Non-Governmental Organizations Committee Recommends 49 Groups for Consultative Status, Defers Action on 50 in Third Day of Session

ECOSOC/6810-NGO/843
1 February 2017
5th & 6th Meetings (AM & PM)

Non-Governmental Organizations Committee Recommends 49 Groups for Consultative Status, Defers Action on 50 in Third Day of Session

Continuing its regular session for 2017, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations today recommended 49 organizations for special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council and deferred action on the status of 50 others.  The Committee also recommended that one organization be reclassified as having general consultative status and deferred consideration of two organizations' reclassification applications.

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 were 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.

Action on several applications was postponed because Committee members requested further information from the candidates about, among other items, details of their respective organizations’ activities, 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 Thursday, 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 organizations:

Fairways Accommodation Support Trust (United Kingdom);

First Ladies Initiative (United States);

Friendasia (Republic of Korea);

Fédération internationale des Coalitions pour la diversité culturelle, International Federation of Coalitions for Cultural Diversity (Canada);

Holt Children’s Services, Inc. (Republic of Korea);

Human Rights Consortium (United Kingdom);

Initiative: Eau (United States);

International Emergency and Development Aid (United States);

International Institute of Space Law (France);

International Network of Women Engineers and Scientists (Canada);

International Port Community Systems Association EEIG (United Kingdom);

International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (United States);

Kuwaiti Society for Autism (Kuwait);

Kırmızı Biber Derneği (Turkey);

Le Pont (France);

Les Amis du Projet Imagine (France);

Les amis des enfants (France);

Maawandoon Inc. (Canada);

Onhappy Corporation (Republic of Korea);

Partnership Network International (Switzerland);

Peacebuilders International (Australia);

Quintessential Business Women Association (United States);

SEALOEarth Corporation (United States);

SOS Rassismus und Diskriminierung Schweiz (Switzerland);

Safe Campaign LLC (United States);

Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous Peoples Inc. (United States);

Sivil Yaşam Derneği (Turkey);

South Caucasus Office on Drugs and Crime (Georgia);

Stichting Kidsrights (Netherlands);

Tamil Uzhagam (France);

Thalassaemia International Federation Limited (Cyprus);

The Global Health Review, Inc. (United States);

The Hip-Hop Dance Conservatory Foundation (United States);

Türkiye İş Kadınları Derneği (Turkey);

US Climate Plan (United States);

Unchained At Last Inc. (United States);

World Share (Republic of Korea)

Apostolic Ministerial International Network (AMIN) (Ghana);

Asocio Esperanto Radikala (Italy);

Books To Africa International (United Kingdom);

Cornerstone Mount Group “CMG”, Inc. (United States);

Foundation of International Servant Leadership Exchange Association (Republic of Korea);

Fundacja Instytut na rzecz Kultury Prawnej Ordo Iuris (Poland);

Lightup Foundation (United Kingdom);

Shirazi Foundation (United States);

Society of Research Administrators International, Inc. (United States); and

The Green Light Project, Inc. (United States).

The Committee postponed consideration of the following organizations:

GenderCC-Women for Climate Justice e.V. (Germany) — as the representative of Cuba asked for information on its projects in Latin America.

Holt International Children’s Services, Inc. (United States) — as the representative of Nicaragua asked for the names of the 13 countries where the organization operated.

Honeypot Village (United Kingdom) — as the representative of Cuba requested a breakdown on how the budget was spent.

INA (Māori, Indigenous & South Pacific) HIV/AIDS Foundation (New Zealand) — as the representative of Cuba sought details on which organizations it worked with.

International Centre for Development Initiatives (ICDI) (United Kingdom) — as the representative of Cuba asked for details on its budget and clarification on project expenditures and the representative of South Africa sought details on the group’s activities in West Africa and Southern Africa.

Jerusalem Institute of Justice (Israel) — as the representative of Iran asked how the organization did its job as none of its board members were from Palestine and sought clarification on the group’s position on the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA).

Jeunesse Etudiante Tamoule (France) — as the representative of Turkey asked for details on the activities of the office in Brussels and whether it was in operation;

Keeping Children Safe (United Kingdom) — as the representative of the Russian Federation asked in which countries the group operated to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender children and what age range it used to determine who fell into that category;

L’Organisation Non Gouvernementale des Cercles Nationaux de Réflexion sur la Jeunesse-ONG CNRJ (France) — as the representative of Nicaragua asked for examples of the organization’s recent and future projects and as the representative of India requested the name with which the group was registered in India;

Man Up Campaign US, Inc. (United States) — as the representative of Cuba asked in which countries it operated;

Malteser International e.V. (Germany) — as the representative of the Russian Federation asked for details on the group’s work in Ukraine, saying there was no reference on its website that in 2014 there was a coup in that nation;

National Council of Catholic Women (United States) — as the representative of Cuba asked for clarification over whether the organization was national or international and over its future projects and partners in Latin America.

