Opening Second Week of Session, NGO Committee Recommends 27 Entities for Special Consultative Status with Economic and Social Council

ECOSOC/6733-NGO/823
1 February 2016
Committee on NGOs 11th & 12th Meetings (AM & PM)

Opening Second Week of Session, NGO Committee Recommends 27 Entities for Special Consultative Status with Economic and Social Council

Continuing into the second week of its regular session for 2016, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations today recommended that the Economic and Social Council grant special consultative status to 27 organizations — including recommending that one group’s status be reinstated — while deferring action on 40 others.

In addition, the Committee reviewed 10 quadrennial reports deferred from other sessions, taking note of one of them while deferring action on nine others.  It also took note of five requests from organizations wishing to change their names.

The 19-member Committee considers applications for consultative status and requests for reclassification submitted by non-governmental organizations.  Once an application has been reviewed and approved by the Committee it is considered recommended for consultative status.  Organizations which are granted 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.

The Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 2 February, to continue its session.

Special Consultative Status

The Committee recommended that the Economic and Social Council grant special consultative status to the following 26 organizations:

Association du Développement et de la Promotion de Droits de l’Homme (Mauritania);

Association locale pour le devéloppement integral (Democratic Republic of Congo);

Association nationale de promotion et de protection des droits de l’homme (Cameroon);

Beijing NGO Association for International Exchanges (China);

Coastal Association for Social Transformation COAST Trust (Bangladesh);

Fundamental Human Rights & Rural Development Association (Pakistan);

Instituto de Desenvolvimento e Direitos Humanos (Brazil);

Leah Charity Foundation (Nigeria);

Maiti Nepal (Nepal);

O.N.G. ACHE Internacional (Chile);

Partnership for Justice (Nigeria);

The Network of Rural Women Producers (Trinidad and Tobago);

British Nuclear Tests Veterans Association (United Kingdom);

Fondation One Drop / One Drop Foundation (Canada);

Fondazione Rosselli (Italy);

FreeMuslim Association, Inc. (United States);

Haitelmex Foundation A.C. (Mexico);

Internationale Gemeinschaft für die Unterstützung von Kriegsopfern (Germany);

Memory Trees Corporation (United States);

Microclinic International (United States);

Sister to Sister One in the Spirit, Inc. (United States);

Women in Informal Employment:  Globalizing and Organizing (WIEGO) Limited (United Kingdom);

Red, Paz, Integración y Desarrollo (Bolivia);

Institute for Security and Safety GmbH (Germany);

International Detention Coalition Inc. (Australia);

Los Angeles Community Action Network (United States).

The Committee postponed its consideration of the following 40 non-governmental organizations:

Aleradah & Altageer National Society (Bahrain) — as the representative of Mauritania asked for more information on the organization’s budget.

Regarding that question, the representative of the United States said the answer had been provided already.  The representative of Sudan then asked for a full list of the organization’s activities.

Association of Youths with Vision (Gambia) — as the representative of South Africa asked about the organization’s budget deficit.

Association tunisienne de la santé de la reproduction (Tunisia) — as the representative of Nicaragua asked whether the organization planned to extend its work regionally.

Cameroon League for Development (Cameroon) — as the representative of South Africa said the group’s explanation to the previous question of what it meant by “godly principles” was totally unacceptable, and asked for further clarification.

The representative of the United States said the point was to look at the work the group was doing, not to define a term.  The question should not be posed to the organization again, she said.  In response, the representative of South Africa said the question had been for the group to elaborate on what it meant by “godly principles”.  The response received had dealt with the issue of bad governance, which did not make sense.

The representative of the United States said the group could define “godly principles” as it wished.

The representative of South Africa responded that good governance concepts were separate from religion, and the organization should be corrected.  The representative of the United States disagreed, stressing that it was not the place of the United Nations to define religion.  The Committee could not hold a group accountable simply because it did not agree with its beliefs.  The representative of South Africa insisted that the question be posed to the organization again.

The representative of Greece suggested that the South African delegate could rephrase the question, asking instead about its activities.  The representative of South Africa said it was not his delegation’s responsibility to rephrase the question.  The organization must be informed that it had not answered the question satisfactorily, he said.

Committee Chair Jorge Dotta (Uruguay) then suspended the meeting for five minutes so that the representative of South Africa could rephrase his question.

