Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
NGOs Part 2: NGOs and the United Nations
Beginning of this Document
4. Advocacy and Support within the Secretariat and UN agencies
NGOs have very multifaceted relations with the Secretariat. Many NGOs maintain close and cordial relations with Secretariat offices that work on their particular area of policy specialization. NGOs also occasionally relate to high UN officials, such as the Secretary General and his Executive Office - most often in the form of letters, petitions, and other communications about policy matters. And finally, NGOs relate to offices and programs in the Secretariat that work on NGO affairs. The specialized NGO offices can be very helpful in providing information and assistance to NGOs. These offices also work on the process of accreditation and rule-making, the area of greatest friction and conflict.
(a) NGO Offices of the Secretariat
The NGO offices of ECOSOC and the Department of Public Information (DPI) (known in UN parlance as the "NGO Sections") have important similarities but also significant differences. Though they both supervise accreditation of NGOs, one does so through an ECOSOC intergovernmental process [see Section 7 below], while the other does so entirely through the Secretariat.
The two offices' service reputations have varied in the past. In spite of the importance of these offices to the overall NGO environment, the Secretariat rarely consults NGOs about the service quality. Quality might improve if the Secretariat sought NGO input into a periodic review of these offices and their staff.
At present, the leadership in these offices appears to be committed to good service and the ECOSOC office now has a bigger budget, more staff and even a sorely-needed in-house fax machine. The DPI office gets good marks for timely processing of pass requests and for overall courtesy and helpfulness. But its management of documents in the NGO Resource Center tends to be chaotic. Serious problems exist in both offices.
The DPI accreditation process lacks transparency and it is subject to political pressures like that in ECOSOC. Though the threshold of admittance is supposedly set lower than in the ECOSOC process, the DPI office has been known to reject respected NGOs if they face opposition from powerful member states. DPI must address and correct this problem, particularly as regards the human rights field.
Many NGOs complain that some of the notoriously bureaucratic and unresponsive behavior of the ECOSOC office in the past still persists. The office employs cumbersome and time-consuming procedures for issuing passes, it too often it loses accreditation letters, and its staff can be discourteous. The office imposes an unacceptable three-day wait between receipt of a letter or fax and the issuance of a pass, a wait that DPI does not require. This inexcusable wait can waste precious time during the short stay of an NGO based outside of New York, sometimes ruining the opportunity for participation at critical meetings.
NGOs also find the application procedures for new accreditation in both offices tend to be bureaucratic and paper-bound. Staff have lost or mislaid accreditation folders and have been inflexible in applying rules for evaluation. The NGO world is changing very fast, in terms of activities and needs, and UN offices that relate to NGOs must be change-oriented and flexible. The offices should consider a streamlined, web-based application system.
(b) Non-Governmental Liaison Service
The Non-Governmental Liaison Service (NGLS) offers support to NGOs across the entire UN system, a very broad mandate. It has the advantage of being free of accreditation and pass-issuing responsibilities. Nor does it issue or enforce rules. Instead, it has a broad role of advocacy and information for the NGO community. Run by a small but very effective staff, NGLS has established a solid record, and it has provided a buffer between NGOs and the more intractable rules and practices of the UN system. NGOs are generally very enthusiastic about NGLS, and they appreciate its several excellent publications.
NGOs are surprised to learn that NGLS is minimally funded and that senior professional staff have been on short-term contracts. One very experienced and well-regarded staff person left in early 1999 from the New York office, doubtless in part because of this situation. NGLS has recently gone through a broad evaluation process that yielded a very positive report. It is time that NGLS be given the budget and staff that it needs, to solidify and expand its activities that do much to foster the NGO "partnership" across the broad UN system.
(c) The Assistant Secretary General's Office
The Office of the Assistant Secretary General (ASG) for External Affairs, Gillian Martin Sorensen, acts as the coordinator for NGO issues within the United Nations and also chairs the Inter-Departmental Working Group on NGOs. NGOs favor a high-level focal point in the Secretariat, and they favor system-wide coordination. However, ASG Sorensen and her office have extremely broad responsibilities in other areas, since they address the whole range of contacts with the "outside world." In this setting, NGO matters apparently do not command consistent attention in the office and contact between the office and NGOs is sporadic. This problem was clearly reflected in the fact that the office produced a report on NGO access in the summer of 1998 without any NGO consultation.
