Consultation on the NGO/UN Relationship, 1 December 1999, 3:00 PM-5:00 PM

Notes on the December 1, 1999 meeting of representatives of non-governmental organizations,members of the Secretariat and representatives of Member States, sponsored by theConference of Non-Governmental Organizations in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations

Approximately 20 NGO representatives attended the meeting along with several staff membersof the Secretariat. In addition representatives of the following Member States indicatedtheir presence: Denmark, Finland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Qatar, Republicof Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, and the United States.

The President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO), Dr. Afaf Mahfouz, briefly summarized theoutcome of the November meeting, the present meeting being the third in a series. Shenoted that at the last meeting it became clear that the issue, raised by some MemberStates of a significant increase in the number of NGO representatives actually attending(as compared to registered to attend) Commission meetings, was largely refuted by thestatistics which had been thus far gathered by the Secretariat.

1. Preliminary discussion on next steps to plan coordination mechanisms for upcomingCommission meetings

In the context of the work of the Commission on Social Development and the relatedforthcoming review of the World Summit for Social Development, it was noted that planscall for accredited NGOs attending the review meeting (Geneva, June 2000) to makestatements in the Committee of the Whole and for those in status with ECOSOC to makestatements in the Plenary itself. However, Member States had indicated that this plan wasnot to be considered a precedent. Interested NGOs were reflecting on ways to limit thenumber of NGO statements at the review in order to be more effective. This discussioncould be generated through the Conference of NGOs web site(http://www.ngocongo.org), via the NGO Section's web site (http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/)

or via listservs on the Internet. A concern was also raised about the coordination of roomarrangements (working space for NGOs including a stationary computer with Internet access)at the Preparatory Committee meeting for the review meeting as well as the review itself(a.k.a. Geneva 2000) (http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/geneva2000/index.html).

It was noted that the Conference would be seeking relevant information from its Geneva colleaguespreparing for the review in order to share that with colleagues in New York and elsewhere.Staff of the Secretariat noted that, while arrangements for handling NGO accreditation werestill in discussion and preparation with the Division for Social Development (DSD), the NGO Section had handled NGO accreditation for the five-year review of the InternationalConference on Population and Development and thus had accurate statistics on NGO participation. It was understood that the DSD was developing an NGO database in preparationfor Geneva 2000.

It was suggested that for the review of the Fourth World Conference on Women, a.k.a.Women 2000, two helpful web sites - operated by the UN Division for the Advancement ofWomen (DAW) (http://www.un.org/womenwatch)

and the International Women's Tribune Center (http://www.womenink.org/iwtc.html)

-could provide for a similar discussion about NGO arrangements for that meeting.
On the broader matter of NGO access to the two review conferences it was suggested thatthe Department of Public Information (DPI) be contacted about the possibility of providinga live video connection for NGOs in the two other centers away from the respective meetingplaces (New York, Geneva, Vienna) and Secretariat staff agreed to ask DPI about this,noting the limitations on resources throughout the Organization. at the same time, advancepreparations for such a connection may make it cost effective.

A Geneva-based NGO colleague noted that for Geneva 2000, NGO preparations had taken on adifferent character because the Swiss Government has organized a Global Forum(http://www.geneva2000.org)

whichwould involve NGOs, governments, corporations, and a variety of other groupings. The NGO Committee on Development in Geneva is acting as the facilitating body for NGO activitieswithin the context of the Forum. It has questioned the Forum's plan to charge various feesfor NGO activities because this does note reflect the past practice of no fees and isdiscussing the matter with the Swiss organizers. Members of the Geneva Committee are alsoworking on a draft document by NGOs for presentation to the review.

The chair of the New York NGO Committee on Social Development emphasized the coordinationof information between the two NGO Committees. She also noted plans to coordinate NGO participation at the preparatory meetings in New York and close contact the Committee hashad with the NGO focal point in DSD and the lead staff in that division with regard to thesubstantive documents. as the Committee had a listserv already, she felt it may not benecessary to use a web site for information sharing as well.

Staff of the NGO Section noted the discussions with their Geneva counterpart to providemeeting space for NGOs at the review meeting (Geneva 2000). She noted that while thehandling of oral and written statements of the meetings of the Preparatory Committee hadbeen developed by the Bureau for Geneva 2000, they were still pending for the reviewmeeting itself.