As the meeting resumed, the representative of South Africa asked the organization to elaborate more on the aforementioned “godly principles” and to provide practical, tangible examples of how that principle was applied.  In addition, he asked whether the group worked with “continental structures” at the African Union and Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) levels.

Conglomeration of Bengal’s Hotel Owners (India) — as the representative of India said the address provided by the organization did not exist, and asked it to clarify its address.

Eaglesworth Human Empowerment Foundation (Nigeria) — as the representative of South Africa asked the group to further elaborate whether its work was in conjunction with the Nigerian Ministry of Health, and for clarification about its aims and purposes vis-à-vis the work of the Economic and Social Council.  In addition, she asked for a list of dates for all of the organization’s specific projects.

Entrepreneurship Development and Support Initiative (Nigeria) — as the representative of South Africa asked for more information about the group’s recent projects and for a list of its planned projects.

Family Planning Association of Bangladesh (Bangladesh) — as the representative of Nicaragua asked for more information regarding the group’s relationship with the organization Planned Parenthood.

Heal the Land Initiative in Nigeria (Nigeria) — as the representative of South Africa asked for more information about the organization’s projects and their impact, in particular with regard to stigma reduction.

Humanity Family Foundation for Peace & Dev (Nigeria) — as the representative of South Africa requested more information about the organization’s activities and their impact, as well as about its public-private partnerships.

 

International Non-Olympic Committee (India) — as the representative of India asked for more information about planned “social activities” and their sources of funding, and about a discrepancy in the number of members it had listed.

Ishaatool Mohammadiya Research and Development Foundation, Shevgaon (India) — as the representative of India asked the organization to explain its relationship with schools and centres, and to list all of its activities in the last two years.

Leadership Initiative for Transformation & Empowerment (Nigeria) — as the representative of South Africa requested the latest financial statement from the organization and asked for clarification about funding for programmes.  She also asked if the group’s work was national or international in nature and requested more details on its “remedial projects”.

Lotus Initiative for the Blind (Nigeria) — as the representative of South Africa asked for more information about the organization’s projects and how it would contribute to the work of the Council.

Neighbourhood Community Network (India) — as the representative of India requested clarification on the organization’s relationship with three particular groups.  In addition, he noted a discrepancy in the number of countries where the organization had a presence and asked for further clarification.

Neighbourhood Environment Watch Foundation (Nigeria) — as the representative of South Africa asked for more information about the group’s sources of funding, its past projects and its planned programmes in Africa.

Ngamiland Council of Non-Governmental Organisations (Botswana) — as the representative of South Africa requested up-to-date financial statements and asked about the organization’s current sources of funding.

Pan African Institute for Entrepreneurship and Community Development (Nigeria) — as the representative of South Africa sought further information about the organization’s projects and activities, as well as their beneficiaries.

Society for Environment and Development (India) — as the representative of India sought more details on the group’s work in South-East Asian countries.

Society for Protection of Street & Working Children (Iran) — as the representative of Iran asked for more information about the international organization funding the group.  In addition, she asked if the group had any activities in countries other than Iran.

Society for the Widows and Orphans (Nigeria) — as the representative of South Africa said the organization’s responses to past questions were “unsatisfactory” and unclear.  As such, she asked for more detailed information about the group’s programmes.

World Christian Association for Peace and Assistance Ministry International (Cameroon) — as the representative of South Africa asked for clarification on inconsistencies regarding the organization’s work with prisoners.

Center for Democracy and Technology (United States) — as the representative of Cuba asked what projects the organization was carrying out in Latin America, and with which local partners.

European Network on Independent living limited (Ireland) — as the representative of China said references to “Taiwan” on the organization’s website had not yet been corrected.

Fang Protective Services, Incorporated (United States) — as the representative of Cuba asked for more information on the organization’s activities in Latin America.

Fondation Alkarama (Switzerland) — as the representative of South Africa requested the organization to explain a discrepancy about the organization’s members.  The representative of Mauritania also sought information regarding the group’s activities in Arab League member States.

Karlen Communications (Canada) — as the representative of South Africa said it was still unclear whether the group was applying for consultative status as a non-profit organization or as a business.

Rainy River District Women’s Shelter of Hope (Canada) — as the representative of South Africa asked for further information about the communities in which projects had been conducted, and about their impact.

Women Enabled (United States) — as the representative of Iran asked the organization to list the sources of its funding.

Women of Africa (United Kingdom) — as the representative of South Africa said the organization had not responded to the many questions posed to it.

