Continuing 2022 Session, Non-Governmental Organization Committee Recommends Special Consultative Status to 10 Entities, Defers Action on 78 Others

The Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations continued its 2022 session today, recommending 10 entities for special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council and deferring action on 78 others, pending their response to additional questions posed by Committee members.

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 organizations’ activities, partners, expenditures and sources of funding.

The Committee also held a question-and-answer session, in which the representative of the Comité de Vigilance pour la Démocratie en Tunisie had the opportunity to respond to delegates’ questions in-person.

The Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations will meet again at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 1 September, to continue its session.

Special Consultative Status

The Committee recommended that the Economic and Social Council grant special consultative status to the following organizations:

Uttarakhand Jan Jagriti Samiti (India);

Youth Development Center (Cameroon);

American Kratom Association (United States);

Brussels International Center for Research and Human Rights (Belgium);

Centre international pour la paix et les droits de l'homme (Switzerland);

Global Doctors for Choice, LLC (United States);

Health and Environment Justice Support e.V. (Germany);

INPUD Limited (United Kingdom);

Inti Raymi Fund, Inc. (United States); and

SecurityWomen (United Kingdom).

The Committee postponed action on the applications of the following organizations:

Public Association “Regional Consumer Protection Society” (Belarus) — as Estonia’s representative, citing its 25 May response, asked the organization to clarify whether it is funded by membership fees;

Shenzhen Foundation for International Exchange and Cooperation (China) — as the United States’ representative requested detailed information demonstrating that it is in fact a non-governmental organization;

Somali Green Crescent Society (Somalia) — as the United States representative asked the organization to clarify the decision-making authority of Government officials, including information related to the basis on which it is a non-governmental organization and a complete list of its board members and executive leadership;

Syrian Youth Council (Syria) — as the United States representative, citing question 13, requested details about its ties to the Government of Syria, including those of its executive board members;

Tamdeen Youth Foundation (Yemen) — as India’s representative requested details about projects related to its “strategic partnerships”, and information about why these projects are described as “strategic”;

The Gulmit Educational and Social Welfare Society, Hunza Gilgit (Pakistan) — as Pakistan’s representative requested the original link to its website;

New Woman Foundation (Egypt) — as Pakistan’s representative requested clarity around its funding, in particular, details about the use of funds from the Netherlands;

Transnational Anti-Organized Crime Intelligence Group, Inc. (Philippines) — as Cuba’s delegate, raising procedural matters, asked the NGO Branch whether the Committee can consider a request for status when the registration certificate of an organization has been revoked.  He underscored that registration in the operating country is a requirement for consultative status accreditation.

The representative of the United States disputed that, recalling that resolution 1996/31 does not require an organization to be registered in a particular country, adding that her delegation does not find this to be a valid question.

Echoing that, Estonia’s representative said the organization’s headquarters is clearly named in its application and its registration is not, in fact, needed.

Clarifying his argument, Cuba’s delegate drew attention to paragraph 10 of resolution 1996/31, outlining that the organization shall have an established headquarters.  He pointed to a note verbale from a Member State stating that the entity in question is not recognized as a non-governmental organization – yet it indicates it is located in this country.  He asked what proof there is to support the idea that the organization legally exists.

That question was also raised by his counterparts from the Russian Federation, China and Türkiye, with the latter recalling a 2017 case in which the consultative status of several non-governmental organizations was withdrawn, based on the fact that their legal status had been withdrawn in the host country, Türkiye.

The representative of India then asked the Secretariat if there is any precedent for the granting of consultative status to an organization which does not have any legal personality.  If this is not requirement, he wondered who is responsible for the activities of an organization.