Many NGOs feel that, both symbolically and practically, the NGO portfolio should not be in the hands of an office charged with "external relations," since NGOs are not external but internal to the UN system. CONGO passed a resolution on February 26, 1999 that expressed strong concern about this problem.
NGOs want a focal point that can be a partner, advocate and friend. But the External Relations office has not succeeded in creating such an environment. It interacts very formally and distantly with NGOs. This has heightened misunderstandings, especially because interaction has largely focused on restrictive new rules. Relations between the ASG's office and the NGO community have increasingly deteriorated, particularly in the wake of the security restrictions of the spring of 1999.
In soliciting input for the second report of the Secretary General, the ASG's office missed an opportunity to hold regular meetings with NGOs, especially NGOs visiting from the South. The office devoted only a half-hour segment of a single meeting with New York-based NGOs to this topic. It inexplicably cancelled a second meeting.
Relations with the NGO community have become so strained that the ASG twice declined to have lunch with the President of CONGO to discuss matters of mutual concern in the spring of 1999. Somewhat earlier, the ASG declined to attend (or to send a representative to) the Stanley Foundation conference on NGOs that took place at Arden House in late February. Since a number of key NGO leaders and heads of delegations were present at the conference, it would have been an ideal time to build bridges and discuss problems informally.
(d) The Inter-Departmental Working Group on NGOs
The Inter-Departmental Working Group on NGOs was established in December 1984 to coordinate policy on NGOs within the Secretariat and the UN system. It has functioned sporadically since, sometimes meeting regularly and sometimes dormant. From the first, the Working Group invited a small number of NGO representatives, usually officers of CONGO and the DPI-NGO Executive Committee, to participate in some of its meetings. The meetings offered the possibility of wider contact and consultation between the leaders of the two main NGO umbrella organizations and UN system officials. After a period of dormancy, the Working Group resumed its meetings with NGO participation in 1993, during the Boutros-Ghali period. But since early 1998, though the Working Group apparently continues to meet, it has not invited NGO representatives to attend. A useful contact is now broken.
(e) Role of the Secretary General
Secretary General Kofi Annan is very busy and has many demands on his time. Nevertheless, it seems fair to ask what role he does or should play personally with respect to NGOs, since he often says that they are such "indispensable partners" of the United Nations.
The Secretary General (SG) meets often with leaders of important international NGOs like Amnesty International or Oxfam to discuss questions within their mandates such as human rights, humanitarian relief and the like. In this regard, he is accessible and supportive of UN-NGO cooperation. He meets exceedingly rarely, however, with regular NGO representatives for the purpose of discussing the role and access of NGOs within the United Nations. He has come to only one CONGO board meeting in his two and a half years in office, though his two immediate predecessors regularly attended.
On a number of occasions, NGOs in New York have approached the Secretary General and asked for meetings on NGO access, but to no avail. When Mr. Annan first came into office in January 1997, a group of NGOs invited him to have lunch with them to discuss broad NGO issues and concerns. After four months of effort, the organizers were told that the SG was too busy and that they should meet with Ms. Sorensen instead. More recently, when CONGO asked to meet with the Secretary General in March 1999 to express concern about access problems and deteriorating relations with the office of the Assistant Secretary General, the SG did not agree to a meeting and instead passed the matter back to Ms. Sorensen.
The NGO initiative on the Optical Disk System had a similar fate. After extensive NGO efforts to work with lower-level Secretariat officials, a group of twelve NGOs wrote a letter and memorandum to the Secretary General on April 25, 1997 asking for urgent action. The SG never replied, but instead passed the matter along to the head of the Department of Public Information, Samir Sanbar. Mr. Sanbar finally replied on June 19, promising that "a policy review is under way." In spite of additional efforts on the NGO side, the Secretariat offered no further response. The policy review, if it ever took place, disappeared without a trace.
