Economic and Social Council

2008 Substantive Session

36^th & 37^th Meetings (AM & PM)

DANGER IN CLIMATE CHANGE TALKS: COUNTRIES MOVING AT ‘BUSINESS AS USUAL’ PACE,

BUT EXTRAORDINARILY RAPID ACTION NEEDED, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL TOLD

Panel on ‘An Inclusive Approach to Climate Change: UN System’s Role’;

Also Takes Action on Reports of Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations

When talking about climate change, “context is everything these days” and the United Nations “does not operate in a bubble”, the Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Planning in the Executive Office of the Secretary-General told the Economic and Social Council today as it continued its general segment with a panel discussion on the United Nations approach to global warming.

Speaking on that panel, Robert Orr also stressed that the danger around climate talks today was that countries were moving at a “business as usual” pace, when what was needed was an “extraordinarily rapid” pace.  While recent negotiations in Bangkok and Bonn had been constructive, he said that “the road to Copenhagen passes through Poznán”, referring to the meeting which precedes the fifteenth Conference of the Parties meeting in Denmark, which will mark the end of the current climate change negotiating cycle.

Without a constructive meeting in Poznán, fitting everything into next year would be “nigh to impossible”, he said.  At the same time, implementation could not -- and should not -- wait for a negotiated outcome, and there was a parallel need to change individual behaviour around the world.  “We cannot forget that all of our publics must be brought on board,” he asserted.

“There is a strong sense of urgency for the United Nations system to deliver on climate change”, said Thomas Stelzer, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, who joined Mr. Orr on the panel entitled “An inclusive and coherence approach to climate change: the role of the United Nations system”.

From his Department’s point of view, Mr. Stelzer said the importance of harnessing science and technology was critical.  Technology transfer would be a large part of that, although much of the work of transferring clean-climate technologies largely remained undone.  To that end, a high-level conference on technology transfer was scheduled for November 2008 in Beijing.

In afternoon action, the Council adopted without a vote two draft resolutions aimed at strengthening the Non-Governmental Organizations Section of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and improving the reporting procedures of those organizations with consultative status.

In the first resolution, “Measures to improve the quadrennial reporting procedures”, contained in the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2008 regular session (document E/2008/32, Part I), the Council decided on new deadlines for the procedure by which organizations would submit quadrennial reports, and guidelines for the suspension of consultative status of any non-governmental organization with an outstanding report.  It requested the Non-Governmental Organizations Section to ensure that the revised guidelines were clearly posted on its website, and included in the initial letter sent to each non-governmental organization that had been granted general or special consultative status.

By the second resolution on “Strengthening of the Non-Governmental Organizations Section of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat”, contained in the excerpt from the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its resumed 2008 session (document E/2008/L.9), the Council emphasized the need to strengthen partnership with civil society by integrating analytical capacity with technical cooperation activities, and regretted the weak capacity of the Non-Governmental Organizations Section.

Further by the text, the Council requested the Secretary-General to ensure the full use of the resources allocated to it, the filling of all vacant posts, and to report on proposals to further strengthen the capacity of the Section within the context of the proposed programme budget for the 2010-2011 biennium.

Also, the Council recommended that a technical cooperation programme be established for the Section aimed at providing advisory services; arranging capacity-building workshops for launching the United Nations Non-Governmental Organization Informal Regional Network at national, regional and international levels; developing training materials; and promoting pilot joint partnerships between the United Nations, civil society and Governments worldwide.

The Council also approved eight draft decisions contained in the reports of the Committee.  By one of the texts, the Council, by a vote of 29 in favour to 19 against, with 3 abstentions, decided not to grant consultative status with the Council to the United States-based Human Rights Foundation.

Also by a show-of-hands vote of 22 against to 20 in favour, with 9 abstentions, the Council rejected a draft decision by which it would have decided not to grant consultative status to the Spain-based Federación Estatal de Lesbianas, Gays, Transexuales y Bisexuales.  Later in the meeting, some delegations expressed concerns that their votes had not been accurately reflected in the tally and proposed a motion to reopen the voting on draft decision II, which was included in the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations (document E/2008/32, Part I).  Holding a roll-call vote on that motion, the Council voted to retake the vote tomorrow, with 27 members voting in favour to 23 against, with 3 abstaining.

Speaking before that vote, several delegations took the floor to express concern at an attempt to revise the decisions made by the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, a subsidiary body of the Council.

The Council also adopted without a vote the following additional draft decisions: “applications for consultative status and requests for reclassification received from non-governmental organizations” in the Committee’s 2008 regular session and resumed 2008 session; “application of the American Sports Committee”; “report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2008 regular session”; “complaint against the non-governmental organization World Union for Progressive Judaism”; “dates of and provisional agenda for the 2009 session of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations”; and “report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2008 resumed session”.

Also speaking during the interactive discussion following the panel were representatives of El Salvador, France (on behalf of the European Union), United States, and Indonesia.

Representatives from the World Meteorological Organization, United Nations Industrial Development Organization, the World Bank and the United Nations Environment Programme also spoke.

Mr. Stelzer also introduced the annual overview report of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination for 2008.

Inga-Britt Ahlenius, Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, gave an oral presentation on the general findings of the report on the thematic evaluation of lessons learned: protocols and practices.

Speaking in the ensuing general discussion were the representatives of Malaysia, United States and Antigua and Barbuda.

During the afternoon’s consideration of non-governmental organizations, statements were made by the representatives of Iraq, Cuba, Egypt (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Russian Federation, Bolivia, Spain, United States, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Qatar, Venezuela, Belarus, Sudan, Algeria, France (on behalf of the European Union), China, Angola, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Cape Verde, Pakistan, New Zealand and the Netherlands.

The representatives of France and the United States introduced draft decisions on special consultative status for the Federación Estatal de Lesbianas, Gays, Transexuales y Bisexuales and consultative status for the Human Rights Foundation, respectively.

The Council will reconvene at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 22 July, to conclude action on matters related to the reports of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations.

Background

The Economic and Social Council today continued its general segment, during which it will review the reports of its subsidiary bodies and other United Nations entities working in the economic and social fields.  The subsidiary bodies include the Council’s functional commissions, regional commissions and expert and ad hoc bodies.

