NGO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS TWO BODIES FOR CONSULTATIVE STATUS, DEFERS FOUR OTHERS, LEAVES ONE PENDING

Committee on NGOs

2001 Session

23^rd Meeting (AM)

NGO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS TWO BODIES FOR CONSULTATIVE STATUS,

DEFERS FOUR OTHERS, LEAVES ONE PENDING

The Committee on Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) this morning recommended two organizations for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, deferred the applications of four others and left one decision pending, as it continued its consideration of new applications.

Special consultative status was recommended for Feminist Majority Foundation and Migrants Rights International.  

The applications of Nonviolence International, Hope for Africa, International Environmental Law Research Centre and Japan Civil Liberties Union were deferred, pending further clarifications.  The Committee had not yet received responses from Nonviolence International and International Environmental Law Research Centre to questions originally posed to them. 

A decision on Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND), based in the Philippines, was left pending, to allow Committee members more time to consider that organization’s application.  The representative of India asked the NGO how it balanced the fact that it was a national organization with a national scope and that it worked in other areas such as Sri Lanka and India.  Also, how did the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) provide doctors for forensic work, as stated in the application?  He requested a copy of the NGO’s audited financial statement. 

Sudan’s representative requested information on the link between the NGO and the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD), which had participated in the CHR.  In addition, how was the NGO able to participate in the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances without yet having status?  China’s representative also questioned the NGO’s participation in the CHR.   

Participation by one NGO in the CHR via other organizations was not a new phenomenon, noted France’s representative.  Involuntary disappearances was a subject his country took very seriously, as it was one of the most painful violations of human rights.  The work of the organization could only contribute to the elaboration of a convention on the issue.

The representative of FIND replied that the NGO was national in scope with various chapters in different parts of the country.  It did national and

international advocacy work and had initiated the formation of AFAD, which was composed of five organizations from the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, India and Sri Lanka.  She clarified that the NGO had participated with the Philippine Commission on Human Rights, which provided doctors for exhumation missions.

She said that both FIND and AFAD had participated in a series of activities in the CHR through the help of the Latin American Federation on Involuntary Disappearances (FEDEFAM), which had consultative status with the Economic and Social Council.  As to the work of the NGO, about which Tunisia had asked, she said that it searched for victims and conducted exhumation missions.  It also gave direct financial assistance to the families of the victims and provided rehabilitation for those experiencing emotional trauma.  Most of the work was done on a volunteer basis.  

On why it was necessary for FIND to receive status, a question posed by Germany, she replied that with consultative status, FIND could speak more emphatically and in a more focused way about the situation in the Philippines.  She added that the Philippine Government gave about 5 million Philippine pesos, which was distributed to FIND through the Philippine Commission on Human Rights.

In the case of Hope for Africa, an international organization based in the United States and requesting general status, some members expressed dissatisfaction with the responses received with regard to the organization’s membership, finances and activities.  The representative of Germany pointed out that the NGO had revenues of $649 and had not yet implemented any of its projects.  He requested the organization to reconsider its application and return with some concrete work.  The representatives of the United States and Sudan wanted further information on specific concrete projects, particularly in Africa. 

In the case of Japan Civil Liberties Union, China’s representative noted that the NGO had an income of more than 64 million Japanese yen and an expenditure of only 18 million yen with 6 million yen on projects.  Why did the NGO spend so little on projects and why was its expenditure so much smaller than its income? Also, in one of its responses, it referred to “Taiwan, Republic of China”.  He requested the NGO change that reference to “Taiwan, Province of China”.  Also, in what manner did the NGO participate in the CHR as an observer? 

Further, was the NGO a national or international organization?

Noting that the NGO had participated in the World Conference on Human Rights (Vienna, 1993), India’s representative wanted to know why it took seven or eight years for the NGO to apply for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council.  Also, had the NGO applied at any other time since its formation in 1951?

The 19-member Committee considers, among other things, applications submitted by NGOs for consultative status and their requests for reclassification.  Non-governmental, non-profit voluntary organizations can be admitted into consultative status with the Council if they meet the requirements detailed in Council resolution 1996/31, regarding matters which include the organization’s activities, decision-making processes and resources.

Non-governmental organizations with consultative status are classified under the "general", "special" or "roster" categories.  Those in the general category must be "concerned with most of the activities of the Economic and Social Council and its subsidiary bodies".  The special category concerns those "which have a special competence in, and are concerned specifically with, only a few of the fields of activity covered by the Council".  The roster category relates to NGOs which "can make occasional and useful contributions to the work of the Council or its subsidiary bodies." 

Different privileges and obligations are accorded to each category.  NGOs with general status can propose items for the Council agenda, attend and speak at meetings and circulate statements.  Those with special status can attend meetings and circulate statements, while those on the roster can only attend meetings.  Organizations with general and special status must report every four years on their activities in support of the United Nations.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. today to continue consideration of new applications for consultative status.

* *** *