Most recently, the Secretary General's Chef de Cabinet, Mr. Iqbal Riza, reportedly took a very strong position in favor of reduced NGO access and tighter security regulations for NGOs. This touched the core of NGO interests and has aroused great NGO concern. NGOs wonder: does this represent the position of the Secretary General himself, or is the SG unaware of the matter? Even though the issue is of enormous importance to NGOs, they are unable to discover the answer, since the SG has placed himself beyond the reach of NGO representatives who work day-in-day-out at the United Nations.
NGOs expect the Secretary General to intervene occasionally on their behalf, to help decide matters that are of special importance and urgency to the NGO community. The Secretary General could surely find time once or twice a year to have an extensive chat with NGO representatives, to find out how the organization he heads could really, in practice, develop a partnership with them.
5. Consultation in Administrative Decision-Making
Because the UN system hinges on mandates and pressures from member states, the Secretariat understandably does not give high priority to the views of NGOs. But if NGOs are the UN's partners, some decisions must take NGO views into account. There must be regular consultation with NGOs, especially on administrative decisions that directly affect the general interests of NGOs, or the interests of an NGO sub-group.
Means exists for consultation. The DPI-NGO Executive Committee and CONGO are two NGO umbrella organizations that offer points of interchange between the Secretariat and the NGO community. These are elected bodies and are broadly representative of NGO opinion.
The DPI-NGO Executive Committee operates at a disadvantage, since it lacks an office or staff. Its volunteer capacities are severely stretched. Further, the Department of Public Information often acts in a controlling way over jointly-sponsored activities and events. Though the Committee is not particularly active on access issues, it works in many ways to express the concerns of DPI-accredited NGOs.
CONGO has a substantial budget, as well as an office and staff. In the past, many NGOs viewed it as a conservative body that was exclusively interested in the privileges of ECOSOC NGOs. But CONGO has now changed its name and taken steps to incorporate and represent all NGOs. CONGO has recently developed a useful electronic mailing list to inform the UN community about NGO access. It has organized a number of meetings on NGO access questions and has developed a statement on this question.
The Secretariat has regularly consulted with the leaders of these two umbrella groups, who until recently participated in meetings of the Inter-Departmental Working Group on NGOs. The Secretariat also occasionally consults beyond CONGO and the Executive Committee, inviting other NGOs with expertise, special knowledge, or additional perspectives to participate in consultation sessions, as was the case with three meetings convened by ASG Sorensen in December 1998 and March 1999.
In recent years, some NGOs have urged the Secretariat to develop policy-consultation groups, which could provide valuable NGO input in policy areas, like the web site and information services. Secretariat staff generally reacted negatively to this idea. In doing so, they have usually expressed two views. First, they have raised problems of representation: who would decide, and on what basis, whom they should consult? This is a valid concern, but it is one that can be solved practically if there is a will and an interest in solving it.
Another Secretariat reaction is that NGO views are not relevant and do not have to be considered when policies are decided. A number of high-ranking staff expressed this view during the Optical Disk System controversy in late 1996 and early 1997. NGOs responded that they should be consulted as stakeholders . . . or at worst they should be consulted as customers. NGOs asked the estimated cost of the proposed system improvements. They asked for discussions to explore alternative pricing systems. The Secretariat refused.
Sometimes, offices in the Secretariat chose to consult by means of questionnaires or by inviting written input. This sidesteps the problem of representation. Though it appears to be more open to input from NGOs based outside New York and Geneva, in practice it often yields unsatisfactory results. Secretariat offices can select the input they prefer and ignore the rest, and there is no creative interaction between NGOs and Secretariat policy makers. While "input" of various types can be valuable from time to time, it does not substitute for direct face-to-face consultation. Substantial direct discussions would have improved the current consultations on access and on web site improvements.
The problem of consultation is most acute in the areas of access rules and security policy. In recent months, as the Secretariat has developed new rules in this area, the process of consultation with NGOs has been very unsatisfactory. NGOs were astonished that the Secretariat developed important new policies in the absence of NGOs. Then, the Secretariat issued these policies without any serious effort to present justifications. Ideally, Secretariat officials would work with NGOs to clarify problems and jointly work on how to solve them.
