Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
NGO Accreditation to the General Assembly - A memo from INTGLIM (July 15, 1997) NGO Accreditation to the General Assembly
A memo from INTGLIMJuly 15, 1997
To: NGOs Interested in the ECOSOC Decision (1996/297) recommendation to the General Assembly concerning expanding NGO rights in the UNFrom: Bill Pace, INTGLIM/WFM/CDIL
July 15, 1997
Re: Urgent Action Memorandum (1st draft)
1. In recent days, the USA has been circulating a "non-paper" in Geneva at ECOSOC concerning the issue of extending NGO rights in the General Assembly and other areas of the UN. With appropriate modifications, the USA proposal could provide the basis for an historic extension of NGO consultative arrangements. USA Ambassador for ECOSOC, Victor Marrero, has also circulated the document to some governments and NGOs in New York, including sending a copy to me. Because we are told the proposal has been distributed in Geneva and informal meetings are being held there, and due to its high importance, INTGLIM will be sending out and uploading a copy of the USA non-paper and is seeking NGO responses to this proposal as soon as possible. Action could occur during the next several weeks! (Note July 17, 1997 -copy of USA non-paper included below - Note 2 July 17, 1997 - USA reportedly is willing to delete paragraphs 6 and 7 and modify paragraph 3)
2. In addition, we are uploading the information about the "Compromise Resolution Proposal" initiated by NGOs during June, in particular during the UNGA Special Session, Earth Summit II. This effort resulted primarily from the inability of the governments in the Sub-group on NGOs, after more than 10 meetings over six months, to agree to a mandate for the General Assembly discussions. Scores of NGOs endorsed the "Compromise Resolution Proposal" and Ambassador Marrero has confirmed that the USA initiative is based, in part, on the NGO proposal.
3. Following are my own brief comments on the USA non-paper proposal. I hope to prepare a more comprehensive memo later. And I am anxious to hear other NGO opinions.
a. Summary. The USA draft is a 7 paragraph proposed General Assembly resolution which calls for a three-stage approach to extending NGO consultative arrangements in the UN.
First, (in paragraph 2) it would extend to NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC the right to attend meetings of the General Assembly Plenary, Main Committees and Special Sessions, "and to make available within the United Nations documents and statements prepared by them in connection with these meetings." The proposed resolution (paragraph 3) calls upon these GA bodies to establish procedures on "any further NGO participation" in each body "within the limits" of the consultative arrangements in ECOSOC resolution 1996/31, but without reducing rights of participation "already permitted."
Next, in a second stage (paragraph 4) the proposed resolution requests the Secretary General to prepare a report for the 53rd GA (1998) on existing arrangements and practices "in organs and bodies of the UN organization and other parts of the UN system."
In a third stage (paragraph 5) upon receipt of the report, the GA in its 53rd session "shall conduct further review of the participation of NGOs in the work of the UN" taking into account the GA and ECOSOC arrangements.
In two further paragraphs, only slightly related to the principal purpose of the resolution covered in the first 5 paragraphs, the USA proposed resolution (paragraph 6) requests ECOSOC and DPI to review their lists of NGOs and remove those NGOs which no longer exist or which are no longer express an interest in remaining "accredited" to the UN. In the final paragraph (paragraph 7) the USA proposed resolution requests ECOSOC and DPI to consider adopting a "scale of fees" for applying for and renewing accreditation, but allowing "waivers for such fees where appropriate."
b. Comment. In my opinion, while there are serious problems with specific language and limitations, there are also very positive aspects to the USA proposal.
The USA proposal adopts essentially the approach the NGOs endorsed in the "Compromise Resolution Proposal," the adoption of a single short resolution which provides for a 3-stage process which would (1) extend NGO rights to key General Assembly bodies, (2) requests a comprehensive report on existing practices and arrangements for NGOs in all areas of the UN, and (3) mandates the General Assembly begin discussions of extending rights to other bodies of the GA and UN only 15 months from now, after receiving the comprehensive report from the Secretary General.
Though the references are unacceptably ambiguous or limiting, the USA resolution refers to the consultative arrangements in ECOSOC and to resolution 1996/31 in each principal paragraph. Thus, with appropriate revisions the essential requirement that 1996/31 arrangements must be the basis for extending arrangements beyond ECOSOC is included in the USA non-paper.
