Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
Report on 8 December Meeting of Governments on NGO Access Report on 8 December Meeting of
Governments on NGO Access
By Naomi Onaga
World Federalist Movement
December 8, 1997
On Monday, 8 December from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM, governments held "Informal open-ended consultations" on "the issue of involvement of NGOs in the work of the UN". It was chaired by Ambassador Ahmad Kamal (Pakistan), who chaired the ECOSOC NGO Review which completed in 1996 and the General Assembly Sub-group on NGOs from January to June 1997. It was held in the Economic and Social Council Chamber.
About 50 government delegates attend the meeting, including those from Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Egypt, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Syria, UK and US. About 35 NGO observers attended.
A proposed text for a draft resolution was distributed (see attached). It is to be dealt with by the General Assembly Plenary under Item 60: Strengthening the UN system, by the end of the GA 52nd session on 17 December 1997. It would 1) invite NGOs to attend meetings, get documents, and deposit written contributions in the General Assembly Plenary, Main Committees, Special Sessions, and intergovernmental subsidiary bodies (which would include commissions, but not treaty bodies or expert bodies), 2) call upon these bodies to have the Bureau extend the invitation to DPI NGOs, 3) request the Secretary General to present a report at the 53rd session on existing arrangement and practice of NGOs in UN system, and 4) undertake a review of all aspects of participation of NGOs in work of UN system.
Ambassador Kamal opened the meeting. Netherlands introduced the text. Egypt, Costa Rica, Cuba, South Africa, Norway, India, New Zealand, Algeria, Chile, Brazil, Syria, Malaysia, France, Liechtenstein, China, Canada, and UK made statements. Statements were mainly positive, but a few expressed concerns. Most delegations expressed appreciation for this process and made very positive comments on the draft text. Most supported the idea of the Secretary-General's study. There was discussion on a number of substantive and procedural issues, including 1) the interim invite to NGOs, 2) time frame, 3) the scope of the text and whether it should be "all areas of the work of UN" or some of the areas of work to start, 4) whether DPI or other NGOs could be extended this invitation, 5) financial implications, 6) particpation of Southern NGOs, and balance of participation of Northern and Souther NGOs, 7) questions on past procedure on how this text came about, and how this would move forward under whose leadership, authorship of text, and facilitation. The meeting was closed with suggestions for governments to get together and discuss further.
Notes on 8 December Informal Informals on NGOs:
Ambassador Kamal opened the meeting and spoke about how last year governments had tried to discuss the issue of NGOs [in the General Assembly "Sub-group" on NGOs, from Jan - June 1997] but did not get very far. He said subsequently [after the Sub-group on NGOs failed to agree on a mandate and was dismantled in June of 1997], some delegations took upon themselves to put some ideas together to continue efforts on the issue, and he agreed to act as the coordinator. He asked the Netherlands to introduce the draft resolution.
Netherlands introduced the text, and said he was not the drafter, but acted as sort of a secretary to the proceedings. A number of delegations were disappointed by the lack of outcome of the Subgroup, and decided to initiate informal discussions. The aim of the draft text is to do two things: 1) Secretary-General is requested to report on existing arrangements and practices in order to provide good basis for discussion in the 53rd General Assembly, 2) the draft text also invites, as a first step, NGOs with ECOSOC consultative status, to the General Assembly Plenary, Main Committee, and intergovernmental subsidiary bodies (which includes Commissions but excludes Treaty Bodies and expert bodies, for example, ACABQ) - specifically to attend open meetings, get documents, and to be able to deposit written contributions. The text also calls upon the Bureau of each body to decide to the same invitation to DPI NGOs. He said he does not expect any Program Budget Implications.
Egypt, Costa Rica, Cuba, South Africa, Norway, India, New Zealand, Algeria, Chile, Brazil, Syria, Malaysia, France, Liechtenstein, China, Canada, and UK made statements.
Most delegations expressed appreciation for this process and made very positive comments on the draft text. Most supported the idea of the Secretary-General's study. There was discussion on a number of substantive and procedural issues. The following are the main elements of debate.