The CONGO focal point for Women 2000 noted that the Bureau for that meeting had justdecided to follow the model of NGO arrangements for the 1995 World Summit for SocialDevelopment. There was discussion of having five NGO representatives from their respectiveregions speak at the Plenary, apart from those which might speak at the Committee of theWhole, however, there was not final agreement to this proposal. Debate also centered onwhether those five representatives should be from among NGOs in consultative status orfrom among such NGOs and those otherwise which had attended the Beijing conference. TheBureau also was uncertain of the time which would be available if there was a large numberof high-level representatives of Members States which wished to speak. However, it seemedclear that the NGOs themselves would be able to decide who the speakers would be. A smallcoordinating group consisting of NGOs, Secretariat staff (DAW) and Member States had begunmeeting to facilitate arrangements. In addition, the fundamental issue of NGO participation in the review meeting had been previously decided by a resolution adopted bythe General Assembly.

Staff of the NGO Section noted that the procedure for NGO oral statements was to bedecided at the early part of the special session (Women 2000) and managed by the Presidentof the General Assembly. There was an interest in providing a balance between regional andthematic representation by those NGOs speaking.

For the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) meeting in 2000, the speakers list wouldinclude regional representatives and others would be able to request to be on the list inaccordance with established procedures. During the CSW and the meetings of the PreparatoryCommittee, meeting space for NGOs had been reserved at the Church Center for the UN anddiscussions were underway in that regard concerning rooms in the UN buildings also. Therewas, however, a concern that computer and Internet access at the UN might be inadequate andtime limits might have to be considered. Access to adequate numbers of paper copies ofdocuments remained an issue and encouragement was being given to the Secretariat have moreon-line in an effort to reduce these pressures to a degree. It was noted that anorientation meeting for new NGO representatives to the CSW would be held on February 27and an orientation/training meeting was planned for February 26 as well. The NGO Committeeon the Status of Women in New York encouraged NGOs to respond to the questionnaire beingsent out to NGO headquarters to assess what NGOs have been doing since the Beijing conference.Members of the Committee were also working on documents for NGOs to endorse for submissionto the preparatory bodies. The Committee was also facilitating the communication of the datesof regional preparatory meetings for Women 2000 (as they become known) via the CONGO andDAW web sites. It also was seeking briefings for NGOs in the coming months by Secretariatstaff on the preparations. The Committee was also reflecting on ways to bring women'sissues more into the discussions at the Commissions on Social Development and SustainableDevelopment with a view to their results being input to Women 2000. The Committee hadestablished a New York Host Committee and was also working with its counterparts in Genevaand Vienna to coordinate information sharing.

The chair of the NGO Committee on Human Rights provided an update on discussions which hadtaken place with regard to NGO participation in the work of the Commission on Human Rights.He noted that NGOs have both formal and informal contacts with Member States.

With regard to the formal arrangements for written statementsthere was a consensus that thestatus quo continue. The matter of oral statements was still being debated. Some MemberStates are of the view that the handling of oral statements (due to the number of requests)was becoming unwieldy. Most NGOs had exercised self-discipline with regard to the number ofrequests they made, but a few chose to speak on nearly every agenda item and it was felt bymany that their remarks add very little to the substantive debate and outcome. The resultingproposal of some Member States to require joint statements was unacceptable to NGOs. Whilesome NGOs were open to the idea of joint statements on thematic items, this was not the caseconcerning particular country situations because NGOs, for the most part, had unique substantiveinput to provide the Commission. There was openness among some NGOs to the Bureau of the Commissionproviding incentives to NGOs which indicated a willingness to make joint statements on thematicitems. However a NGO concern remained that this could lead to a watering down of the issues.Further discussions by NGOs with the Commission Bureau are anticipated. The discussions wouldalso include finding a modus operandi for the two or three situations each year where thereare many NGO requests to speak on a specific item. NGOs were also reflecting on whether andhow an NGO facilitating committee might solve some of the problems and the issues of concernto Member States.
Informal consultation between NGOs and Member States on matters before the Commission onHuman Rights was good. The recent chairs of the Commission had established open dialogueswith NGOs and there was a degree of consensus as a result with the exception of the differenceof opinion about matters relating to the numbers issues. They had also been fair to theformal speaking requests of Member States, NGOs and observer states. Some Member States hadarranged for their regional and other group representatives to brief NGOs and this was deemedhelpful. NGOs - especially those with particular expertise - were able sometimes to worktogether on input with regard to the wording of particular resolutions although this wasnot always the case.

In conclusion NGOs felt that the model used at other Commissions for NGO oral interventionswas not workable for meetings of the Commission on Human Rights. The effective participationof NGOs in this regard at that Commission was essential to its fundamental credibility. Itwas important that Member Statestherefore not make hasty or blanket decisions, for examplewithin the Committee on NGOs, on such matters. Solutions should and could be found withoutcreating new rules which could erode or undermine ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31. The NGO Committeesin New York and Geneva (with the involvement of NGOs based outside the two centers also)could initiate a regular forum and a core group could come up with ways to dialogue and makeproposals to the Bureau, Secretariat and NGOs. A review of the lists of NGOs with largenumbers of persons accredited to a given Commission meeting could be undertaken because ofthe fact that some are registered for visibility and other purposes but do not attend.Resolution of this reality may be possible.