National Organization for Global Education Inc. (United States) — as the representative of South Africa, considering the organization’s small budget, asked how it carried out its objective of providing assistance.

Reprieve (United Kingdom) — as the representative of Cuba asked for a list of the 23 countries in which the organization worked and projects being carried out.

Right Livelihood Award Foundation (Sweden) — as the representative of the Russian Federation asked about the criteria for determining award winners and in what countries the group operated.

Roads of Success (United States) — as the representative of Cuba sought a breakdown of its donor base, noting that the organization was fully funded by donors.

SAE International (United States) — as the representative of China asked the organization to use the official United Nations status for Taiwan in all references.

Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea (Republic of Korea) — as a representative of Burundi sought further details on the group’s activities in 2015 and 2016.

Stichting Pro Papua (Netherlands) — as the representative of Iran asked how to reconcile the organization’s mission with Papua with the principle of national sovereignty and territorial integrity established by the United Nations and the representative of China, noting that the organization had five members, asked with what structures and personnel the group reached policy conclusions.  The representative of India asked how it would contribute to the work of the Economic and Social Council.

Takshila Education Inc. (United States) — as the representative of India asked for clarification of its activities in India and relationship with organizations there.

The 5 Gyres Institute (United States) — as representative of China asked the organization to stop listing Taiwan as a country on its website and to instead use the official United Nations status for Taiwan.

The Nigerian Council Inc. (United States) — as the representative of South Africa noted the organization’s stated aim of advancing peace and security in Nigeria and asked if it had any relations with the Government of Nigeria in that regard.

Translators Without Borders-US, Inc. (United States) — as the representative of Cuba asked from which sources it received funding.

Viešoji įstaiga “Trust in Development” (Lithuania) — as the representative of the Russian Federation asked for more details on its projects in the North Caucuses and Ukraine.

White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood, Inc. (United States) — as the representative of Nicaragua asked how the organization could carry out its work with a large budget deficit.

Youth RISE (Resource, Information, Support, Education) Limited (United Kingdom) — as the representative of Nicaragua asked for details on the group’s educational programmes other than drug rehabilitation programmes and as the representative of Cuba asked for clarification on the full range of its projects in Latin America.  The representative of South Africa asked the group to elaborate on its response to questions about evidence-based strategies.

Youth for a Better World, Inc. (United States) — as the representative of Cuba asked for details on the organization’s activities in his country.

İstanbul Fikir Araştırmaları Derneği – İSFAM (Turkey) — as the representative of Turkey, stating that the organization had been closed per Turkish law and no longer existed, requested the group’s application be removed from the list.  The representative of the United States said in such a case the organization should be allowed to respond.

The representative of India encouraged Committee members to decide by consensus how to address the issue and sought further guidance from the Committee Secretariat.  In response, the representative of the United States, expressing grave concern over the global crackdown on civil society, said his Government was a strong promoter of civil society organizations and generally opposed civil society accreditation based on terrorism or related criminal activity.  While non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should be given time to respond to a request to remove them from the list, the United States joined the consensus in this case as the organization in question was no longer in operation.

Africa Youth Growth Foundation (Nigeria) — as the representative of South Africa requested specifics on where the organization operated and on its budget.

Initiative pour le Developpement de l’Afrique–I.D.A. (Senegal) — as the representative of South Africa requested further budget information.

International Human Rights Council (India) — as the representative of India asked for details on sources of funding other than membership fees.

Pak Special Persons Welfare Society (Pakistan) — as the representative of Pakistan had asked for details on projects.

Pakistan International Human Rights Organization (Pakistan) — as the representative of Pakistan had asked for details on schools that had been established and how the budget had been met.

Youth in Action Balochistar JFD (Pakistan) — as the representative of Pakistan had asked for disaggregated data of funding from international organizations.

Albert Kunstadter Family Foundation (United States) — as the representative of South Africa asked for details on programmes in Africa, and particularly in South Africa.  The representative of China said the group had listed Tibet as a country, urging the organization to use the United Nations as a guide.

Council for a Parliament of World Religions (United States) — as the representative of China requested clarification and a correction of identifying on the organization’s website that the Dalai Lama was the leader of Tibet.

Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e.V. (Germany) — as the representative of Cuba asked for details of programmes in Cuba.  The representative of the United States asked for clarification on Cuba’s question about commercial projects.  The representative of Cuba requested detailed information on local commercial partners the organization had developed and implemented projects with.  The representative of India requested information on the suspension of the organization from the Economic and Social Council due to failing to submit a quadrennial report in a timely manner, asking the reason for failing to do so.

Diakonia (Sweden) — as the representative of Cuba asked for details on how the organization functioned with a $1 million deficit and what countries were providing funding.

Embajada Mundial de Activistas por la Paz (Global Embassy of Activists for Peace) Corp. (United States) — as the representative of Venezuela asked for details on operations in Latin America and how many universities were carrying out activities for the organization.  The representative of China asked for details on the organization’s relationship with Tibet and said the group should refer to China according to official United Nations terms.

