Continuing Regular Session, Non-Governmental Organizations Committee Recommends 42 Entities for Special Consultative Status, Defers Action on 44 Others

ECOSOC/6882-NGO/863
31 January 2018
5th & 6th Meetings (AM & PM)

Continuing Regular Session, Non-Governmental Organizations Committee Recommends 42 Entities for Special Consultative Status, Defers Action on 44 Others

Continuing its regular session for 2018, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations today recommended 42 organizations for special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council and deferred action on the status of 44 others. 

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 locations where projects were carried out.

The Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations will meet again at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 1 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:

International Housing Coalition, Inc. (United States);

Internationale Romani Union (Austria);

Jubilee Debt Campaign (United Kingdom);

Kamer-Kadın Merkezi Eğitim Üretim Danışma, ve Dayanışma (KAMER) Vakfı (Turkey);

Kayan — Feminist Organization (Israel);

Korea LOHAS Association (Republic of Korea);

LatinoJustice PRLDEF (United States);

Líderes Promoviendo la Cultura de la Legalidad, AC (Mexico);

Muslims for Progressive Values (United States);

New Vision International (Switzerland);

Nutrition & Education International (United States);

Operation Smile, Inc. (United States);

Partenariat Français pour l’Eau (France);

Panafrican Women Association (Norway);

Parents — Enfants maltraités — Renouveau et espérance pour les familles (France);

Public Eye, Verein auf der Grundlage der Erklärung von Bern (Switzerland);

Queensland Advocacy Inc. (Australia);

Ruh Sağlığında İnsan Hakları Girişimi Derneği (Turkey);

SDSN Association, Inc. (United States);

SIETAR Austria — Gesellschaft für interkulturelle Bildung, Training und Forschung (Austria);

Save Cambodia (United States);

Shalva — The Israel Association for Care and Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities (R.A.) (Israel);

Terra Renaissance (Japan);

The Athena Fund — Laptop Computer for Each Teacher (Israel);

The Foundation for AIDS Research (United States);

The Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (Ireland);

The Order of St. Stanislas e.V. (Germany);

The PsySiP Project (United States);

Together for Safer Roads Inc. (United States);

Truth in Reality Inc. (United States);

University College Dublin (Ireland);

Unspoken Smiles Foundation (United States);

World Protection for Dogs and Cats in the Meat Trade (United Kingdom);

Young Diplomats of Canada (Canada);

Österreichischer Bundesverband — Österreichische Lebens — und Rettungs — Gesellschaft (Austria);

Iranian Association for United Nations Studies (Iran);

Iranian Institutional Investors Association (Iran);

Jameh Ehyagaran Teb Sonnati Va Salamat Iranian (Iran);

Living Proof Initiative for Hope (Nigeria);

SPHER International Ltd. (United Kingdom);

The Global Alliance for TB Drug Development, Inc. (United States); and

Malteser International e.V. (Germany).

The Committee postponed consideration of the following organizations:

Juridisk Rådgivning for Kvinner (Norway) — as the representative of China requested further information from the organization about its funding.

Kaleidoscope Human Rights Foundation Ltd. (Australia) — as the representative of the Russian Federation requested further information about how the organization conducted its research work.

Legal Action Worldwide (Switzerland) — as the representative of Sudan requested detailed information on the organization’s projects, including the amount of money allocated to each project.

Mittetulundusühing G-Global Development Community (Estonia) — as the representative of the United States asked for more detailed information about the organization’s work, including how it related to the work of the Economic and Social Committee.

Mother Helpage (United Kingdom) — as the representative of India requested further information about the organization’s activities in India.

NIGH World (Canada) — as the representative of Venezuela requested further details about the organization’s activities and partnerships in Latin America.

Namati Inc. (United States) — as the representative of India requested further details about the organization’s activities in India.

National Committee on BRICS Research (Russian Federation) — as the representative of the United States asked for more detailed information about the organization’s work, including how it related to the work of the Economic and Social Council.

Nepperhan Community Center, Inc. (United States) — as the representative of Cuba questioned how the organization maintained its independence given that 100 per cent of its budget came from the United States Government, and the representative of South Africa requested more information about the group’s activities and partnerships in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire.