It was suggested that some of the dialogue amongst NGOs could be done online in advance ofthe next meeting of the Commission on Human Rights. One of the objectives had to be forestallingbad decisions instead of having them occur and be only in a position of protest. Some NGOs,however, wish to firmly maintain the status quo and see any effort to change it as softeningthe NGO position.

In view of the fact that the World Conference on Racism will occur in South Africa, arepresentative of South African NGOs should be found to discuss NGO participation in thatmeeting with the New York and Geneva NGO Committees on Human Rights. It was noted that thePreparatory Committee for this Conference will meet in Geneva from May 1-5, 2000. Prior tothat NGOs are expected to be able to observe meetings of the inter-sessional groups whichhave been established.

A concern was raised about the fragmentation of issues within the UN System over a numberof bodies such that it was difficult for some NGOs to follow their issues in all of therelevant fora. Perhaps an inter-agency effort could be undertaken to lessen the fragmentation.It was suggested that interested NGOs might take an initiative to begin the process.

It was also suggested that Member States to share their "winning experiences" with NGOswith a view to their possible replication. This was a hope shared by many and relevant tothe present series of meetings.

2. Discussion on how to gather preliminary data on NGO members at Commission meeting oneach day, including a discussion of the role of conference officers, the NGO Section and NGOs

Staff of the NGO Section recalled the previous discussion of the numbers of NGO representativesactually attending meetings. The statistics reflected a discrepancy between the number ofpersons pre-registered with the lower actual number attending a meeting. This difference wassometimes as high as 30%. The Secretariat staff working with the Commission on Human Rights isworking on a mechanism to be able to evaluate at its next session the situation of thatCommission. This should yield a clearer picture with perhaps more precise figures.

An NGO representative noted that the original concern of governments about too many personwas not reflected in the statistics which told a different story.

It was recalled that at the November meeting of this series that an idea had been raisedof NGO volunteers taking attendance at Commission and related meetings to help with thegathering of statistics. In response a suggestion was made that the conference officer beprovided with a sign-in sheet to be used on a voluntary basis, so that more specificnumbers could be recorded.

It was noted that the discrepancy involved a number of factors. In some cases NGOsregistered to attend but then could not find travel funds or could not obtain a visa. Inothers some NGOs wanted to be officially recorded as present. In some of these cases thepresence was recorded in the quadrennial reports. It was advised that flexibility wasdesirable because some NGOs knowingly registered prior to having travel funds in hand andeventually were able to find some. In some cases at meetings of the Commission on HumanRights NGOs had a long list of attendees, many of which were specialists who attendedbriefly for a given agenda item. In these instances the NGO would have only two or threepersons actually present at a given time. A Geneva-based NGO representative pointed outsome of the background to the milieu in the Commission on Human Rights. The Commission hasearlier focused on standard-setting but then moved more into implementation issues, resultingin a significant change in the mood. It was now quite usual for observer states to attendthe Commission (as compared to the earlier years) and it was related to the fact that thedenunciation of human rights violators was a more prominent feature of the meetings. Inthat regard the presence of the NGOs had been crucial to the Commission's work.

Appreciation was expressed for the several reports by the NGO Section on the statistics.It was noted that the physical limits of space in some rooms prevented the participationof more NGO representatives.

3. Update from the NGO Section on guidelines to be published for NGOs when visiting UNHeadquarters, and on NGO involvement in compiling the guidelines

The Chief of the NGO Section said that work on a compendium of guidelines was to becompleted by March 2000. The compendium would bring together the scattered pieces. Aoutline is to be shared in January. The internal task force working on this project wasstruggling with the issue of accreditation of NGOs at Commission meetings. Ideas of NGOswere welcome and could be sent via CONGO in preparation for a meeting, probably at the endof January 2000.

The task force had found the task to be large because of the number of NGO focal pointsthroughout the UN System. The need for this consolidation had been mentioned in one of therecent reports of the Secretariat on arrangement with NGOs. NGO input was wanted and It isforeseen that a draft of the compendium would be circulated in advance. One of the mai NGO als of the guidelines would be to suggest to NGOs how they can be more effective at theUN.

In conclusion, the CONGO President noted that it was her intention to summarize thediscussion of the series of three meetings for submission to the chairperson of the Committeeon NGOs as had been previously foreseen. She indicated that in this context small, informalmeetings with some of the member states on the Committee might help all concerned arriveat a consensus on the issues and consider common objectives for the future.