The Secretariat additionally has a tendency to announce new rules immediately before their implementation or even after implementation has already started. The memorandum of Mr. Riza, dated April 19 and implemented about the same time, reached NGOs in the post only in late May. NGOs would appreciate timely notification, when important new rules affecting them are introduced. The Secretariat could set up a special list-serv for this purpose and it could use the UN Information Centers to relay information more quickly at the national level. The UN might save a great deal in postage costs and reach NGOs world wide far sooner.
The Secretariat also might make use of the UN web site to post more information on NGO issues, including existing rules and regulations, access rights, examples of best practices and so forth. This would be a gesture in support of NGO access and an important move to increase the transparency of NGO rules.
There is no magic formula for how policy consultation should work, how much of it there should be and how much NGO voices should count. Obviously, there are many pressures on the Secretariat and Secretariat officials must make complex political calculations involving the views of member states. Also there are the perceived interests of the Secretariat itself, and its officials' wish to be free from outside interference. Furthermore, consultation is time-consuming (for all parties). This must be especially burdensome in a downsized, under-funded and somewhat demoralized Secretariat, where staff are overworked and under-resourced. But in the end, better consultation will work better. It will strengthen relationships and produce better policy. And it certainly is an essential ingredient in partnership.
NGOs' relations with the United Nations depends a great deal on their relations with the diplomatic missions of member states. Many delegations offer vital support to NGOs' quest for access to particular UN forums. Delegations provide background information and private reports on the progress of negotiations. They intervene with the Secretariat on NGOs' behalf. They promote informal access to meetings and new formal rights. And they help NGOs to meet and work with other delegations. Without such support, NGOs could not function effectively in the UN system.
Cordial relations with delegations does not come to NGOs as a matter of right, but rather they result from a mixture of NGOs' diplomatic efforts, mutual NGO-delegation interest, and a sense among delegations that NGOs are indispensable partners and useful sources of information.
A considerable number of delegations have recently offered more briefings, receptions and other meetings with NGOs. They actively brief NGOs on their major policy work and they seek input from selected NGOs in specialized areas of their work. The US and UK delegations, among others, have developed active and effective outreach programs of this kind. Many delegations have also established web sites, some of which are especially valuable. These make more information available to NGOs and the public than ever before.
Delegations are selective in their relations with NGOs. They make strategic choices about their NGO contacts and allies. Delegations inevitably chose NGO partners whose goals coincide with their own national policies and agendas. But many delegations interact broadly with the NGO community.
Sometimes, the personal commitments of individual delegates, including Permanent Representatives (PRs), have made an especially important contribution to progress in the work of NGOs. For the recent past, a few outstanding examples are Ambassadors Juan Somavia of Chile, Antonio Monteiro of Portugal, Razali Ismail of Malaysia, Richard Butler of Australia, Ahmed Kamal of Pakistan, Hans Dahlgren of Sweden, Paolo Fulci of Italy and Samuel Insanally of Guyana. Below the level of PR, there are very many persons who have given NGOs tremendous help, and who interact intensively with NGO representatives. The Canadian and Dutch delegations, among others, have a reputation for outstanding support for NGOs.
The strong and growing network of relations between delegations and NGOs promises to solidify NGO relations with the United Nations and move it forward in the years ahead. It will continue to be the keystone of NGO action.
7. The ECOSOC Committee on NGOs
The Committee on NGOs of ECOSOC consists of 19 members, with new elections every four years. The Committee reviews applications for accreditation, conducts a quadrennial review of those NGOs already granted accreditation, and considers general policy matters and rules governing NGO access and activities. It has an extremely heavy volume of work. The Committee has held consultation meetings with NGOs from time to time in the past and it has held such meetings in December, 1998, and June, 1999. There appears to be better dialogue with NGOs than in the recent past, but Committee members usually have heavy responsibilities for other committee work and time pressure limits their capacity for lengthy interaction. NGOs are very concerned about several dimensions of the Committee's work.
(a) Accreditation Process
NGOs are concerned that the process of granting accreditation is politicized. Qualified NGO applicants can be denied accreditation if they face the concerted efforts of one or more powerful member states, or a bloc of states. Similarly, NGOs that do not adequately fill the qualifications may be accepted if they have powerful member states or blocs as sponsors. Too often, government-sponsored NGOs ("GONGOS" in UN parlance) achieve accreditation.