Non-profit Partnership "Strategic Partnership with the Islamic World" (Russian Federation) — as the representative of Uruguay requested more detailed information on the organization’s expenditures.

Organisation Aide et Action International (Switzerland) — as the representative of China requested that the organization amend its website so that it conformed with the standard United Nations terminology.

Operation HOPE Inc. (United States) — as the representative of Cuba requested further information about the organization’s funding sources and its relationship with the United States Government.

Operation Underground Railroad Inc. (United States) — as the representative of India requested further information on the organization’s funding sources and activities in India.

Organisation Internationale pour l’Avancement politique des Africaines (Canada) — as the representative of Mauritania requested more information about how the organization funded its recent workshop in Tunisia, and the representative of Cuba asked the group to provide more information about its projects and budget.

Otro Tiempo México, Asociación Civil (Mexico) — as the representative of Cuba requested clarification about the organization’s funding sources.

Peace Development Fund (United States) — as the representative of Nicaragua requested further information about the organization’s international projects.

Perkins School for the Blind (United States) — as the representative of China requested that the organization amend its website so that it conformed with the standard United Nations terminology.

Reproductive Health Matters (United Kingdom) — as the representative of Burundi questioned how the organization would continue to fund its activities given its current budget deficit.

Rohingya League Ltd. (United Kingdom) — as the representative of India requested further details about the organization’s name change and its project work.

SPHER International Ltd. (United Kingdom) — as the representative of Cuba requested further details on how the organization intended to fund its future projects.

Sahipkıran Stratejik Araştırmalar Merkezi (Turkey) — as the representative of Greece requested more information about the organization’s planned projects and activities.

Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior (United States) — as the representative of China requested that the organization amend its website so that it conformed with the standard United Nations terminology.

Stichting Mama Cash (Netherlands) — as the representative of China requested that the organization amend its website so that it conformed with the standard United Nations terminology.

The Chittagong Hill Tracts Foundation Inc. (United States) — as the representative of India requested more information regarding the organization’s projects.

The Dame Jane Foundation (New Zealand) — as the representative of South Africa requested further details about the organization’s funding, and the representative of Cuba requested information about the group’s work as related to natural hazards.

The Denis & Lenora Foretia Foundation Inc. (United States) — as the representative of South Africa requested further information about the organization’s work in Cameroon.

The Task Force for Global Health Inc. (United States) — as the representative of Nicaragua sought more information about the organization’s international projects.

Trocaire (Ireland) — as the representative of China requested further information about the organization’s international projects.

UNESCO Center for Peace (United States) — as the representative of Uruguay asked for more information about the organization’s projects and relationship with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Wonder Foundation (United Kingdom) — as the representative of Cuba asked for an updated list of countries in Latin America where the organization had projects.

Word of Life International, Inc. (United States) — as the representative of Mauritania requested further information about the organization’s work in Africa, as well as its funding.

World Youth Organization (United Kingdom) — as the representative of Mauritania requested more detailed information about the organization’s administrative expenses.

Young Global Leadership Foundation, Inc. (United States) — as the representative of Venezuela requested further details about the organization’s activities in Latin America. 

Young Professionals in Foreign Policy (United States) — as the representative of Cuba requested further information about the organization’s funding.

Al-Imdaad Trust (South Africa) — as the representative of South Africa requested clarification on the organization’s current special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, as well as further details on its international work and partnerships.

Association pour la Diffusion des Droits Humains aux Peuples Autochtones (Humanitarian Law Agency) (Cameroon) — as the representative of Mauritania requested further details on the organization’s international work and partnerships.

Chinese Culture Promotion Society (China) — as the representative of the United States asked whether all cultures in China were permitted to participate in the organization’s activities.

Citizen Association HERA Health Education and Research Association (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) — as the representative of Nicaragua requested further information about how the organization intended to fund its future projects.

Palestinian Association for Human Rights (Witness) (Lebanon) — as the representative of Israel asked for further details about the organization’s work inside Lebanese prisons.

Talent Incubator (Benin) — as the representative of the United States requested a detailed breakdown of the organization’s funding sources.