After a lengthy discussion of these matters by these delegations, the Chief of the NGO Branch first addressed the question of registration, noting that this question has indeed been discussed in the past in the contexts of the withdrawal of consultative status.  The Branch’s position is that registration at the national level is not a prerequisite.  During the 2021 regular session, the Branch indicated that those organizations applying for status are only required to provide evidence of registration, for the sole purpose of proof of existence for two years.  Regarding questions raised about the validity of documents used as proof of registration, the Secretariat does not have capacity to check the validity of these documents, other than to state that they must be issued by an entity with a Government stamp.  On paragraph 8 of resolution 1996/31, she said the Secretariat does notify all Member States about the non-governmental organizations seeking to register for status which are operating in their jurisdictions.

The Committee’s Secretary then explained that such questions centre on whether an organization has been de-registered with authorities.  He recalled that not all jurisdictions require organizations to be registered with central authorities.  It is sometimes the case that organizations are registered with local authorities, municipalities — or not at all.  Those responsible for the activities of a non-governmental organization are those in charge of the entity itself.

“You cannot hold responsible a Government for the specific actions of a non‑governmental organization,” he clarified.  The case of the Turkish non‑governmental organizations in 2017 differs from that being discussed today.  In  2017, a Member State — Türkiye — stated in a note verbale that several organizations had been dissolved.  “They ceased their legal existence,” he pointed out, adding that there was a request to close the application of these organizations.  In the current case, the Member State did not say that the organization had been dissolved or that the application must be closed.  These are two important elements that distinguish it from the 2017 case.  He did not dispute that there is a legitimate reason to be concerned and he suggested providing the organization in question with the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s question.

In another round of commentary, in which the delegations agreed to take up these matters at another time, Bahrain’s representative agreed with the idea of bringing the note verbale to the organization’s attention and discussing the issue of registration in an informal setting.  Bahrain understands “question 9” to mean that registration is a requirement if the organization is operating in a country that requires registration, she said.

United Global Organization of Development (Pakistan) — as India’s representative asked the organization to explain its relationship with United Nations entities whose logos are on its website;

Welfare Association Jared (Pakistan) — as Pakistan’s representative asked the organization to provide details about two projects listed on its website, one of which related to its efforts to strengthen media freedom and civic space;

West Papua Interest Association (Indonesia) — as China’s representative requested details about its project expenses;

World Historic and Cultural Canal Cities Cooperation Organization (China) — as the United States representative requested a ledger outlining the funding received from various sectors of China’s Government;

Y S Makhdoomi Memorial Educational Trust (India) — as Pakistan’s delegate asked for a copy of a draft act referenced on its website;

Y4D Foundation (India) — as Pakistan’s representative raised a question about a discrepancy on its application and another related to its headquarters premises;

Youth For Human Rights Pakistan (Pakistan) — as Pakistan’s representative asked the organization to explain the meaning of “grants in aid”;

Youth Love Egypt Foundation (Egypt) — as China’s representative raised a question about projects carried out in Tunisia, Algeria, Ukraine and elsewhere, and requested a list of partners;

Vishwa Manavadhikar Parishad (India) — as Pakistan’s representative raised questions about its income statement, notably related to school fees;

“Garmoniya” Samara Center for Youth Employment, Socialization and Cultural Development Autonomous Non-profit Organization (Russian Federation) — as Estonia’s representative asked the organization to clarify the timeframe for the expansion referenced in its response to question 11;

ARCS Arci Culture Solidali APS (Italy) — as the representative of Türkiye questioned how the organization carries out projects in such diverse areas as job opportunities, the preservation of cultural heritage and combating climate change;

Allianz für Demokratie in Laos (ADL) e.V. — as Cuba’s delegate asked for information on its expenses; China’s representative requested details about its contribution to a certain meeting and its cooperation with other organizations;

Alma Mater Studiorum — Università di Bologna (Italy) — as Türkiye’s representative asked about its projects carried out in collaboration with or with assistance from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization—(UNESCO);

American Medical Women’s Association, Inc. (United States) — as China’s representative, citing the organization’s 5 June report, requested details about its international projects and whether it works with partners;

Arabian Rights Watch Association (United States) — as China’s delegate asked the organization whether it had participated in any United Nations meetings since 2020, and if so, about its contributions;