The most politicized area of the Committee's work concerns NGOs in the human rights field. In early June of 1999, the Committee denied accreditation to Human Rights in China, a respected and well-established group. Such decisions weaken the credibility of the accreditation process in the eye of NGOs and they weaken UN-NGO relations.
NGOs wonder whether new means can be found to reduce the politicization of the accreditation process. For example, the Committee could invite a panel of experts to make recommendations, or the Committee could establish clearer rules that would be applied in a more even-handed manner. The Committee should act to ensure the fairest possible process for all applicants, especially those in the human rights field.
(b) Proposals for Restricting NGO Access
The Committee has recently considered proposals that would restrict the number of NGO representatives accredited to particular meetings, impose requirements that NGOs submit membership lists, place punitive regulations on the quadrennial review, and impose a new "code of conduct." NGOs have spoken on the shortcomings of these proposals to the Committee in December 1998, but a few comments are in order here.
Firstly, NGOs are aware that a few cases of misconduct have occurred and that NGO consultations are not always as fruitful as they could be. Discussions between the Committee and NGOs can address these problems and seek to resolve them. But general rules of the kind that Committee members propose would seriously set back relations with NGOs and weaken the United Nations.
If delegations restrict the numbers of NGO representatives at any one meeting, they would hamper the work of major international NGOs that bring many representatives from their national sections to important forums. Human rights NGOs accredit many persons, since they need a diversity of voices and expertise to address world wide conditions at the Human Rights Commission. Similarly, during the Prep Comms of the International Criminal Court process, some NGOs accredited many representatives, helping to provide legal expertise and diverse international views. There are many other cases of legitimate use of significant numbers of passes by single NGOs.
If delegations demand membership lists as a condition of accreditation or as part of regular review, they would create impossible problems for NGOs. Large international NGOs may have millions of members in hundreds of chapters world wide. Most do not maintain centralized lists and in any case they would want to protect their members' privacy. If delegations withdraw accreditation of NGOs who are just slightly late in submitting their quadrennial review documents, they may punish those who have fallen prey to problems of postal service, unstable political conditions, or similar reasons beyond NGO control. This would obviously be unfair.
Finally, if delegations impose a general code of conduct on NGOs, they will be interfering unduly in the free operation of these organizations. NGOs should consider the need for such a code among themselves, but they certainly should not be subjected to a code that is invented in an intergovernmental process.
The Committee, wisely, has not passed any such resolutions. But proposals remain under active consideration. NGOs are very concerned but they are encouraged that the Committee, in its June 1999 session has decided to widen its problem-solving dialogue with NGOs. NGOs hope that after further consultation, delegates will decide to set these proposals aside and that it will turn to more positive solutions.
(c) Other Issues
Looking ahead, NGOs would like strengthen dialogue with the Committee. They would like the Committee to regularize its NGO consultation process (perhaps making it a feature of every bi-annual meeting) and to include NGOs in the agenda-setting for such consultations.
NGOs also urge the committee to operate more transparently and to share information on problems that it perceives, including details of cases of unacceptable conduct by NGO representatives. NGOs think the Committee would do well to make more use of the disciplinary process that is mandated in Resolution 1996/31, rather than considering broad new rules that negatively affect all NGOs. The Committee should develop a grievance or disciplinary procedure that affirms NGO rights and conforms rigorously to due process
8. The Problematic of "Civil Society"
We will not comment at length on the question of the developing relationship between the United Nations system and "civil society" including business corporations, a question that has far-reaching practical, ethical and political ramifications. It is worth noting, however, that NGOs are worried about the long-term implications of this new policy direction and concerned that it may hamper UN-NGO relationship.
When the Secretariat increasingly uses of the term "civil society" in UN reports, interchangeably with the term "NGOs," it blurs an important distinction that is made in the UN Charter. At the very least, there should be a thorough and meaningful consultation between the Secretariat, delegations and NGOs about this issue.
As we have already noted, NGOs suffer from a serious shortage of office and meeting space. This shortage is growing more acute, as more NGOs seek access to the UN, missions expand, intergovernmental meetings increase in number, more conferences and followups take place in New York, and the local real estate market tightens.
