The representative of the Russian Federation asked the organization to comment on information about its negative relationship with law enforcement. The representative of South Africa asked how the entity could work with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) without obtaining consultative status. The representative of China supported the concerns expressed by his Filipino counterpart;
Kaushalya Gramodyog Sansthan (India) — as the representative of Pakistan sought a further explanation about the deficit in its budget and funding by the Government;
Kottayam Social Service Society (Liberia) — as the representative of South Africa asked how the entity operated without any membership;
Light House (Bangladesh) — as the representative of Sudan said the entity had not satisfactorily answered prior questions, seeking detailed explanation of income and financial aid and future plans. The representative of Iran asked how the group conducted a wide range of activities despite a limited number of members;
National Development Youth Club, Jaran Wali Gali Poonch (Jammu and Kashmir) — as the representative of India sought more information about a grant it received;
New Era Educational and Charitable Support Initiative (Nigeria) — as the representative of China asked what types of relationships the organization had with the two peace entities mentioned in responses;
NGOs Computer Literacy Shelter Welfare, Rawalpindi Cantt. (Pakistan) — as the representative of Pakistan sought clarification about the relationship between its name and its work that goes beyond computer literacy;
Nigerian Diaspora Youths Movement for Peace and Development International Organization (Cameroon) — as the representative of China asked the group to elaborate how the outcome of the 2014 regional global conference it co-sponsored contributed to the work of the Economic and Social Council;
Publication and Coordination Centre of Islamic Ideology and Sufi-ism (Bangladesh) — as the representative of China asked the organization to submit a document of registration in Bangladesh;
Shah Maqeem Trust (Pakistan) — as the representative of Pakistan sought clarification about the entity’s expenditure;
Swadhikar (India) — as the representative of India sought further clarification about the group’s registration process and membership figures in the application.
Takal Welfare Organization (Pakistan) — as the representative of Pakistan requested clarification about its funding sources;
The Kuki Organization For Human Rights Trust (India) — as the representative of India asked the entity to provide details of funding sources for research projects;
West Africa Centre for Peace Foundation (Ghana) — as the representative of China noted that the entity had failed to clarify its stance on Tibet and make necessary corrections;
Youth Foundation of Bangladesh (Bangladesh) — as the representative of Iran sought clarification about income and expenditures, asking how the organization runs programmes given its budget situation;
Avocats Sans Frontières (Belgium) — as the representative of China asked the organization to make the necessary corrections to its description of Tibet and Hong Kong as countries. Cuba’s representatives sought more information about its offices in Latin America;
Azerbaijani American Cultural Association, Inc. (United States) — as the representative of the Russian Federation asked that if the organization received consultative status, with which forum of the United Nations would it intend to work;
Bureau international pour le respect des droits de l'homme au Sahara Occidental (Switzerland) — as the representative of Burundi requested information on the entity’s relationship with the Government;
Center for Media & Peace Initiative Inc. (United States) — as the representative of Nicaragua sought more information about the last workshop it organized;
Coordination des Associations et des Particuliers pour la Liberté de Conscience (France) — as the representative of China asked for clarification whether the entity is national or regional in terms of scope of activities.
The representative of Connecting.nyc Inc. (United States) said it focused on spreading the use of top-level domains as digital infrastructure and connecting cities worldwide. In response to the representative of Nicaragua, he said the entity could not work with all the cities in the world, but could share best practices and benefits through reports and workshops.
The Committee recommended granting special consultative status to the organization.
The representative of International Dalit Solidarity Network (Denmark) said her entity works to eliminate caste discrimination and has well-established relationships with United Nations human rights bodies. Her organization received more than 60 questions by India, which prevented the organization from obtaining consultative status. The representative of India said the application had been in the Committee since 2007, but his delegation asked questions on behalf of the Committee. The representative of Sudan said the organization should be patient and answer questions rather than “accusing” a Member State which asked questions.
The Committee deferred its application.
The representative of Kuki Organization for Human Rights Trust (India) said he had explained everything to the Indian delegation, which kept asking questions. The representative of Cuba sought further explanation about the group’s relationship with a foundation in Bangladesh and another organization in Myanmar. The representative of Iran noted that the organization’s website led to an organization bearing a different name. The representative of India asked the entity to provide information on projects it planned to undertake in the near future.
The Committee deferred its application.