Under its agenda item on “coordination, programme and other questions”, the Council will consider the annual overview report of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination for 2008 (document E/2008/58); report of the Committee for Programme and Coordination on its forty-eighth session (document A/63/16, Supp. No. 16); and the relevant sections of the proposed strategic framework for the period 2010-2011 (document A/63/6).

The Council will also take up the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2008 regular session (document E/2008/32, Part I) under its item on “non-governmental organizations”.

Panel Discussion

The Economic and Social Council began this morning with a panel discussion on “An inclusive and coherent approach to climate change: The role of the United Nations system”, which featured Robert Orr, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Planning in the Executive Office of the Secretary-General, and Thomas Stelzer, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs.  Chairing the panel was Jean-Marc Hoscheit ( Luxembourg), Vice-President of the Economic and Social Council.

Opening the meeting, Mr. HOSCHEIT said today’s panel discussion was being held within the framework of the Council’s consideration of the agenda item on the report of the Chief Executives Board, which was coordinating the United Nations response to climate change.  Central to the discussion was how the Organization was coordinating its response to the post-Bali road map of negotiations in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change context.  It was a fact that climate change was among the most pressing threats today, which involved all aspects of development -– including food, jobs and agriculture – and, as such, it required system-wide action.

Speaking first, Mr. ORR said that, when talking about climate change, “context is everything these days” and the United Nations “does not operate in a bubble”.  The Secretary-General had spoken about three crises -- of food, climate and development –- which must be addressed by the Millennium Development Goals.  They interacted with each other, and it was important to understand them as interrelated.  While climate change had been pushed to the background of some discussions at the United Nations, it was at the forefront of debate in the parts of the world that were experiencing its impact.  Food and fuel situations could not be addressed without coping with the long-term solutions to climate change.  “The focus on climate change is well justified”, he said.

Discussing the current situation, he described a danger today vis-à-vis the negotiations: that countries were moving at a “business as usual” pace, when what was needed was an “extraordinarily rapid” pace.  While negotiations in Bangkok and Bonn had been constructive, he reminded delegates that “the road to Copenhagen passes through Poznan, Poland”.  Without a constructive meeting there, fitting everything into next year would become “nigh to impossible”.

To prevent that, he said, the Secretary-General was maintaining contact with world leaders to keep the climate issue at the Head-of-State level.  At the start of 2007, the number of Heads of State who were conversant on climate change had been “quite small”; at the start of 2008, there had been a “significantly expanded group”, which needed to expand further heading into the 2009 negotiating cycle.

Taking up the implementation challenge, he recalled that the United Nations was not the only implementer; much of that burden must be handled at the national level.  The United Nations implementation capacities were very needed today and would be in higher demand tomorrow.  The Secretary-General had been conscious about climate change and the United Nations must improve its capacity to implement climate-related agreements.  While extraordinary measures were being undertaken, “demands exceeded supply”.  Since April 2007, the Secretary-General had raised the issue at every Chief Executives Board meeting.  While it was natural that everyone focused on the negotiation track, implementation could not -- and should not -- wait for a negotiated outcome.  It was essential to move on the implementation challenges today, especially as that would feed a constructive dynamic in the negotiation itself.  A new agreement on capacity-building -- “implementable” by States large and small, rich and poor -- was also needed, and the United Nations was trying to address that challenge.

Alongside implementation was the need to change individual behaviour around the world, he continued.  Indeed, the scope of that change could be scary, but could also provide huge opportunity, as States moved towards a new agreement.  “We cannot forget that all of our publics must be brought on board”, he asserted.  The Secretary-General was looking at how to raise awareness among publics, and at the same time work with Governments to ensure that the burden was shared.

In closing, he pointed out that the “mean knowledge in the room” on the climate challenge often exceeded that of senior negotiators.  Younger generations had embraced climate change as an urgent global challenge, and he called on others to follow that approach.

Mr. STELZER, reporting on the United Nations system’s response to climate change, said the world body was coordinating its work to respond to the challenge.  From the point of view of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, climate change was the defining issue in the area of sustainable development, and would continue to be for generations.  The consequences were enormous and threatened to undo much of the investments made to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

Yet, he said, “we are told that the costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of action”, and developed countries should take the lead.  Not only was the environment at risk, but so too were peace, security and migration.  The United Nations system as a whole had been aware of and working on climate change issues for years, but the current Secretary-General had made the topic a major focus of his work.

In Bali last December, the Secretary-General had presented an overview of the Organization’s response, which had been developed by the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination through the High-Level Committee on Programmes, he continued.  It had drawn from the myriad initiatives undertaken and discussions held through the United Nations system, including in the high-level thematic debate held in the General Assembly.  By March 2008, the High-Level Committee on Programmes, which is one of the three pillars of the Board, had undertaken an intense discussion and refinement of the coordination of the United Nations system’s climate change work, with the Board endorsing the ensuing recommendations at its meeting on 28 April in Bern.

He said that, following on the negotiation process under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and in pursuit of the broader mandates and capacities of the Organizations, the High-Level Committee on Programmes had identified five focus areas for United Nations system activity response: adaptation; technology transfer; capacity-building; reduction of emissions from deforestation and degradation; and mitigation finance.

In that context, he said work was ongoing in the areas of agriculture and fisheries, disaster risk reduction, education, energy, forestry, health, populations and human settlements, transport and water, among others.  An online database on United Nations work in those areas was currently being created to supplement the broad information on climate change that was already available online.  In addition, work was continuing within the Chief Executives Board framework to coordinate the United Nations contribution to the upcoming conference in Poznan, Poland, in December 2008.

“There is a strong sense of urgency for the United Nations system to deliver on climate change,” he said.  From his Department’s point of view, the importance of harnessing science and technology was critical.  Technology transfer would be a large part of that, although much of the work of transferring clean-climate technologies largely remained undone.  To that end, a high-level conference on technology transfer was scheduled for November 2008 in Beijing.

In the interactive dialogue that followed, the representative of El Salvador said that the issue of climate change, and the response of States to it, must be on the political agenda, and Heads of State of every country must take action.  Could the United Nations Development Assistance Framework be adapted to demonstrate that climate change was indeed a priority in the United Nations system?

The representative of the United States underscored that changing the “business as usual” mentality, particularly in recognition of the magnitude of the challenges -- mobilizing resources for adaptation and mitigation, and possibly technical transfer -- would be massive.  There was much competition for United Nations funds.  The question was, would the Chiefs Executive Board lend its focus to that area?  What resources could be reallocated?  He also wondered about the status of discussions on the United Nations climate neutrality and possible purchase of carbon offsets.

The representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union, wondered what developing countries could expect from the work initiated by the Chief Executives Board and to what extent States could play a role in strengthening the coherence of the United Nations.

The representative of Indonesia underlined that the United Nations could support States by developing pragmatic programmes to help them cope with the adverse impacts of climate change.  She sought more information on the United Nations capacity-building efforts and strategies for increasing public awareness.

Responding, Mr. ORR, referring to the relation of United Nations work to country responses to climate change, said two important processes were under way, one of which was the system-wide coherence discussion, which “gets to the heart of development planning”.  How States decided to proceed on that discussion would have an impact on how much the United Nations could do on the question of climate change.

To the question on carbon neutrality, he said that was a “pretty darn high standard”.  The Board’s decision last October was to move the United Nations towards climate neutrality, but efforts were in an early stage, and the offset discussion was part of broader talks that would conclude in October 2009.  On strengthening the United Nations system-wide coherence on the question of climate change, he said a report was out on that issue.  How States chose to move forward would affect how the Organization could proceed.

As to how the United Nations was helping States build capacity and raise awareness on climate change, he said the “locus of action” would not just be at the United Nations.  The capacity-building question would be addressed in the negotiations and new funding streams might be available for that.  “Capacity-building efforts” was a big label for many measures in various areas; it was important that those efforts be linked to a broader strategic process.  On raising public awareness, he said that, while the Secretary-General was regularly using his platform, much of that work would have to happen at the national level.

To a question on the United Nations Development Assistance Framework, Mr. STELZER said that the United Nations Development Group was undertaking efforts to review the mechanism.  Capacity at the national level had to be built up, even as it was kept in mind that national Governments had to take the lead.  Efforts to enhance access to information were focusing on an electronic database that would identify best practices and focal points and would be available for both recipients and donors.  The Secretary-General was also putting together a report on progress on cross-cutting issues with concrete deliverables in such areas as reducing emissions from deforestation and ecosystem degradation, and work on that would continue after the conference in Poznan.

Responding to a question on what could be expected from the Board’s coordination efforts, he further emphasized that the United Nations system placed great emphasis on assisting countries in their own work.  In the area of adaptation, the Board’s work was closely coordinated with relevant national plans of action.  The United Nations Development Group had also been tasked with conducting its work in way that linked issues at the global and country levels.

When the floor was reopened, one speaker noted that a coherent approach to climate change was highly important, given the fact different discussions were unfolding on different tracks, including among industrialized countries, intergovernmental organizations and regional blocs.  While they provided progress in many areas, that multiplicity of efforts held a risk that the pace and objective of all that talking would not always be focused on the development of an instrument to combat climate change in the post-Kyoto era.

Echoing that idea, another speaker said that, because the United Nations was one of the few bodies that tended to get involved in such discussions, it could have a role to play by sharing information on what group or body was working in a certain area.  In so doing, it could reduce duplication of effort and steer different groups away from contradictory initiatives.

A representative of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), emphasizing that the demand for climate prediction and information services would be even higher in the context of climate change and the increasing vulnerability of populations, stressed that adaptation efforts should be coordinated with social and economic development in an integrated manner.  To that end, WMO would be working in close cooperation with other United Nations agencies to organize the Third World Climate Conference next year.

A representative of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) emphasized the foundational role of energy issues in all climate change discussions and initiatives, and the need to tackle issues related to energy access within the climate change response.

A representative of the World Bank, inquiring about the interface with the Department of Political Affairs, asked what efforts had been made to ensure that there were references to climate change in such areas as peacekeeping operations.

A representative of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) took the floor to respond to a question from France on the work in the Chief Executives Board on climate change.  She emphasized that that work was being carried out in a responsible way.  To strengthen the United Nations system on climate change, Member States had to provide guidance on the various boards and programmes in which they were involved.

Responding to a point on raising public awareness, Mr. STELZER said the question was how well positioned the Secretary-General was to respond with “one voice” on climate change.  In Bali, he had spoken with one voice, which had strengthened his position in contributing to a positive outcome of the Bali negotiations.  To a point about the United Nations work on energy issues, he said there was not one United Nations agency that had a comprehensive energy mandate; that issue was addressed through various agencies.  The United Nations had registered progress, and he appreciated UNIDO’s leadership role in that aspect.

To a question posed by the World Bank, he responded that cooperation with the Department of Political Affairs was not a Chief Executives Board measure; it was a Secretariat measure.  The Board’s process involved the heads of United Nations organizations coming together, which had had a very strong impact on cohesion and the alignment of future work.  It was often difficult to tell United Nations organizations to “get coordinated”; what worked was coming together on a specific issue.  An example of that was the work being done to address the food crisis; success had been “dramatic” and had overlapped with the question of climate change.  The Comprehensive Framework for Action was a good example of how the United Nations could respond in a unified manner in the face of huge challenges.  In closing, he said that, in the future, it might be useful to brief on regional and other meetings, including the Group of Eight (G-8) Summit, which would facilitate coherent discussions.  His office would try to do that next year.

Concluding the round table, Mr. HOSCHEIT said it was essential for the United Nations to become more organized on the question of climate change, so it could respond to the magnitude of the challenges ahead.  To that end, the Economic and Social Council could provide a key platform for discussing the interface between development and climate change problems.

Introduction of Reports

The Council then began its joint consideration of agenda items on the reports of the coordination bodies and the proposed strategic framework for the period of 2010-2011.

Mr. STELZER introduced the annual overview report of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination for 2008 (document E/2008/58), which provides an overview of the major development in inter-agency cooperation within the framework of the Chief Executives Board during the period covering the Board’s fall 2007 and spring 2008 sessions.

Highlighting some of the major developments that had characterized the work of the Board during the 2007-2008 period, he underscored that several significant events had taken place to strengthen the role and functioning of the Board in its efforts to increase coherence within the United Nations system.  Among them, the Board had agreed to integrate the United Nations Development Group into its framework alongside its two standing subsidiary bodies, the High-Level Committee on Management and the High-Level Committee on Programmes.

At the centre of the inter-agency coordination structure, the Board brought together inter-agency mechanisms, including vertical and horizontal coordination from global to country level and across the wide spectrum of mandates and expertise of Board members, he said.  General Assembly resolution 62/208 had placed considerable emphasis on the role of the Board in ensuring coherence, effectiveness and efficiency in the United Nations system.