NGOs need space to carry out their work. They need reasonably priced office space and they need free or very-low-priced meeting space. The trends suggest that this problem could get much worse in the future. It particularly affects Southern NGOs and NGOs who come to New York on a short-term basis. The UN has made no provision for solving this problem, though its arrangements for correspondents might serve as a precedent and a model. Another useful precedent is the NGO office space now being developed by the canton and municipality of Geneva. It is time for urgent action in New York, before developers seize all the real estate possibilities in the neighborhood.
The UN could develop a site (or part of a mixed-use site) that would be used for NGO offices and meeting areas (perhaps some provision could be made for low-budget missions as well). Such a site would ideally be contiguous with the site at headquarters - such as the "Boys' Club" site to the West or the "Con Ed" site to the South. The UN could perhaps obtain low-cost financing through the City of New York, as was done for construction of other UN buildings like UNICEF.
Possibly, private foundations, individuals or governments could be interested in supporting the project. Or the space could be included in a development as a public amenity mandated by the City Planning Commission. Resulting office space could be rented to NGOs at a rate that would cover the carrying costs, a rate that would be considerably below the market level. Meeting space might also be provided at low or no cost to NGOs in the same development.
The "Con Ed" site in particular lends itself to development on a multi-use basis by a private developer, with concessional space included under a plan prepared by the Planning Commission. This might burden the UN with only minimal cost and very little development planning effort. The UN must move quickly, though, since developers and city planners are already getting submissions ready for the new use of this enormous site.
10. The Challenge of Southern Participation
NGOs from the Global South have a relatively weak presence at the UN. They are represented through international NGOs, of course, but with rare exceptions "national" (single-country) NGOs are present only sporadically, at the time of major conference Prep Comms or followups. This feeds criticisms that NGOs are not adequately representative of the world's population and it weakens the NGO movement. NGO leaders are concerned about this problem, and in recent years they have taken steps to find solutions.
Some international NGOs bring representatives of Southern affiliates regularly to New York and Geneva to important meetings. The World Council of Churches, the International Federation of Human Rights and the Coalition for an International Criminal Court are among many NGOs that actively bring affiliates to UN meetings. In any single year, NGOs spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this effort, with grants from foundations, governments and individual donors. NGLS and other UN offices, including the secretariats of world conferences, have also used funds provided by governments to bring NGOs to UN events. All efforts of this kind pose difficult problems of selection criteria - how to get the fairest representation, the best input, the greatest diversity, geographical and gender balance and all with utmost transparency of selection. Clearly existing results do not suffice. Much more needs to be done.
Visiting NGOs need help in understanding the UN system and getting quick orientation, assistance with accreditation and the like. NGLS and the Church Center for the UN have traditionally assisted visitors in such ways. But if Southern NGOs come in larger numbers, the UN will have to organize more programs of this kind.
As we have pointed out earlier, there also must be space for visiting NGOs to have temporary offices and to hold caucuses and meetings. The Church Center for the UN has done outstanding work over the years in providing space for NGO secretariats and caucus meetings, but there is a great and growing space shortage. The UN must act to help resolve it.
The UN and NGOs should also organize more events on a regional basis. CONGO is organizing a series of conferences in Asia, Latin America, the Arab World, Africa and Eastern Europe to promote discussion of implementation of the UN world conferences, to strengthen dialogue between regional NGOs and to improve relations with the UN system. The Secretariat is organizing regional hearings to solicit input into the Millennium Forum. The UN and the NGO community can do more in this area, to bring the UN out to the regions. UN bodies could have regular meetings and hearings in regions, incorporating NGO consultation. A revived ECOSOC might consider moving in this direction. Even Security Council initiatives, such as efforts to make sanctions more effective, could profitably incorporate regional NGOs into monitoring processes. The possibilities are endless.
The UN could take a number of other steps, too, that could address the problem. Free access to the Optical Disk System (or the equivalent) would help. A much larger trust fund to bring NGOs to UN sessions would help. More use of video conference facilities (especially as communication costs drop) would help. So would wider UN use of list-servs and other modern communication methods.