Global Peace Foundation (United States) — as the representative of Cuba asked for details on projects in Latin America.

Ilankai Thamil Sangam, Inc. (United States) — as the representative of China asked for clarification of the organization’s position on Tibet.  Several representatives, including those from Greece, Cuba and the United States, pointed out that China’s intervention had come after the Chair had already recommended that the group be granted special consultative status.  The representative of China said the English interpretation had gone beyond the point of time when the Chair had gavelled, so it was a technical reason.  Several representatives, including those from the Russian Federation and India, said the Committee should use good will.  Some representatives pointed out that if the Committee was covered by the United Nations Webcast Unit, there would be no problem of quickly verifying reports of technical reasons.  The Committee decided to overturn the Chair’s decision on the organization’s application, by a vote of 13 in favour to 4 against, with 2 abstentions and 1 absent.

Institut international de recherches pour la Paix à Genève (GIPRI) (Switzerland) — as the representative of Cuba asked for details on funding.

Marin Experimental Teaching, Training and Advising Center (United States) — as the representative of Iran asked for details on working with ethnic minorities in different countries and on selecting political issues involved in their work.

Saviour USA — One World Charity (United States) — as the representative of Pakistan asked for details on projects in other countries.

Observatoire du Crime Organisé (Switzerland) — as the representative of Nicaragua asked for further details on projects in Latin America.

Settlement Services International Incorporated (Australia) — as the representative of China asked for detailed information on operational costs and on how the organization ensured independence because it received most of its funding from the Government.  Also, he said, Tibet was referred to as a country and the organization should use the official United Nations country names as a guide.

World Learning Inc. (United States) — as the representative of Venezuela asked for details on education programmes and which Latin American countries the organization operated in.

The Committee recommended for reclassification as general consultative status the following organization:

Institute of International Law (Switzerland).

The Committee postponed consideration of requests for reclassification as general consultative status from the following two organizations:

International Campaign to Ban Landmines (Switzerland) — as the representative of Turkey asked for clarification of restructuring and merging in the organization, including the current official name of the group.

Universal Peace Federation (United States) — as the representative of China asked the organization to use the United Nations terminology on the issue of Taiwan and requested further information on projects that had been carried out in the Taiwan province of China.  The representative of the Russian Federation requested for each of the countries in the Committee to more closely examine the organization, which appeared to have ties with a religious sect.  He also asked for a clarification of links with the Unification Church.

Interactive Discussion

During a question-and-answer in the afternoon, NGO representatives responded to questions posed by the Committee.

A representative of the organization International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care said her group’s application had twice been deferred.  Since then, questions had been answered and she would be pleased to address any of the Committee’s concerns.

The representative of Cuba asked about activities in Cuba and local partners.

The representative of the International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care said the organization worked with anyone interested in the issues.  Most of the people the group worked with were patients with advance stages of disease, including cancer.  The organization was working with several people in Cuba.  While the group was awaiting an invitation from the Government of Cuba to broaden its work there, she noted that Cuba was very advanced in palliative care it offered.

The Committee then postponed consideration of the application.

The representative of the United States asked for details on the group’s activities.

The representative of the International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care said direct patient care was not provided.  Among other things, it provided information for health workers and advice to Governments when they wanted to create related programmes.

A representative of the organization Death Penalty Focus said his group worked in California to raise awareness and partnered with organizations, such as Amnesty International, to make presentations.

The representative of India asked about how much progress had been made.

The representative of Death Penalty Focus said the organization, established in 1988, had made progress in California, but not to the extent of eliminating the death penalty.

The representative of China said differences should be respected, and expressed appreciation that the group had corrected the Taiwan issue on its website.

The representative of India asked about interaction with the World Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

The representative of Death Penalty Focus said his group was a member of the Coalition and provided help in raising awareness at its request.

The representative of India asked if the organization got involved in other countries or regions outside the United States.

The representative of Death Penalty Focus said no, only when asked by the Coalition.

The Committee then recommended the organization be granted special consultative status.

A representative of the organization Stichting War Child said his group provided services to help children in a variety of areas of need.

The Committee then recommended the organization be granted special consultative status.

A representative of the organization Mangfoldhuset said his group worked with minority communities in Norway.  Projects aimed at bringing ethnic Norwegians and minority groups and immigrants together and enhancing the integration process in the country.

The representative of Azerbaijan asked for written details of the seminars that had been organized over the last two years.

The Committee then postponed consideration of the application.

A representative of the organization Arab-European Center of Human Rights and International Law (AECHRIL) said ongoing activities included projects in the State of Palestine and Iraq.

The representative of Iran requested details about work in Kurdistan in Iraq.

The representative of the Arab-European Center of Human Rights and International Law said the organization had an official permit to operate an office in a city in Kurdistan and worked with organizations.

The representative of Venezuela asked for details, in writing, of projects.

The representative of Iran asked for a written reply to his previous question.

The Committee then postponed consideration of the application.

For information media. Not an official record.