Reference is also made to "other relevant decisions of the General Assembly," thus adding lasting importance to decisions like GA 51/467, dealing with NGO participation in the recent 19th Special Session.
The USA non-paper, for the first time in any government proposal during the last year, affirms that in adopting new procedures there shall be no retreat from existing practices and arrangements.
c. Needed changes in the USA non-paper.
As stated above, the references to ECOSOC consultative arrangements and to resolution 1996/31 as the basis for extending arrangements to the GA and other bodies should be better clarified.
Paragraph 2 of the USA non-paper, which extends to consultative NGOs the rights to attend and make their documents and statements available to the GA Plenary, Main Committees and Special Sessions, should also include the right to receive documentation.
Concern has been expressed that a regressive interpretation of paragraph 3 of the USA non-paper could result in 8 different sets of NGO arrangements and procedures in these GA bodies. Except for its pure sadistic value, this will be unacceptable to NGOs, governments, and the Secretariat.
In the "Compromise Resolution Proposal" NGOs endorsed language which recognized the need for each GA body to be able to implement the decision to extend consultative rights "in a timely and appropriate fashion." This approach and language should be included in a revision of paragraph 3 in the USA non-paper.
Paragraph 4 of the USA non-paper, which call for a UN system-wide report from the Secretary General on existing practices and arrangements is basically satisfactory, though the NGO "Compromise Resolution Proposal" language is more inclusive.
Paragraph 5 of the USA non-paper, which decides that the GA, in a third stage, will conduct further review of the participation of NGOs in the work of the UN based upon the SG report, is also basically fine, except for a typo which refers to the wrong preceding paragraph. It is important to note that this provision is a major change in the position of the USA, meeting a central demand of the JCC countries.
In what may seem heretical, I have some concern that by calling for the "review" of all other UN areas in the 53rd GA (1998), only a little more than one year from now, not enough time will have elapsed and experience been gained in the GA Plenary, Main Committees and Special Sessions. However, worries that the UN will move too fast on an issue are sometimes unfounded.
Central elements of the most NGO proposals have been (1) that the current arrangements in ECOSOC, developed and refined over 50 years, should be the basis for extending consultative arrangements beyond ECOSOC; (2) therefore lengthy, excruciating renegotiations should be avoided, saving tens of thousands of hours and tens of millions of dollars; (3) that once governments experienced the implementation of these arrangements in the General Assembly they would realize that their fears about this process would be unfounded, that there would not be an opening of a "floodgate," nor would the integrity of the intergovernmental process be weakened (instead it will be strengthened); (4) that governments will realize that existing machinery can accommodate almost all the additional needs and that expensive, time-consuming new machinery and procedures will not be necessary; (5) that the process utilized in the General Assembly bodies will prove to be the most appropriate and economical process for extending rights to other bodies in the General Assembly and UN system [i.e. identifying, in a step-by-step process, the bodies to which consultative arrangements should be extended, but allowing each body to implement the decision in a timely and appropriate fashion].
d. Concerning the two issues raised by the USA in paragraphs 6 and 7 of its non-paper: The quadrennial review of ECOSOC NGOs already accomplishes this review goal for a majority of the NGOs concerned. But, provided proper guarantees and procedures are adopted, there should be no serious objection to removing Roster and DPI NGOs which no longer exist or which no longer express an interest in being "accredited." The "scale of fees" proposal, however, will probably be very controversial and an enormous amount of time and costs will be involved in debating and/or implementing the proposal.
INTGLIM looks forward to receiving other comments on the USA non-paper proposal and on this brief commentary. With appropriate modifications, the USA proposal could provide the basis for an historic extension of NGO consultative arrangements in the General Assembly and in other areas of the UN. NGOs should also contact governments as soon as possible with their views.
INTGLIM * International NGO Task Group on Legal and Institutional Matters *
Wm R. Pace, Chair
c/o WFM/IGP 777 UN Plaza New York, New York 10017, 12th Floor
Tel. (212) 599-1320 Fax. (212) 599 1332
More Information on NGOs and the General Assembly
