Committee on NGOs

773^rd Meeting (PM)

NGO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS GIRLS INCORPORATED FOR ECOSOC CONSULTATIVE STATUS

The Committee on Non-governmental Organizations met this afternoon to continue its consideration of applications from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council which were deferred from its session in June 2000.

The 19-member Committee makes recommendations on applications to the Economic and Social Council for consultative status from NGOs, using a variety of criteria including the applicants’ mandates, governance and financial regimes.  NGOs with consultative status have general, special or roster status category, with different privileges and obligations accorded to each.

The Committee recommended the Economic and Social Council grant special consultative status to Girls Incorporated, closed the application from the Youth Federation for World Peace and deferred applications from Leadership for Environment and Development, Community of Sant’Egidio and the In Honour of Mandela Fund 

Regarding the application for general consultative status from the Youth Federation for World Peace, after a lengthy debate the Committee decided to close the case and send a letter to the organization informing it that consideration of its application was closed.  During the debate, representatives from Germany, Bolivia, India, Pakistan, France, Algeria, and the Russian Federation expressed dissatisfaction with the response from the organization to questions asked, noting the response had been made through a lawyer.  Concern was also expressed about the organization’s links with the Unification Church.  The representative of Bolivia felt the lawyer’s letter rather “insolent”, while the representative of India regarded it as legally untenable and said it, therefore, should be regarded as null and void.

During Committee’s consideration of the application for special consultative status from Girls Incorporated, the representatives of Chile, India and Pakistan said they fully supported this application.  The Committee agreed to recommend granting special consultative status to the organization by consensus.

Regarding the application for general consultative status from the Leadership for Environment and Development, the representative of Chile said that the organization’s responses had been very satisfactory and supported recommending granting consultative status.  However, the representative of China wanted to know if training programmes were free or paid for, while the representative of Sudan asked the organization to outline specific activities it was involved with in developing countries.  The application was deferred pending a response to these questions.  The representative of India had also asked for clarification on grants the organization received in the form of contracts from the Rockefeller

Foundation, and was given an explanation by the representative of the United States.

The Committee then moved on to consider the applications of NGOs whose representatives were present.

Regarding the application for general consultative status from the Community of Sant’Egidio, the representative of the organization, in response to questions from the representative of Algeria, said that most of the questions asked required a much more elaborate response than could be made in the present setting.  He confirmed that his organization was peaceful and respectful.  It tried to show that, by establishing supportive relationships with governments around the world in order to help resolve conflict.  They did not intervene in conflicts unless asked to do so, either by the government or religious or civil society groups.  In the case of Mozambique, his organization had become involved because it had been asked to do so by people in prison there.  Many human rights organizations had conceded that being a prisoner in an African prison was much more challenging than being imprisoned in some other parts of the world.  He asked that questions from Committee members be sent to the organization in writing in order to allow it to respond fully.

The Chairman asked delegates to submit their questions to the Committee secretariat, which would then send them on to the organization.  The case was deferred pending a response to those questions.

In response to questions regarding the application for special consultative status from Marie Stopes International, asked by the representative of Sudan, the representative of the organization said the Government of Sudan and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) had invited it to provide help in the country.  That would be funded by UNFPA.  On the issue of working in a culturally-sensitive way, she said they did this by hiring only local staff.  All directors, except for two, were local and the organization depended on the staff and local boards to ensure that the services being offered were culturally sensitive.  She added, in response to question from the representatives of Bolivia and Chile, that as far as she knew there were no plans to expand the work they did in Bolivia, but with regard to Latin American, they were currently running programmes in Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru and Bolivia, and had also received funding to work in Colombia.  In response to a question from the representative of Ethiopia, she said that she was not aware of any plans to expand the work that the organization was currently doing in different parts of Africa.

The Committee recommended granting special consultative status to the organization.

Regarding the application for special consultative status from the In Honour of Mandela Fund, the observer member of South Africa said that the organization’s mission was very commendable, especially with regard to its focus on education and health care.  Although he wanted to support the work of the organization, there were concerns about whether the organization had received approval to use the Mandela name, for which his country had regulations.  The NGO had no formal or informal links with the Mandela name in South Africa.  It had no track record and it had not established any projects in Africa.

In response to questions from the representative of Germany, the representative of the organization said there was still some uncertainty about the use of the Mandela name, and the organization’s lawyer was in touch with

Mr. Mandela’s attorney in trying to address the issue.  With regard to its international status, it had been approached by six other African countries and had plans to establish programmes in South Africa.  On the issue of implementation of projects and programmes, she said that they had been working with education officials in the Eastern Cape and the rest of South Africa, but projects had been put on hold while the issue of the use of the name Mandela was still unresolved.

The Committee decided that application be deferred until the issue of the use of the name Mandela had been resolved.

The Committee will meet again tomorrow, 18 January, at 10 a.m. to continue its considerations.

* *** *