Noting that climate change had been one of the Board’s programme priorities, he said the High-Level Committee on Programmes had played a key role in supporting the development of the contribution of the United Nations system at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali in December 2007.  Drawing from the views expressed by Member States during the General Assembly’s thematic debate on climate change in February 2008, the Board was currently facilitating a coordinated approach for the ongoing intergovernmental negotiations in preparation for the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to be held in Poznan, Poland in December 2008.

The Board had also initiated a review of the emerging global food price challenge and adopted a common strategy in support of developing countries confronting the crisis in the short, medium and long terms, he said.  It had established a High-Level Task Force on the Global Food Crisis chaired by the Secretary-General.  The Comprehensive Framework for Action developed by the Task Force, which was intended to be a living document subject to updates and amendments as the challenge evolved over time, had been circulated among delegations.

The Board had also focused on the need for clarity with respect to the various United Nations system initiatives on Africa, he said.  It had prepared, under the auspices of the High-Level Committee on Programmes, two publications: Toolkit for Mainstreaming Employment and Decent Work and Trade Capacity-Building: Inter-Agency Resource Guide.  It would also be considering the United Nations system action plan for further implementation of the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries during 2007-2010, aid-for-trade, United Nations-Energy, United Nations-Water and United Nations-Oceans, the rights of persons with disabilities, peacebuilding and disaster risk reduction.

He further said that ongoing deliberations in the General Assembly on system-wide coherence had highlighted the key role that improved business practices could play in the ability of the United Nations system to deliver better results.  A plan of action for the harmonization of business practices had, therefore, been developed, and covered all the major management functions of the United Nations common system organizations in the areas of finance and budget, human resources and information and communications technology.  The proposed activities represented a new level of commitment towards a realignment of business practices.

In line with its commitments for system-wide coherence, he said the Board had also dedicated considerable effort to strengthening its relationship and improving cooperation with other inter-agency mechanisms, such as the International Civil Service Commission, the representatives of the internal audit services, the Joint Inspection Unit and the United Nations Evaluation Group.  Other important management achievements included the integration of the procurement network into the High-Level Committee on Management, the establishment of a legal network and the provision of support to the “delivering as one” pilot projects.

Introducing the Office of Internal Oversight Services report, INGA-BRITT AHLENIUS, Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, presented a summary of the general findings of the report on the thematic evaluation of lessons learned: protocols and practices, which had been requested by the Committee for Programme and Coordination at its forty-sixth session in 2006.  The report’s objective was to assess systems and mechanisms used to identify, capture and disseminate lessons learned in the Secretariat and determine to what extent they were used to enhance performance.

She focused on the findings as they related to programmes and coordinating committees working in the economic and social arena: the Department of Economic and Social Affairs; the five regional commissions; International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO; Office of the High Representative for Land Locked States; Office of the Special Adviser on Africa; United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD); United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat); United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC); Executive Committee on Economic and Social Affairs; and the United Nations Development Group.

Continuing, she explained that the most commonly used mechanisms for learning lessons among those programmes were informal communications among staff, which presented a serious challenge to knowledge retention within the Organization, particularly as a large number of staff were expected to retire.  Formal lesson-learning mechanisms included meetings and conferences, and so-called “post-mortems”, often used after the implementation of a certain activity to review what had gone wrong and right.

Describing other formal mechanisms, she highlighted the evaluations channel, saying that, for the 2004-2005 biennium, her Office estimated that less than half of Secretariat programmes had undergone some form of self-evaluation or external evaluation.  Programme performance, planning and monitoring had a limited role as a mechanism to collect and feed lessons learned into programme operations, due to the limited use of performance data for managerial assessment and decision-making in subprogrammes.  Communities of practice and databases were among the two least commonly used mechanisms.  However, UN-HABITAT offered an exceptional example of a lessons learned database that had proven to be a helpful tool for storing and sharing knowledge.  Coordinating bodies in the area of Economic and Social affairs had played a limited role.

Turning to the obstacles preventing programmes from collecting and using lessons in a more systematic way, she said her Office had found that resources dedicated to that area were “very limited”.  Indeed, UNCTAD had noted resource availability as a “serious issue”, and there were other instances where lesson-learning activities had been discontinued due to lack of managerial support.  The absence of training, incentives or rewards made collection even more difficult.  In closing, she recommended improving coordination within and among programmes on lessons learned; assigning a unit in the Secretariat with the responsibility for coordinating programmes in the use of lessons learned and best practices; making collection of lessons learned and best practices more systematic; and creating capacity among different systems that staff could use to collect and use lessons learned.

General Discussion

In the ensuing general discussion, HAMIDON ALI ( Malaysia) said the overview report of the Chief Executives Board for Coordination indicated the increasingly important role that the Board would play in the future.  That was why further efforts must be made to strengthen the organic linkages between the Board and the wider membership of the United Nations in general and the Council in particular.  The aims of strengthening that link were two-fold: to promote greater coherence between the Board and Member States; and to enhance the transparency of the Board’s work.  One way to achieve that would be for the Council to invite the Board for a discussion once each quarter.  The High-Level Committee on Programmes also could brief the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) periodically.

On the integration of the United Nations Development Group into the Board, he said there should be an assessment of how effective that had been.  He noted with great concern that the report’s section on evaluating the “Delivering as One” initiative made no reference to the role of Member States.  He asked for more clarity on avoiding duplication between the High-Level Task Force on the Global Food Crisis and the High-Level Committee on Programmes.  The report also should have addressed the gender mainstreaming issue.

R. CLARKE COOPER ( United States) spoke on the overview report of the Chief Executives Board, saying that the Board was uniquely positioned to leverage strengths within the United Nations system.  On the issue of internal audit reports, he said the General Assembly had authorized the Office of Internal Oversight Services to make its audit reports available to States, which enhanced transparency.  He suggested that the original version of those reports also be made available to States upon request, which would provide States the opportunity to ask questions where needed.

Concerning coordination and budget planning on the strategic framework for the 2010-2011 period, he noted that some changes made had been technical in nature, while others had been made in the context of political considerations.  He looked forward to the opportunity to offer a detailed analysis.  On the functioning of the Committee for Programme and Coordination, he said the Committee was not fulfilling its tasks of coordinating the Organization’s work, adding that its implementation, evaluation and coordination activities continued to merit careful attention.  It must ensure that maximum use was made of resources.

