UN to Consider Consultative Status for 511 NGOs This Week
The UN has a process by which it provides NGOs participatory access to the work it does. NGOs apply for “consultative status” and, if approved, they can lobby and consult with representatives from member nations. Consultative NGOs submit “quadrennial reports” regarding issues about which they have expertise in hopes that the reports lead to UN legislation. Consultative NGOs get access to and participate in UN meetings and deliberations concerning all manner of things about which the UN and NGOs are concerned. Apparently, nothing is without politics and according to the many sources, applications are too often blocked when they are from human rights organizations or organizations advocating free speech or religion, or for populations perceived as oppressed by incumbent governments. Still, there are almost 6500 NGOs on the UN’s list of “accredited NGOs.”
The UN’s Economic and Social Council’s Committee on NGOs reviews the application at its annual meetings. For several years, there has been a backlog of “deferred” applications, apparently because countries have veto power over applications from groups they don’t like. The Committee is currently in its 11th Plenary Meeting at which it will consider a 217 current applications and 294 “deferred applications,” according to a UN press release. The 11th Plenary Meeting began January 22 in New York and ends on January 31. The Committee will reconvene on 9 February, again on 28 May–5 June and finally on 14 June 2024. Here is the United States opening statement delivered on 22 January:
The United States is deeply committed to promoting the meaningful participation of non-governmental organizations in the United Nations system, without regard to their political beliefs. We will continue to support the accreditation of non-governmental organizations, including those with whom we disagree and those that criticize the United States or our partners. Our rationale for this position is simple: providing diverse NGOs a platform to participate in the UN system makes this institution and its member states stronger and more responsive to their citizens.
We regret that the continued misuse of the “no objection basis” by some members of the NGO Committee has led to the politicization of this Committee. But we refuse to stand by and do nothing as legitimate NGOs are punished for seeking to hold governments accountable. In 2022 and 2023, the United States was proud to join our partners in presenting for a vote at the Economic and Social Council a group of organizations who were targeted for political reasons and deferred accreditation for far too long. We were pleased that ECOSOC members voted to accredit these legitimate and credible organizations over the last several years.
Unfortunately, the organizations approved the last two years represent only a handful of the many legitimate organizations that have been waiting for years to be granted consultative status. We remain concerned that the percentage of applications deferred each session is increasing and NGOs working on issues of human rights, marginalized groups, and drug policy are frequently targeted for deferral.
We also note the difficulty and undue burden that the working methods of this committee place on NGOs seeking NGO accreditation, especially those NGOs from the global south who do not have the funds to travel to New York and engage with the committee membership. Because of this, we were quite supportive of the hybrid Q&A proposal, and regret that we still have not come to consensus on this very important proposal, which would benefit all NGOs, especially those in the global south.
Finally, we were pleased that the Secretariat facilitated a long-overdue NGO Committee consultation with civil society organizations in 2022, but are disappointed that this was not continued in 2023. We will continue to insist that the NGO Committee facilitate these regular consultations, ideally ahead of each January and May session, as mandated by resolution 1996/31. Without these consultations, the Committee is failing to meet its mandate.
darryll k. jones