Asociatia Romanian Women's Lobby (Romania) — as the representative of Türkiye asked about its “5050 campaign” and about activities it plans to carry out in response to question 5;

Association of Lawyers of Russia (Russian Federation) — as the United States’ representative asked whether Government funding was provided as result of competitive processes or whether it had been earmarked;

Association of Non-for-Profit Organizations to Facilitate the Drug Prevention and Socially Dangerous Behaviour “National Anti-Drug Union” (Russian Federation) — as the United States’ representative requested a table or a listing of its various membership fees;

Autonomous Non-Profit Organization “Research Center ‘Minority Report’” (Russian Federation) — as Estonia’s representative asked whether the organization had carried out international research projects and about the entities with which they collaborated;

Autonomous non-profit organization humanitarian programs organization “Russian Humanitarian Mission” (Russian Federation) — as Estonia’s representative asked for a full list of countries in which it has operated and with which it has cooperated;

Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights (United Kingdom) — as the Russian Federation’s representative requested information on the election procedure for its leadership, including about who can submit a candidature and about the selection criteria used in this regard;

Center for Military Human Rights Korea (Republic of Korea) — as the Russian Federation’s representative requested information about the audit of its defence disarmament and weapons trade budget;

Cilvēktiesību Līgu Starptautiskās Federācijas Latvijas Cilvēktiesību komiteja (Latvia) — as Estonia’s representative requested information on projects focused on integrating the Roma community;

Comité de Vigilance pour la Démocratie en Tunisie (Belgium) — as the representative of Türkiye asked for an update on whether the organization has plans to establish similar organizations in other countries;

Committee for Justice (Switzerland) — as the representative of China asked for details on donations from non-governmental organizations that make up 35 per cent of the organization’s income;

Copernicus Berlin e.V. (Germany) — as the representative of Türkiye asked for details regarding the topics, scope, aims and outcomes of certain projects;

Coppieters Foundation (Belgium) — as the representative of Türkiye asked for more information on how the organization’s current expertise and capacity fit into the areas in which it wishes to participate at the United Nations;

Database Center for North Korean Human Rights (NKDB) (Republic of Korea) — as the representative of China asked for more details about the relationship between this organization and planned resettlement activities at headquarters and its plans for 2022;

Eiropas demokrātijas attīstības centrs (Latvia) — as the representative of Estonia asked for audited financial reports from 2021, along with further details on the organization’s main external sponsors and contributors;

Ethiopian Genocide Committee 1935-1941, Inc. (United States) — as the representative of Türkiye asked for more information on the nature and scope of the organization’s partnerships with certain other organizations and on the projects they might have carried out together;

European Network of Migrant Women (Belgium) — as the representative of Türkiye asked for a list of chief executive officers with which the organization carried out certain projects, along with their scope, aim and results;

European network on cultural management and policy (Belgium) — as the representative of China asked for a breakout list, covering the years 2020-2021, regarding contributions and funds received from Government sectors;

Fondazione Circolo Fratelli Rosselli (Italy) — as the representative of Türkiye asked for information regarding which entities the organization wishes to collaborate with in the future;

Fundacja Otwarty Dialog (Poland) — as the representative of the United States asked for information regarding how the organization’s activities specifically relate to furthering the work of the Economic and Social Council;

Global Action for Trans* Equality Inc. (United States) — as the representative of the Russian Federation asked for greater detail regarding how the organization facilitates activities in the margins of the Human Rights Council;

Global Alumni Alliance (Russian Federation) — as the representative of Estonia asked for a full list of its membership organizations;

Global Citizen Forum (Canada) — as the representative of Türkiye asked for information on how the organization ensures institutional independence in its decision-making processes, prioritization of projects and financial decision‑making;

InterPride (United States) — as the representative of the Russian Federation asked for information on whether the organization is conducting or has conducted projects in the Russian Federation;