1) Interim Invite to NGOs: Egypt proposed to delete the paragraphs that would provide interim accreditation; Algeria, China, and Syria supported this; Kamal said this would make the draft text "limp"; Chile, Liechtenstein, and New Zealand, supported keeping the interim accreditation. Some delegations spoke on the current invite of attending open meetings, getting UN documents, and depositing contributions as not being more than current practice. Some delegations expressed concern about depositing of contributions (see SOUTHERN NGO PARTICIPATION below). Brazil said would want to permit oral and written contributions like in ECOSOC, but knows that this requires further study. Canada suggested that some delegations manifest "split personalities" on the issue as they say they support the idea of participation of NGOs but then provide blocks that keep the negotiations nowhere.
2) Time Frame: South Africa expressed the importance of putting a stricter time frame on the process; UK suggested that if there were a deadline to complete the review of arrangements based on the study the interim measures do not have to be perfect. Some governments supported putting "undertaken and completed in 53rd session."
3) Scope - "All Areas of Work": Cuba stated that they could not fully support the text because it did not go far enough - they suggested the resolution must deal with "all areas of the work" as was agreed in ECOSOC with decision 1996/297; some delegations supported this. Some delegations expressed the idea that this reso is supposed to be the first step toward this. Some delegations expressed misgivings or lack or clarity about specific parts of the UN system.
4) Invitation of ECOSOC/DPI/Other NGOs: Most delegations seemed to accept that ECOSOC NGOs should be considered for such an invitation. There was discussion about whether DPI NGOS could be given such an invitation by the Bureau, mainly based on considerations about screening and accreditation. Netherlands said the purpose of including DPI NGOs here was because many delegations felt it was necessary to broaden the NGO eligible beyond ECOSOC NGOs. Some delegations were uncertain whether DPI NGOs have gone through a sufficient screening process, particularly as they have never gone through an intergovernmental "vetting" process. Cuba said ad hoc measures to accredit NGOs are not enough, and suggested make a new working group to have rules and procedures for accreditation of NGOs. Canada said there is some need to screen NGOs but was opposed to full scale working group. New Zealand suggested not to limit the invitation by the Bureau to DPI NGOs but to make it "any interested NGOs"; some delegations supported this, some expressed concern.
5) Financial Impact: There was disagreement on whether or not there would be a large financial impact. Netherlands said they did not foresee large financial impact. Canada said it was not the intention to have a large finanical impact. Egypt and Algeria felt there would be great financial implications. There was discussion about language on "within existing resources", and the previous G77 opposition to this. Ambassador Kamal suggested the idea of "available resources" - providing things that do not require much more additional resources, such as available seats for meetings, and dissemination of UN documents through making them available through internet.
6) Southern NGO Participation: Many delegations expressed support for and recognition of the importance of the participation of Southern NGOs. Cuba expressed concern about the inequity between Northern and Southern NGOs, particularly, concerns were expressed about allowing NGO depositing written contributions as it would advantage Northern NGOs that have resources to produce materials for distribution, but disadvantage Southern NGOs. India suggested that a voluntary fund should be established to facilitate Southern NGO participation, some supported this. New Zealand said that this should not get caught up in political debate of developed and undeveloped, and was not persuaded by this point.
7) Procedure: This was debated quite extensively. Cuba and India expressed concern that it was not clear who the drafters of the text are, and the process that produced this text has been closed and not open. Kamal said the process was open and transparent - it is the sovereign right of any state to introduce a draft reso, but this meeting now is for the purpose of openness and dialogue. Canada said it was no secret that they were involved in putting text together, and it had been open to any delegations that were interested and felt a sense of urgency on the issue. Costa Rica, New Zealand, Liechtenstein, said they had been involved in previous meetings and appreciated the process.
There was debate about the format of future negotiations. Cuba and India stated Ambassador Kamal should continue to facilitate as moderator only if it is a Chairman's text, which would mean a GA President's text. This was said to be impossible at this point. They then requested the sponsors of the draft text to chair further negotiations. There was discussion but no clear decision made about how to move forward.
The meeting wrapped up with a suggestion by Ambassador Kamal that a new draft be produced by the drafters, and that governments should meet with each other soon.
More Information on NGOs and the General Assembly