World Fund for Development and Planning (Uganda) — as the representative of Burundi requested detailed information about the organization’s members.

Research Society of International (Pakistan) — pending further information.

Global Peace Foundation (United States) — pending further information.

Gulf Centre for Human Rights Ltd. (Ireland) — pending further information.

Interactive Dialogue

A representative of the organization SPHER International Ltd. (United Kingdom) told the Committee that the group’s work focused on the nexus between human rights and the environment.  The organization’s funding came from its directors, as opposed to outside sources.  The representative of Cuba said there was a lack of detail about the organization’s budget, but that his delegation would not prevent the Committee from being granted consultative status.

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

A representative of the organization National Committee on BRICS Research (Russian Federation) said the group had established a network of experts that consulted Governments and other non-governmental organizations on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.  In response to a question from the representative of the United States, the organization participated in Economic and Social Council events by sending experts to take part in meetings that focused on how to ensure that global prosperity reached all populations.  The organization’s representative also told the Committee that the group did not receive any direct financing or maintain any affiliation with the Government of the Russian Federation.  The representative of the United States went on to request that the organization provide in writing additional details on its administrative costs.

The Committee then decided to defer the organization’s application.

A representative of the organization The Global Alliance for TB Drug Development, Inc. (United States) said that the group’s work focused on the development of tuberculosis drugs.  The group’s work primarily took place in South Africa and the United States, and included efforts to address paediatric and drug-resistant tuberculosis.  The representative of Cuba stressed the importance of the organization providing quadrennial reports once they have been granted consultative status.

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

A representative of Research Society of International (Pakistan) said the group was a research and policy institute focused on the intersection of international law and the domestic legal context, with the aim of affecting positive domestic legal change.  It enhanced national policy formulation by increasing the capacity of various stakeholders, she said, citing a training centre in that context.  The representative of India said 93 per cent of total expenditure was on administrative expenses.  She asked about the number of people employed on permanent and temporary basis, their main activities, and for details on how the group planned to achieve its agenda without spending on projects.

The Committee then decided to defer the organization’s application.

A representative of Global Peace Foundation (United States) said the group organized a global peace convention in the Philippines co-sponsored by the education and tourism departments, which gathered 700 educators for training.  It also partnered with Google Kenya to mitigate the chances for violence around the 2017 presidential election in that country.  The representative of China asked about a 2016 event featuring the Director of Tibet House in New Delhi at a round table and asked about the organization’s position on that organization. 

The representative of Global Peace Foundation replied that the Foundation had replied in writing to that query in 2016, reiterating that it had no political position on China or its provinces.  China’s delegate went on to ask that an answer be provided in writing, stating that Tibet autonomous region was an integral part of China.  The representative of Global Peace Foundation said its position would in no way be contradictory to China’s Governmental position, which was accepted by the United Nations.  “We accept the United Nations standards and China’s sovereignty,” he replied.  “We accept the position of China and its provinces, according to the United Nations standards.”  China’s delegate requested another written response, noting that he was not satisfied with the one given on 13 May.

The Committee then decided to defer the organization’s application.

A representative of Malteser International e.V. (Germany) said the organization worked in the areas of water, sanitation, health, hygiene and disaster preparedness and response, on all continents with 100 projects annually in 25 to 27 countries.  It had responded to questions in writing last May and would be happy to field others today.

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

A representative of Gulf Centre for Human Rights Ltd. (Ireland) said the group supported and protected human rights in the Gulf region.  “We don’t do politics,” he said, but rather capacity-building, having trained 800 human rights defenders in the region.  “Our aim is to defend people’s rights and empower them to have a prosperous future,” he added, and foster understanding that the key defeating terrorism was through human rights. 

The representative of Mauritania requested the names of individuals on its advisory and executive bodies, to which a Secretariat official responded that it was not the Committee’s policy to request the names of individuals.  The representative of China asked about the group’s training and work in the area of digital security, to which the organization’s representative replied that it involved work against hacking and to protect the privacy of human rights defenders.

The Committee then decided to defer the organization’s application.

For information media. Not an official record.