African Association of Remote Sensing of the Environment (South Africa) — as the representative of South Africa asked about the “cumulative impact” of the group’s work on the African continent.

International Non-Olympic University (India) — as the representative of India asked the group to provide a list of its executive board members and about the role of a particular Indian official.  He also requested information about the group’s relationship with the World Council for Regular and Distance Education.  He further asked whether the organization was planning to have a physical campus in each country of the world and for its physical address in India.  The representative of China asked the group whether it had any presence in China and whether it had registered with the relevant authorities.

Prajachaitanya Yuvajana Sangam (India) — as the representative of India asked about the organization’s future fundraising plans.

Association pour la défense des droits de l’homme et des revendications démocratiques/culturelles du peuple Azerbaidjanais-Iran (France) — as the representative of Iran asked the group to respond to the second question posed to it last week.  The representative of the United States said the organization had in fact answered the question but that it was difficult to locate.  The representative of Iran asked the organization to provide information on future projects.

Review of Quadrennial Reports

The Committee took note of the deferred quadrennial reports containing submissions by the following non-governmental organizations:  International Institute for Non-Aligned Studies 2010-2013.

Regarding Amnesty International’s report for 2008-2011, the representative of China asked for information on a particular campaign related to the Millennium Development Goals.

Regarding Centrist Democratic International’s report for 1998-2001, the representative of China asked which Asian countries the organization worked with.  The representative of Cuba said the organization did not need to submit further quadrennial reports.  The representative of the United States wondered why the group’s reports were on the deferred list if no questions had been posed to it.  A representative of the Secretariat responded that reports were deferred if the Committee did not take note of them.

Regarding DiploFoundation’s report for 2010-2013, the representative of China asked the group to explain its position on Internet governance.

Regarding Federation of Western Thrace Turks in Europe’s report for 2010-2013, the representative of Greece requested the group to align its terminology on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia with United Nations standards.

Regarding Human Rights First’s report for 2007-2010, the representative of China said the organization had not fully answered all the questions.  Further, he asked the group to fully explain its position regarding Tibet and “Taiwan”.

Regarding Human Rights Watch’s report for 2009-2012, said there were multiple references to the question of Tibet on the group’s website, and asked for clarification on that matter.

Regarding International Commission of Jurists’ report for 2009-2012, the representative of China asked for clarification on the group’s recent reference to the question of Tibet.

Regarding Kimse Yok Mu’s report for 2010-2013, the representative of Azerbaijan asked for a list of groups affiliated with the Council with which the organization worked.

Regarding Vital Voices Global Partnership’s report for 2010-2013, the representative of China asked about the group’s work “searching the world for women leaders”.  On the same item, the representative of South Africa asked what the group meant by the phrase “daring woman”.

New Name Change Requests

The Committee took note of the following new name change requests:  Global Action against Poverty (Special, 1995) to Fracarita International; Groupe des ONG pour la Convention relative aux droits de l’enfant (Special, 2011) to Child Rights Connect; Scientific Association of Youth Political Scientists (Special, 2014) to Hellenic Association of Political Scientists (HAPSc); Rehabilitation and Research Centre of Torture Victims (Special, 2008) to Dignity — Danish Institute against Torture.

Regarding the International Center for Alcohol Policies (Special, 2011)’s request to change its name from International Alliance for Responsible Drinking, the representative of China asked the organization to clarify its position on “Taiwan”.

The representative of the United States asked the Secretariat to clarify why the Committee would not simply accept the name change of organizations already accredited with the United Nations.  On that question, the representative of the Secretariat said that, if there were questions on the organization’s supporting documents, those would be transmitted to the organization.

On the same issue, the representative of China said questions had been raised to organizations asking for a change of name in the past.  He requested that decisions on name change to be deferred until precedence could be provided by the Secretariat.  The representative of Israel asked the Secretariat to clarify the impact of such a deferral.  To that, the representative of the Secretariat explained that the consultative status of the organizations would not be affected, but the groups would not be able to participate in the work of the United Nations under their new names.

The representative of Greece then asked what the impact of such a deferral would be on the other organizations on the list.  The Chair responded that other organizations on the list would not be affected and organizations would not be suspended in any way.  The representative of China then requested that action on the name change of the organization under discussion be deferred until a record of previous Committee practice would be provided.

Deferred Name Change Requests

The Committee took note of the following deferred name change requests:  World Society for the Protection of Animals (General, 2013) to World Animal Protection.