The representative of Antigua and Barbuda asked if, other than resources, there were any other structural constraints that prevented the sharing of lessons learned.

In response to the question from Malaysia on the United Nations Development Group, Mr. STELZER said it was too soon after the integration of the Development Group into the Board’s structure to measure results.  It would, however, be analysed eventually.  He further said that the first stage of the evaluation of the “Delivering as One” pilot projects had not been completed and would be dealt with in the next report.  Gender issues would also be reported on.

He added that there would be no overlap between the work of the High-Level Committee on Programmes, which was a pillar of the Board, and the High-Level Task Force on the Global Food Crisis, which had been established by the Board.  The High-Level Task Force brought together heads of United Nations agencies, funds and programmes and the Bretton Woods institutions, while the High-Level Committee on Programmes operated at the level of deputies.

The Council then took note of the annual overview report of the United Nations system Chief Executives Board for Coordination 2007-2008 (document E/2008/58) and the report of the Committee for Programme and Coordination on its forty-eighth session (document A/63/16).

General Discussion on Non-Governmental Organizations

Beginning the Council’s general discussion under its agenda item on “non-governmental organizations”, the representative of Iraq said civil society and non-governmental organizations were independent; they had their own programmes, be they trade unions or involved with women’s rights.  His Government, based on its Constitution, had spoken about civil society’s contribution to different areas.  Indeed, civil society organizations educated people about such issues as their rights, constitutional concepts, the relationship between the citizen and the State and the adoption of a culture that rejected violence.

Continuing, he explained that the Ministry of State for Civil Society addressed of civil society issues in Iraq.  To best make use of civil society organizations, the Government was trying its best to address the humanitarian crisis and accelerate stability.

The representative of Cuba said it was important that the Council’s credibility be preserved.  He supported the work being done by the Section on Non-Governmental Organizations, and it was timely that the Council approve a draft resolution aimed at strengthening that Section.

In considering a request by the Human Rights Foundation, Council resolution 1996/31 would be tested, he continued.  An attempt was being made to disregard a decision made by the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations.  To return that matter to the Committee would be a waste of human and financial resources.  The Human Rights Foundation did not meet the requirements of consultative status, including the need for responses to questions posed by the Committee.  Also, the organization had shown on its website that it had carried out activities that promoted subversion.  There was irrefutable proof that the head of that organization had been involved in the planning and execution of terrorist activities in Cuba.  He had been arrested and tried, and was sanctioned by the Committee for his crimes.  When he was detained, he possessed plastic explosive made in the United States, and it would be an insult to portray him as a defender of human rights, as he had tried to take the lives of Cuban nationals.  He asked the Council to support the Committee’s recommendation.

The representative of Egypt, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the institutional balance of the Council with its subsidiary organs was being disturbed by today’s vote.  The Council did not have time to review each request by non-governmental organizations seeking consultative status with it. Thus, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations did so, according to the framework set out by the General Assembly.  The Council should make every effort in the short and long terms to preserve the functional capacities of its committees.  The Council should, of course, oversee the work of its committees, but it had a responsibility to support and strengthen the work of those committees.  Such support included not opening to review decisions undertaken by its committees on a selective basis.  The procedures guiding the work of those committees should be implemented on an equal basis.

Action on Draft Texts

The representative of France then introduced the draft decision E/2008/L.13, saying that the European Union regretted the discriminatory trend towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual groups in the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations for many years.  The Union thus called on the Committee to undertake its consideration with full and equal treatment for all organizations and by the draft decision requested the Council to reconsider the decision by the Committee to reject the application by the Federación Estatal de Lesbianas, Gays, Transexuales y Bisexuales and grant special consultative to that organization.

Draft decision E/2008/L.14 was introduced by the representative of the United States, who said that, since the Committee for Non-Governmental Organizations had met to review the status application of the Human Rights Foundation, new information had come to light on that group.  Because of that, the United States felt that the application should be returned to the Committee for further consideration.

The draft decision did not ask the Council to approve the Foundation’s application, he said.  Yet, the United States believed that the application should be approved.  If the information that was now available had been available to the Committee at the time of its decision, it too would have supported approval.  By the draft decision, the Committee would have an opportunity to reconsider the application with full information before it.

There was, he continued, ample precedence for this type of reconsideration, as the delegation from Cuba had pointed out.  The Council had, on two previous occasions, taken just such a decision.

Turning to the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2008 regular session (document E/2008/32, Part I), the Council adopted the draft resolution contained therein by consensus.

The Council then took up draft decision I in that report, adopting it without a vote.

Ahead of action on the draft decision on the application of Federación Estatyal de Lesbianas, Gays, Transexuales y Bisexuales, the representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union, requested a vote on the draft decision.

The representative of the Russian Federation, making a statement in connection with that draft decision, said his delegation did not support attempts to review at Economic and Social Council sessions previously adopted decisions by the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations.  He was convinced that such an initiative deepened unwanted politicization in the United Nations system.  The Russian Federation positively assessed non-governmental organizations’ contributions to the system and favoured more actively involving them in its work.

At the same time, the basis of constructive cooperation must be followed, he said.  The criteria set forth in that document should not be arbitrarily interpreted.  The Committee in May had made a detailed study of two non-governmental organizations, FederaciónEstatyal de Lesbianas, Gays, Transexuales y Bisexuales and the Human Rights Foundation, deciding that it would not be wise to grant them consultative status with the Economic and Social Council.  His delegation would vote to support that decision, and called on other members to do the same.

The representative of Egypt said he was taking the floor as a member of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations to address the “alarming trend” to review the Committee’s decisions -- a trend that had been increasing in recent years.  The Committee afforded each organization the opportunity to apply for consultative status.  It aimed to ensure that the aims of any organization conformed to the goals and sprit of the United Nations Charter.  Due process was key to ensuring the functional role of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations.  Those who attempted to revisit that decision today were those who criticized the work of the Council.

He noted that several serious questions had been raised by the Egyptian delegation about one organization, which had gone unanswered during the Committee’s session.   Egypt had then requested that more time be given, but that time had not been granted.  That was unfortunate, but today the delegation from Egypt did not seek to alter the Committee’s ultimate decision, because it believed that intuitional integrity was, as a matter of principle, paramount.  That did not mean that the Council should not review the work of its subsidiary bodies.  But, it did have a responsibility to reinforce the credibility of those bodies.  It should, therefore, not support the draft decision that sought to reconsider the decision of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations.