Delegations and the NGOs must stop ritual complaints about this problem and start finding solutions. The Secretary General might produce a report on the topic. NGOs and delegates might convene a special joint working group to consider options. All concerned must engage in serious and broad-based planning, followed by action.
CONCLUSION
NGOs are at a critical point in their relationship with the United Nations. They can make substantial further progress or they can suffer serious setbacks. The future is open and NGOs must seize it. They must make their case to governments around the world. And they must come together for stronger, more effective, and more united action at the UN. This will require a new level of focus and organization, a much more efficient lobbying process, and a well-articulated long-term strategy. They must engage in constructive self-examination, remedial action and improved quality of NGO coordination and input into UN forums.
NGOs have a great deal to contribute to the United Nations and they have made substantial strides forward in their access to the UN's decision-making process. Key questions are now on the table, which will have to be answered by delegations, the Secretariat and the NGO movement. Each party will bear part of the responsibility for the final outcome. With good fortune and hard work, NGOs can assume new levels of involvement with the UN system and can contribute to a strengthened UN that is needed for the new millennium.
1. Access to Information
Secretariat should increase the proportion of UN documents posted to the UN web site and especially the non-English document postings. It should continue with the development of this very useful information tool. Secretariat should provide free access to the Optical Disk System in the short term to all accredited NGOs and should explore the options of a more effective document database system for the future. Secretariat should continue to provide free access to the Treaty Database. Delegations should agree to the posting of draft texts, non-papers and other non-public documents on a selective basis, to strengthen the consultation process, especially for NGOs not based in New York and Geneva. Delegations should continue to develop their own web sites and to post their press releases and major documents on these sites. 2. Access to Premises
Security department should eliminate the special screening of NGO representatives at perimeter entrance points or develop a security screening system that treats NGOs the same as delegates, press and UN staff. Security department should set metal detectors (if they are to be used) at sensitivity levels consistent with standard airport security, not at ultra-high levels. Secretariat should clearly explain the need for security arrangements and should announce new rules reasonably in advance, after full consultation. Security department should not search NGOs for documents, read NGO documents or confiscate NGO documents. Security department should very carefully define all rules relating to searches of NGOs beyond the perimeter security zone, after full consultation, and should publishe these rules so that they are clear to all. Secretariat should give NGOs full access to the Second Floor, including the main floor perimeter of the General Assembly Hall, the Delegates Lounge and the corridors and meeting rooms in the Conference Building. Secretariat should allow NGOs to circulate freely in other areas of headquarters recently closed off. To the extent that the Secretariat determines that special NGO security issues exist, it should establish a special committee of NGO representatives to engage in regular consultation with the security department so as to consider these issues and find solutions with minimum impact on NGO access. Secretariat and NGOs should consult together to create clearer rules and regulations ensuring NGO rights and responsibilities in the UN buildings. Publication of security department instructions to its own staff on some of these issues would help promote transparency and clarify expectations on NGO conduct. NGOs should not have to pay for access to the UN and use of UN services now provided for free, such as use of conference rooms. Secretariat and member states should develop future budgets with considerations of expanded NGO access needs in mind. Secretariat should look into the broad issue of NGO-related physical facilities at the UN, including conference space. Earpieces should be promptly restored to working order. 3. The Right to Participate
Secretariat, delegations and NGOs should work together to consolidate the new arrangements for NGO consultation contained in ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31. Secretariat, delegations and NGOs should work together to define "existing practices" in various UN forums and to extend "best practices," including practices of NGO consultation with the General Assembly, its Main Committees and Subsidiary Bodies. The Office of the Legal Counsel should affirm its commitment to an expansionist view of NGO rights that takes into account not only formal rules but also well-established practices. The General Assembly should pass a resolution giving GA consultative rights to NGOs already in consultation with ECOSOC. Such rights should apply at least to the General Assembly, its Main Committees and Special Sessions. Rights to Subsidiary Bodies should also be considered. Even in the absence of new NGO consultative rights with the General Assembly, the GA should pass a resolution establishing strong and uniform rights of access to Special Sessions, especially those that undertake reviews of major conferences. All NGOs accredited to the conference should be accredited to the Special Session. Plans for Special Sessions and other major conferences should take into account the problem of space at headquarters and should consider alternative venues, in New York City or elsewhere. 4. Advocacy and Support within the Secretariat and UN Agencies