Regarding the request of The InnerCity Mission of Christ Embassy (Special, 2014) to change its name to InnerCity Mission for Children, the representative of China asked the organization to correct a website reference to “Taiwan” and “Hong Kong” as countries.

Regarding the request of The Syriac Universal Alliance - Federation Syriaque International (SUA) (Special, 1999) to change its name to World Council of Arameans (Syriacs), the representative of Turkey said a previous question posed to the third group was not reflected in the correspondence annexed to the request.  She then asked the group to provide a list of activities carried out after its name change.

With regard to Doha International Institute for Family Studies and Development (DIIFSD) (Special, 2009)’s request to change its name to Doha International Family Institute (DIFI), the representative of Iran asked for clarification regarding references to the Persian Gulf.

Requests for Reinstatement of Consultative Status

The Committee recommended that the Economic and Social Council reinstate the consultative status of the following organization:  International Press Institute.

Requests for Withdrawal of Consultative Status

The Committee took note of the request for withdrawal of consultative status of the following organization:  Association of Former United Nations Industry and Development Experts (AFIDE), which was dissolved in 2014.

Consideration of Special Reports

The Committee then took note of a number of Notes Verbale circulated on the organization PROMODEV, which had previously been granted consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, regarding the fact that the organization was not recognized by the Government of Haiti.

Summarizing the contents of the Notes Verbal, the representative of India asked how the Committee would proceed if the Government of Haiti was not able to provide any information on the organization.  The representative of Israel asked whether the Secretariat could provide past certificates provided by the organization.  To those questions, the representative of the Secretariat said it had shared those certificates with the Government and that it did not have any additional information to share.  The Government of Haiti had not specified what action it wished the Committee to take, she said.

Interactive Dialogue

During a question-and-answer session this afternoon, a representative of the organization Plan International (UK) said it was a global children’s agency, working for 80 years.  Upon China’s request, the organization made the correction regarding “Taiwan”.  Currently, the organization had 36 ongoing projects, and in Africa, it was working in areas ranging from economic security to education.  Regarding questions on funding, the organization had received funds from the United Kingdom Government; however, it was operating independently.

Taking the floor, South Africa’s delegate asked for further information about the impact-assessment of current projects.  She also asked whether the organization planned to partner with the African Union.  China’s representative said he was very grateful for the correction.  Iran’s delegate noted that the organization was not operating in the Middle East.  She then asked whether the group had any intention to work in that area.

Taking the floor next was the representative of the organization Federal Lezhin National and Cultural Autonomy.  Regarding questions on the report, the organization had prepared it with various partners, including Azerbaijan, the European Union and some international organizations.  The goal of the group was to defend cultural rights, and recently it had organized a symposium on the issue.

Azerbaijan’s representative noted that the organization’s strategic plan aimed at protecting Lezhin people in Azerbaijan and Dagestan, and asked for further details on the initiative.

Turning to the next organization on the list, the representative of Center for Constitutional Rights said it was a non-profit organization and worked in accordance with national rules.

India’s representative asked for clarification as to why the donation was made in stock rather than cash.

In response, she noted that stock donation was a common practice in the United States and individuals chose their stock option.

India’s representative, taking the floor a second time, asked for further information about the organization’s training programme in Haiti.

Taking the floor a second time, the representative said the organization had a long-standing relationship with its partners in Haiti, and that included a student exchange programme.

India’s representative asked whether the organization had any offices outside of the country.

Responding, she said the organization did not have offices outside the United States but had partners all around the world.

The representative of the United States inquired why some Committee members asked too many questions to the organization and expressed her delegation’s full support to the group.

India’s representative said it was the Committee’s right to question any organization.

Stressing that the organization had answered all the questions posed, the representative of the United States noted that her delegation had the right to support the organization based in her country.

The Committee recommended that the Council grant special consultative status to the following three organizations:

Institute for Security and Safety GmbH (Germany);

International Detention Coalition Inc. (Australia);

Los Angeles Community Action Network (United States).

The Committee postponed its consideration of the following three non-governmental organizations:

Bancroft Global Development (United States) — as the representative of Cuba asked for clarification on the board of directors.

Global Financial Integrity (United States) — as the representative of China asked for clarification on the organization’s position on “Taiwan”.

Inimõiguste instituut (Estonia) — as the representative of the Russian Federation asked for its list of partners.

For information media. Not an official record.