The representative of Bolivia, also speaking before the vote, expressed concern with the attempt to revise the decisions made by the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations using fallacious arguments within a strictly technical framework.  The Council’s committees were comprised of experts who undertook their work with professionalism.  Today’s attempt to review those decisions was tantamount to questioning the work of the Committee.  The organization in question acted against freely elected democratic Governments in Latin and South America.  Thus, he called on all Council members to support the Committee’s decision.

The representative of Spain, speaking as an observer and representative of a State with an interest in the future of a Spanish organization, said the matter had been reviewed last January.  The Economic and Social Council was a principle body under the United Nations Charter, and no one should deny the ability of that body to determine whether consultative status should be given to an organization.  Questions of law were involved in a decision of that kind.

He believed Federación Estatyal de Lesbianas, Gays, Transexuales y Bisexuales had the necessary qualifications for consultative status.  For the last 15 years, it had worked in areas of education, social integration and care for children.  He reminded the Council that the organization had respected principles put forward in the United Nations Charter.  No delegation had shown that its credentials were not there.  He called on all delegations to support the granting of consultative status to the Spain-based organization.

The representative of the United States supported the delegate of Spain’s comments.  It was not a question of subverting due process; it was a question of the Council reviewing the decisions of its subsidiary bodies.  That was common practice throughout the United Nations, and there should be no different effort of the Council. The Charter put the burden on the Council to make the ultimate decision regarding that matter. He believed it should accredit the organization and his delegation would so vote.

Speaking in explanation of the vote before the vote, the representative of France, on behalf of the European Union, said his delegation was concerned that, in refusing status, the Committee had acted in a discriminatory way.  He was convinced that the widest possible range of opinions should be represented.  To date, consultative status had been granted to more than 3,000 non-governmental organizations.  Among them were those with views not necessarily shared by his delegation, but he supported their representation.  It was essential that legitimate non-governmental organizations had the same rights as others to make their voices heard. That was the case of the Federación Estatyal de Lesbianas, Gays, Transexuales y Bisexuales, whose work supported United Nations activities in various areas, and he strongly insisted there was no valid reason not to grant it consultative status.  Discrimination was not admissible under any circumstance.

The Council then took action on draft decision II (document E/2008/32, Part I) by which it would decide not to grant consultative status to the Federación Estatal de Lesbianas, Gays, Transexuales y Bisexuales.  The text was rejected by a vote of 22 against to 20 in favour, with 9 abstentions.

The Council then adopted without a vote the third draft decision on the application of the American Sports Committee.

The Council then adopted without a vote the fourth draft decision on the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2008 regular session.

Prior to action on draft resolution E/2008/L.9, excerpt from the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its resumed 2008 session, the Secretary delivered a statement in accordance with rule 31 of the rules of procedure of the Council, saying that, with regard to operative paragraph 1, the capacity of the Non-Governmental Organizations Section to carry out its mandated activities, including the consultative arrangements and the accreditation of non-governmental organizations, had to be seen in the overall context of the resources and capacity of subprogramme 1, Economic and Social Council support and coordination, which fell under the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, section 9 of the programme budget.  The Non-Governmental Organization Section formed part of the structure of the Office for Economic and Social Council Support that implemented activities of subprogramme 1.  All posts and non-post resources assigned to that subprogramme were to date being fully utilized.

In addition, investments in information technology were being implemented by the Secretariat, and the Department of Economic and Social Affairs was currently developing a web-based tool kit to enhance the Department’s interface with civil society organizations, he said.  It would provide a single point of entry for civil society organizations to communicate with the Department, and would allow all stakeholders to have access to best practices and lessons learned from current and past activities.  That would strengthen work being done by the various divisions in the Department that provided substantive support to the Council and civil society organizations.

Regarding operative paragraph 2, he said the Council might wish to recall its decision 2002/225 requesting the Secretary-General to establish a general voluntary trust fund on the basis of the terms of reference contained in the annex to its decision.  The trust fund was intended for the Secretariat, among other things, to conduct capacity-building workshops, seminars and training programmes to strengthen non-governmental organization capabilities.  The activities called for under operative paragraph 2 might be undertaken under the existing trust fund from voluntary contributions, if available.  The current balance of that fund was $15,300.

In view of such considerations, he said the Secretariat wished to inform the Council that no additional appropriation for the biennium 2008-2009 would arise from the adoption of the draft resolution.

Speaking in connection with the draft resolution, the representative of Cuba said the Secretariat needed sufficient means to carry out the duties granted to it and it was regrettable that the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations did not have enough resources to conduct its work.  In addition, every effort should be made to fill current vacancies, and in the name of the principle of mobility, to do so in way that did not have a negative an impact on the institutional memory of the Committee.

The Council then adopted the resolution without a vote.

The Secretary said he had expressed the wish that the 2009 regular session of the Committee and its resumed session be held during an equal time period in January and May 2009.  Because of the lateness of the request, the Secretariat was not in a position to provide alternative dates.  Nevertheless, the Committee had decided to adopt the draft decision with provisional dates with the understanding that, upon confirmation by the Secretariat of the new dates meeting the Committee’s wish, the draft decision would be corrected accordingly prior to its adoption by the Council.  He was pleased to report that the request of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations could be met.  The 2009 regular session of the Committee and its resumed session were scheduled to be held from 19 to 28 January 2009 and from 18 to 27 May 2009.  The dates contained in paragraph (a) of draft decision IV were thus to be adjusted to read from 19 to 28 January 2009 and from 18 to 27 May 2009.

The Council then adopted without a vote draft decision IV on “Applications for consultative status and requests for reclassification received from non-Governmental organizations”.

The Council then took up draft decision II (document E/2008/L.9) by which it would decide not to grant consultative status to the Human Rights Foundation.

Speaking in connection with the draft, the representative of Ecuador reiterated her delegation’s position supporting the Committee’s decision to reject the Human Rights Foundation’s application for consultative status.  Emphasizing that the Human Rights Foundation had been engaged in activities against her Government -- which had submitted information on those activities to Member States -- she urged the Council’s members to vote in support of the Committee’s decision.