Secretary General should clarify his position on the matter of NGO access and security regulations and should elaborate the meaning of NGO partnership in this context. Secretariat should invite NGOs to provide regular evaluations on the services provided by the DPI and ECOSOC Offices. Secretariat must take steps to shield the DPI accreditation process from political influences, particularly in the case of applications from NGOs in the human rights field. Secretariat should take steps to improve the service provided in the ECOSOC office, particularly the issuing of passes in a timely manner. The three-day wait for passes must be eliminated and paperwork must be better and more reliably organized. Secretariat should improve both offices' handling of accreditation applications and consider flexible rules for evaluation of NGO work. Forms should be regularly updated and made available electronically, possibly in a web-based format. UN and UN system agencies should substantially increase the budget of NGLS to consolidate its present work and to support an increase in its work program, including building of a web site. Secretary General should create a new focal point office exclusively for NGOs in the Secretariat, perhaps in his Executive Office. Inter-Departmental Working Group on NGOs should again include NGO representatives, on a regular basis in its sessions. Secretary General should meet from time to time with working NGO representatives to consider how a partnership can best be built and how the UN can best work with NGOs, especially in its deliberative and administrative operations. 5. Consultation in Administrative Decision-Making
Secretariat should increase its consultation with NGO representatives, including the use of policy-consultation groups in such areas as the web site, information services, NGO support services and physical facilities. Secretariat should use face-to-face consultation process, as well as questionnaires and invitations for written "input." Face-to-face consultation can be organized during commissions, conference followups and other such periods, to maximize the participation of NGOs based outside New York, especially Southern NGOs. Secretariat should especially consult NGOs on access and security rules that affect NGOs. Secretariat should announce new rules well in advance of their implementation. Last-minute announcements, or announcements after the fact are not acceptable. Secretariat should make use of list-servs and the UN web site for timely communication of information to NGOs. There remains far too much reliance on postal notices, which are both slow and expensive. Secretariat should use the UN web site to post information about NGO access, including regulations, rights, best practices and so on. Secretary General should consider Secretariat-wide initiatives to define and strengthen the culture of openness, accessibility and partnership with NGOs. 6. Relations with Delegations
Delegations and NGOs should continue to build closer relations, as a key element in strengthening NGO work at the United Nations. 7. The ECOSOC Committee on NGOs
Committee should hold a consultation meeting with NGOs during each of its bi-annual sessions and it should consider other means to increase dialogue with NGOs. Committee should take steps to de-politicize its work on accreditation, including possibly using the recommendation of an expert body. Sharper definition of accreditation criteria would also help. Committee should drop consideration of new rules restricting NGO access, while at the same time consulting with NGOs to rectify problems of conduct or promoting more effective interaction at intergovernmental meetings. 8. The Problematic of "Civil Society"
UN should cease to use the term "civil society" interchangeably with "non-governmental organizations." Secretariat or UN agency proposals to increase UN interaction with private business or other non-state actors should be fully and openly discussed, with an eye to its future impact on relations with NGOs. 9. Office and Meeting Space
Secretariat should broadly consider the space needs of NGOs, both for meetings and for offices. Secretariat should consider a site development in the area of headquarters that would serve urgent NGO space needs. 10. The Challenge of Southern Presence
Secretariat should meet office and meeting space needs of visiting Southern NGOs Secretariat should broaden programs for orientation and assistance to visiting Southern NGOs. UN should organize more events in Southern venues, including regional events, special regional hearings and the like. UN should develop a substantial trust fund to bring Southern NGOs to major meetings and conferences. Secretariat should make more use of video conferences and other modern electronic technology to promote consultation with Southern NGOs. Secretariat, delegates and NGOs should convene a working group to explore ideas and means to increase Southern NGO participation. Conclusion
NGOs should work harder to promote their cause and at the same time they should consider means to improve the quality of their consultation with UN forums. UN, governments and NGOs should work together more vigorously to overcome obstacles, increase opportunities for consultation, and build a strong NGO-UN partnership.
More Information on NGOs