International Association for the Development of the Abaza-Abkhaz Ethnos "Alashara" (Russian Federation) — as Estonia’s representative asked for an explanation on the organization’s use of the term “Republic of Abkhazia” instead of “Abkhazia, Georgia”, noting that such use violates the Charter of the United Nations and contradicts proper United Nations terminology;

The representative of the Russian Federation pointed out that Estonia’s question about the “supposedly incorrect use of the term ‘Republic of Abkhazia’” is not considered a position of the Committee within the Economic and Social Council regarding the State status of the Republic of Abkhazia, nor does it influence his country’s position on recognizing the Republic of Abkhazia as an independent State;

The representative of the United States asked for a description of the organization’s contributions to the international conferences listed in its June response, and requested the briefing materials, publications or interventions shared at those meetings;

International Civil Society Action Network, Inc. (United States) — as Cuba’s representative asked for a list of the organization’s projects, the costs for each, and any other pertinent information;

International Funders for Indigenous Peoples Inc. (United States) — as China’s representative asked for the organization’s workplan for 2021-2022 with details on its work with partners;

International Society of Criminology (United States) — as China’s representative asked for the names of the courses that the organization has organized with universities and research centres, and a list of the universities with which the organization has worked;

Intl. WeLoveU Foundation (Republic of Korea) — as China’s representative asked for more examples of projects the organization has conducted in cooperation with Government agencies and information on donations received from those Governments;

Kandilarla Dayanişma Vakfi (Türkiye) — as the representative of Türkiye asked for further details on the organization’s sources of external funds;

Khmers Kampuchea-Krom Federation (United States) — as China's representative asked for information on the organization’s criteria for membership fees and its finances, and an explanation of how it carries out its activities to achieve its goals;

The representative of the United States, expressing support for the organization’s accreditation, said the politicization of the work of the Committee with respect to the organization has led to its accreditation being deferred for years, after being initially recommended for consultative status by the Committee in 2012.  She urged the Committee to recommend the organization for United Nations consultative status at the current session;

The representative of China reiterated his delegation’s request for more information on the organization’s finances and activities to achieve its purpose.

The representative of Cuba said China’s request for financial information is a legitimate one;

Kvinnors Nätverk (Sweden) — as the representative of Türkiye asked for further information on the organization’s partnerships and how its international network operates and contributes to its goals;

Life Bliss of New Zealand Charitable Trust (New Zealand) — as the representative of India asked for a correct link to the organization’s website and for it to explain certain relationships and programmes;

Luftbrücke Irak e.V. (Germany) — as the representative of Türkiye asked for details on the organization’s offices in Iraq;

Magistrats Europeens pour la Democratie et les Libertes (MEDEL) (Germany) — as the representative of Türkiye asked for updates on whether its 2020 projects materialized, and if so, what their impacts were;

Now Action & Unity for Human Rights (NAUH) (Republic of Korea) — as the representative of the Russian Federation asked for a list of projects covering the period of 2018-2022;

NTC-Hands off Cain (Italy) — as the representative of Pakistan asked for details regarding the activities carried out by the organization in its Belgium office, along with details regarding its members in the Brussels and Rome offices;

Nithanandeshwara Hindu Temple, Charlotte (United States) — as the representative of India asked for an administrative breakdown of the number of people involved in the organization’s day-to-day activities and their roles, along with an audited financial statement for 2021;

Nithyananda Anna Mandir (United States) — as the representative of India pointed out the apparent direct link between the organization’s activities and Sri Nithyananda Swami and asked for clarification on the organization’s statement that it does not have any administrative or executive link with Sri Nithyananda Swami;

Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam of Columbus (United States) — as the representative of India asked for clarification regarding the organization’s claim that it has no relation with Nithyananda Swami despite the same appointing its entire board of directors;

Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam Of Oklahoma City, Inc (United States) — as the representative of India asked for clarification regarding whether or not the organization has “members”, and if it does, what countries they are in;

Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam Of St. Louis (United States) — as the representative of India asked for clarification regarding whether or not the organization has “members”, and if not, how the board of directors is elected, also requesting clarification regarding the role of its “ecclesiastical head”;

Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam of San Jose (United States) — as the representative of the United States asked for detailed information regarding how the organization’s work directly contributes to the work of the Economic and Social Council and how consultative status will advance the organization’s mission;

Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam of Seattle (United States) — as the representative of the United States asked for detailed information regarding how the organization’s work directly contributes to the work of the Economic and Social Council and how consultative status will advance the organization’s mission;

Nithyananda Meditation Academy (Canada) — as the representative of the United States asked for detailed information regarding how the organization’s work directly contributes to the work of the Economic and Social Council and how consultative status will advance the organization’s mission;

Nithyananda Meditation Academy UK (United Kingdom) — as the representative of the United States asked for details regarding what makes this organization separate from certain other organizations with similar names;

Nithyananda Sangha Australia Inc. (Australia) — as the representative of the United States asked for detailed information regarding how the organization’s work directly contributes to the work of the Economic and Social Council and how consultative status will advance the organization’s mission;

Nobel Women’s Initiative (Canada) — as the representative of Bahrain asked for information regarding the organization’s participation in certain side events during 2021 and 2022;

Peace Without Limits (PWL) International Organization, Inc. (Switzerland) — as the representative of Türkiye asked for information regarding certain projects and events;

PeaceCorea (Republic of Korea) — as the representative of China asked for more details on certain economic development projects carried out by the organization, including financial reports;

Robert Bosch Stiftung Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (Germany) — as the representative of Türkiye asked for examples of reports published or studies conducted by the organization;

Secours Islamique France (France) — as the representative of Pakistan asked for clarification regarding where the organization’s literacy workshops were held, along with the scope, organization, funding and final outcomes of the same;

Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea (Republic of Korea) — as the representative of Cuba asked for information regarding the source of income marked “special donations” in the organization’s income summary;

SosyalBen Vakfı (Türkiye) — as the representative of Greece asked for the organization’s current number of registered volunteers, along with information regarding the registration process;

Su Politikaları Derneği (Türkiye) — as the representative of Greece asked for information regarding the organization’s current and future projects and activities for 2022 and 2023; and

Syrian Legal Development Programme (United Kingdom) — as the representative of Cuba asked for greater detail on the projects carried out by the organization and the amount of money allocated to each project.

The representative of China asked for the organization’s plan of activities and the location, partners and outcomes of its projects.

The Committee also took note that Humanium (Switzerland) withdrew its application.

Interactive Discussion

In response to the delegate of Türkiye’s request for more information, the representative of the Comité de Vigilance pour la Démocratie en Tunisie said that the organization was created by Tunisians living in Belgium during the Tunisian Revolution in December 2010 to support the country’s democratic transition.  In October 2011, it was officially recognized as a non‑governmental organization in Belgium aiming to promote democracy in the political, economic and social spheres.  In line with its mission, the organization’s activities include elections observation and monitoring, youth training, and taking positions on fundamental liberties in Tunisia.  Although it works with individuals in different parts of the world, its focus is on Tunisia and supporting its democratic transition.

The representative of Türkiye then asked for clarification on the organization’s planned observation mission for parliamentary elections in Libya in 2022 as referenced in a document submitted to the Committee.

Responding, the representative said that the planned observation mission did not take place.  Its next observation mission would be for the legislative elections in Tunisia in December.

The representative of Türkiye requested further clarification on which Governments provide funding to the organization, pointing out a disparity on information provided with respect to funding sources.

Responding, the representative of the Comité de Vigilance pour la Démocratie en Tunisie said the organization sustains itself on its own funding and has no resources for operative costs.  No government subsidies are received.  Its only resources are received from donations and financial aid on individual projects, she said, noting that some official public Belgian entities help the organization undertake some of its projects.

The representative of Türkiye then asked for the organization’s audited financial statements for 2021 for a better understanding of its income.