The representative of Nicaragua, speaking as an observer to the Council, said that the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations had acted within full respect for its obligations.  In fact, an overwhelming majority of the members of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations had rejected the application.  It was, therefore, intolerable to consider discussing the matter, which was clearly in contradiction of the goals of the United Nations.  The organization was a terrorist organization led by a notorious terrorist working against democratically elected Governments.  She stressed that the Committee’s decision had been adopted by a more than two-thirds majority and she urged the Council to support it.

The representative of Qatar said resolution 1996/31 on the granting of consultative status to non-governmental organizations stipulated the need to respect the principles of the United Nations.  He was convinced that the activities of the organization could be motivated by political considerations, and members of the Committee had asked for more information on those activities.   Cuba had presented official documents and a judicial procedure had been started against the organization. Members had voted against the organization, and thus he could not vote to grant it consultative status, for those activities that were a threat to peace.  He called on Council members to support the Committee’s decision not to grant consultative status to the organization.

The representative of Venezuela spoke out against the politically oriented activities of the Human Rights Foundation against Venezuela.  “Free RCTB” was the name of one such activity, which tried to prevent a TV channel from conducting its work.  She reminded the Council that when a non-governmental organization carried out politically motivated activities against any sovereign State, then the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations must object to granting of status.  In view of the politicization of human rights characterized by that organization, she urged the Council to support the Committee’s decision, in line with the 1996/31 decision.  In closing, she said it was unacceptable that some non-governmental organizations were trying to manipulate the situation with false arguments.

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Belarus said the detailed consideration by the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations of the application by the Human Rights Foundation had revealed that that organization’s activities did not conform with the United Nations Charter, nor with resolution 1996/13.  The decision, therefore, was correct and fully justified.  Member States had had a body of information before them in taking that decision.  Thus, his delegation supported the Committee’s prior decision and would vote in favour of the draft decision.

The representative of Sudan said the application of the Human Rights Foundation for consultative status had been considered in detail and it had become clear to the Committee that the organization had engaged in very suspicious activities.  Also, its financing was not transparent.  The Committee had deliberated over the details and, at the time, his delegation had voted against granting consultative status.  It would do so again today.

Saying his delegation would vote no on the decision, the representative of the United States said it believed the Committee had made its decision with unnecessary haste and without full information.  Since its recommendation to reject consultative status for the Human Rights Foundation, new and important information had come to light and should justify a reconsideration of that decision.  He reiterated that there was ample precedent for such a decision.

Further, his delegation believed the Human Rights Foundation met all the requirements for consultative status and that the Committee would agree if it considered the full balance of information now available.  The Human Rights Foundation, he said, had registered as a non-profit organization in 2005.  Its headquarters was located in New York City.  Emphasizing that it did not receive money from any Government, he said its mission was to support human rights as enshrined in the United Nations Charter.  It had an international council of 11 members with distinguished records in the human rights field.  Among them was Nobel Peace Prize recipient Elie Wiesel.  The Human Rights Foundation also had a board of directors that was chaired by Armando Valladares, who had been at the centre of certain false accusations during the Committee’s deliberations.

Seeking to clarify some basic facts, he said that Mr. Valladares was born in Cuba in 1937.  In 1960, the year after the Cuban revolution, he had been tried, convicted and imprisoned for offences against “the powers of the State”.  During his time in prison, he had been adopted as a prisoner of conscious by Amnesty International, which had determined that insufficient evidence had been presented against him during his trial.  Upon the request of President Mitterrand of France, Mr. Valladares had been released from prison and allowed to reside in the United States.  He had worked in the field of human rights since then and had published several volumes of poetry.

During its deliberations, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations had considered applications of 60 organizations, he continued.  The application of the Human Rights Foundation had been among them for the first time.  On the last day of deliberations, the delegation of Cuba had raised questions about the application and the history of the Foundation’s Chairman.  It had claimed that Mr. Valladares had been a terrorist in Cuba and called him a “clown and a member of a criminal gang”.  To support those charges, it had submitted documents, including a national identity card, that it said proved Mr. Valladares had been a member of the police force of former Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista.  Those documents were in Spanish and no translation had been made available.  At the time, the United States delegation had requested that the Committee defer making a decision.  But the Committee had gone ahead and voted to not grant the Foundation consultative status by a vote of 12 in favour to 6 against, with 1 abstention.

Underlining the fact that more than a third of the committee’s 19 members had been unwilling to take action on the organization’s application so soon after receiving it, he said that several delegations had commented at the time that there was no precedent for such a precipitous rejection.  In the opinion of the United States delegation, the Committee had rushed to judgment, violating its own established practice, in which new applications were considered in at least 2 sessions, and sometimes more.  In this case, the Committee should have taken more time.

For 62 years, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations had carried out its mandate with thoroughness and care, he said.  On the Committee’s recommendation, 3,000 organizations had been granted consultative status.  Today, the United States was not asking the Council to grant consultative status to the Foundation, but only to refer the Foundation’s application back to the Committee based on the new information that had been sent to the Council’s membership on 11 July.

Following a request by the President, as well as an appeal by the representative of Cuba to adhere to the Council’s rules, the representative of the United States concluded his statement by saying that information had not been available to the Committee. And he asked the Council to vote to allow the Foundation’s application to be reconsidered. Thus, he said, the United States would vote no on draft decision II and he urged other delegations to do the same.

The representative of Algeria said she would vote to support the decision of the Committee, which recommended not granting consultative status.  Her delegation believed the Committee had had sufficient time to consider the application of the non-governmental organization, which had been requested to answer 27 questions.  Detailed responses had been given, and the responses showed the organization’s political interests -- its activities ran counter to the United Nations Charter.  Moreover, information presented by a Member State had shed light on its terrorist activities.  The Committee’s recommendation was justified and it had been adopted in a transparent and democratic process.

The representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said his delegation was not in a position to support the decision of the Committee.  Several Committee members had wished for further time to consider the non-governmental organization’s application.  Members of the European Union had received new information about the non-governmental organization from States and various figures, and the number of documents showed the need for more time to consider the application.  The Council should allow more time to be given.

The representative of Bolivia said that, above and beyond the background information submitted by Cuba, his delegation was not so much concerned about the past as the future.  Today, the Human Rights Foundation was carrying out activities to promote democracy in his country.  Those efforts suggested that, in the organization’s estimation, democracy in Bolivia did not exist -- which, he said, was clearly not the case.  He further said that filmed videos supported the current discussion.  All the Foundation was trying to do was destabilize the Governments with which it did not agree.

There was, he stressed, no need to go on with the discussion of the decision.  As the representative of the United States had said, there was new information, which his delegation could also provide.  He urged the Council to support the Committee’s decision by voting in favour of the draft text.

The representative of China said his delegation had participated in the entire process by which the Committee had decided to reject the application of the Human Rights Foundation and supported that decision.  It was in line with the guidelines by which an application for consultative status was evaluated, particularly that the activities of an organization must be in line with the United Nations Charter.  If there was evidence that a non-governmental organization had participated in any criminal activities, including terrorist activities, or had undertaken actions that interfered with the territorial integrity of any State, the application must be rejected.  His delegation considered that the Committee’s decision was in line with the practice of handling any non-governmental organization that was involved in terrorism.

Angola’s representative said he had voted in favour of the Non-Governmental Organization Committee’s decision to not grant consultative status to the Human Rights Foundation.  The Committee had given members of the Foundation many chances to come before it and present its case.  Indeed, the Committee had a history of operating in a fair and transparent manner.  Since that was the case, the Council, as well as members of the Committee, must remain very vigilant that this segment of the Council’s work did not become a forum for overturning the decisions that had been taken by its subsidiary bodies in a fair and transparent manner.

Cuba’s representative said that, in early June, the Non-Governmental Organization Committee had vigorously rejected the request of the Human Rights Foundation.  That organization had a clear pattern of politically motivated action against United Nations Member States.  Indeed, there was clear evidence that the Foundation had planned to carry out terrorist activities against certain Member States.  The Foundation had been given many chances to come before the Committee, but it had refused to do so, even though its offices were located just a few blocks from the Secretariat building.  At any rate, it was not a human rights organization.  It was a facade that had been created for the sole purpose of overthrowing or undermining the legitimate Governments of some States.

Everyone knew that the United States’ real objective in all this was to disregard the Committee’s decision, so that it could gain the time it needed to exert its “typical pressure tactics”.  Supporting truth and justice could be more powerful that the pressure that certain countries could bring to bear.   Cuba would vote in favour of draft decision II and urged others to do likewise.  Such a vote would be a vote in favour of the good work being done by the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations.

After those statements, the Council, in a show of hands, adopted draft decision II in document E/2008/L.9, by which it decided not to grant the Human Rights Foundation consultative status, by 29 votes in favour to 19 against, with 3 abstentions.

Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Saint Lucia said that the principles of human rights were fundamental to the Council’s work, as well as that of the United Nations.  The decisions taken by the Council should always be made in pursuit of those principles and of truth.  As his delegation was not a member of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, it had not been privy to its consideration.  Since that decision, there had been a plethora of information coming to his mission, but because it takes time to evaluate such information, his delegation had been unable to make a decision according to the principles it held dear.  In the future, he hoped that more time would be available to make an informed decision.

Cuba’s representative expressed thanks to those Council members who had voted in favour of the draft decision.  The adoption of the recommendation respected the traditional practices of the Committee and rejected consultative status for those organizations that supported terrorist activities.  The Council had sent a clear message to the international community that it would not allow those who had placed bombs anywhere to walk freely in these halls.

The Council then adopted draft decision III deciding to dispose of the complaint against the World Union for Progressive Judaism without a vote.

The Council next adopted draft decision IV, as orally amended, correcting the dates and provisional agenda of the 2009 session of the Non-Governmental Organization Committee without a vote.

The Council then adopted the draft decision V on the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations report without a vote.

Following those votes, the representative of Saudi Arabia requested that the vote on draft decision II in the report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2008 regular session (document E/2008/32, Part I), which concerned the application for consultative status of Federación Estatal de Lesbianas, Gays, Transexuales y Bisexuales, be recalled and a roll-call vote be taken.

The Secretary, taking the floor to clarify procedural rules, said the request could not be accommodated unless the Council took a decision to do so.

The representative of Saudi Arabia then called for a vote on document E/2008/L.13.

After a lengthy procedural discussion, the representative of Saudi Arabiacalled for a motion to reconsider the vote on draft decision II.

The representative of France, noting that the first vote had been conducted in perfect conformity with procedure, said the vote should not move forward.

Cape Verde said a delegation had the right to request a reconsideration of the vote on draft decision II and should be afforded that right.

Pakistan supported the motion made by Saudi Arabia.

Saint Lucia sought to clarify that the Council had rejected the Commission’s decision to not grant consultative status to the Federación Estatal de Lesbianas, Gays, Transexuales y Bisexuales, but that did not now mean that the organization had consultative status with the Council.  In light of that, he said that the critical thing was to vote on draft decision E/2008/L.13, which would grant the organization special consultative status.

New Zealand’s representative said her delegation had some concerns about going back on a decision taken over two hours ago.  At no point during that initial action had a motion been made to contest the vote.  None of the concerns being raised now had been raised at that time.  Her delegation believed that the vote had been taken in a fair manner and did not see any need to reconsider the matter.  At the same time, New Zealand understood that the rules of procedure allowed for such reconsideration.  That being the case, it was a serious and exceptional matter upon which all delegations needed time to reflect.  The Council certainly should not be taking a hasty decision, especially so close to the end of the meeting, she added.

The representative of the Netherlands supported the notion that the relevant rule of procedure should be considered exceptional.  The matter at hand did not pertain to voting, as such.  The request from the floor was not about the substance of the issue, but about re-voting.

Speaking against the motion, France’s representative reiterated the European Union’s view that there was no basis to take a new vote on draft decision II.  The initial vote had been carried out in full conformity with the rules of procedure.  Any motion to contest the vote by a country not happy with that decision should have been made at that time, he said.

The representative of the Netherlands then urged delegations to consider carefully whether the issue was of an exceptional nature that required the vote to be reopened.  If the Council allowed the motion, “reopening a decision because of a lack of faith in the Secretariat without evidence of the cause for that lack of faith”, it might set a precedent for future action.  Delegations must consider the matter carefully.

The Council then held a roll-call vote on the motion to hold a new vote on draft decision II.  With 27 members voting in favour and 23 voting against, with 3 abstentions, the motion to hold a new vote was carried.

Due to lack of time, the Chair proposed that the issue be taken up again in the morning.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record