Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
NGOs CONGO's Response to the Secretary
General's ReportComments by the Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the
United Nations on the Report of the Secretary-General (A/53/170)
June 3, 1999
I. Introduction
This report (A/53/170) is an important attempt to document how the UN system -- from global policymaking at UN headquarters to individual agencies and UN entities operating at national levels -- works with non-governmental organizations (NGOs). With these aspects compiled in one place for the first time, the report should help all concerned with the UN/NGO relationship take stock and consider how this interaction can be made more effective in the future. Historically, NGOs have been understood to be a voice of the people and thus should be given fullest access to the work of the United Nations.
The report includes many of the basic elements of the UN-NGO relationship, such as the relevant ECOSOC resolutions and descriptions of NGO relations with many parts of the system, including those with subsidiary organs, specialized agencies and related organizations. But, the report also is either too reserved about or lacking with regard to several other important elements.
First, it describes but does not systematically evaluate how the various existing arrangements with NGOs are functioning. For example, it does not examine where the inefficiencies, duplications of effort or lack of financial resources exist which inhibit the interaction of NGOs with the UN system. The report does not, for instance, consider ways in which NGO relationships throughout the system might be rationalized in order to do away with a plethora of arrangements which can be confusing for or misunderstood by member states or NGOs alike. While the Joint Investigations Unit (JIU) has looked at the NGO relationship generally in recent years, the JIU or another unit could examine the specific ways in which the Secretariat is or is not achieving that which is outlined in ECOSOC resolution 1996/31.
Second, the report does not identify institutional barriers to increased NGO participation or suggest innovative ways to overcome them. These include the legal, regulatory and administrative limits which exist de jure or de facto. For example, such obstacles have had the effect of inhibiting best practices from time to time.
In addition, while many NGOs believe there is a need to build support for NGOs among governments and within the Secretariat, notwithstanding supportive statements by the Secretary- General -- for example that NGOs are essential to the process of policy formation and in the execution of policies -- the report does not offer many specific suggestions with respect to how this is or might be achieved. The report does not acknowledge the often complementary role NGOs can and have served to act and speak on occasions when the UN system cannot or will not. One example is the delivery of emergency humanitarian aid in areas where one or more parties to a conflict will not permit a UN presence. Another is the ability of NGOs to bring governments and insurgencies together in the same location to explore or even achieve conflict resolution. In some instances NGOs have begun peace processes which the UN has later been able to assume once enough confidence has been established between the parties that they will officially recognize one another and agree to UN-sponsored mediation. A third example is when NGOs draw attention to gross violations of human rights which member states might be reluctant to raise. The next version of the report should seek to build that support and provide many more specific examples of NGO best practices at all levels.
While the report takes note of some of the use of information and communications technology in support of arrangements for consultation with NGOs, the report fails to recognize either the magnitude and implications of the ways that the use of these technologies is transforming consultative arrangements or the extent to which such arrangements have involved partnership and cooperation between NGOs and the UN - often with NGOs playing a leadership role.
While the initial report regrettably had no formal input from NGOs or NGO representatives, the decision of the General Assembly in late 1998 to seek the views of NGOs, governments and intergovernmental bodies is welcome. This set of comments is one response to that decision.
II. Institutional ArrangementsWhile noting in paragraph 7 the facilities the Secretariat is to provide to NGOs in consultative status, this chapter fails to describe fully the best practices which have evolved over the years between NGOs and many parts of the UN system years with specific regard to access. One example is the access which NGOs have had within the UN facility in New York. In the past, a limited number of bearer passes for access to the floor of the General Assembly Hall were issued to NGOs as well as a number of passes for access to the second floor. In the past two years no passes for the General Assembly Hall were issued and, according to the latest security regulations, access to the second floor is to remain restricted throughout the year. Current arrangements for seating in the General Assembly Plenary are inadequate, particularly as they do not provide for timely access to documentation or texts of speeches. Regrettably, the report addresses the matter of seating arrangements in the General Assembly Hall only from a rather limited financial and legal point of view (section VI., paragraph 77). In practice, while it has not been mandated, NGOs in consultative status have been given access, for the most part. as well to the Conference Rooms where the Main Committees of the General Assembly meet by chairpersons of these bodies.
NGO have also had access to the second floor hallways outside the Security Council, the Trusteeship Council, the ECOSOC chambers, and the Delegates' Lounge. New restrictions have been imposed on some of these areas. In some instances access to the meeting places stipulated in ECOSOC resolution 1996/31 should not require further consultation with governments [see also paragraph 77]).
In sum, these increased restrictions severely curtail the activities of NGO representatives.
In a related vein, the report does not address issues relating to security which have, in practice, been the rationale for progressive curbs on the access which NGOs have had to particular places in UN headquarters in New York. It is our observation that security procedures should be instituted on a universal, non-discriminatory basis for all persons entering UN facilities, whether they are diplomats, secretariat staff, the media, NGO representatives or visitors. Such procedures exist in other places most notably at the European office of the UN in Geneva and are understood by all as necessary. NGOs reject the implication made manifest by special security procedures for their representatives that they constitute a greater security threat than any other person entering UN premises. Some NGOs are concerned that security pretenses by the Secretariat are used to please some member states which wish to insulate themselves as much as possible from interaction with NGOs despite public statements otherwise.
Bearing these trends in mind, many NGOs have commented about the contrast between statements by high-level UN officials as to how indispensable NGOs are in fostering the work of the United Nations, while NGOs face significant set-backs in their ability to fully participate in the consultative process. An unrecognized contradiction is the effort to increase NGO participation while simultaneously other steps are taken to restrict it.
The report does not include an evaluation of whether and how the Secretariat has taken concrete steps to ensure that these facilities are indeed provided. It should systematically review, in particular, whether documentation is distributed efficiently and whether seating arrangements and other facilities during public meetings of the General Assembly that deal with economic, social and related subjects are adequate. For example, some NGOs find the new practice of making documents available at locations other than the respective windows in the conference room cumbersome and often disorganized. Instead, they could be made available at the conference room windows, eliminating a second distribution point. An evaluation of all of these facilities should be conducted in consultation with NGOs.
Perhaps not surprisingly the report does not raise questions concerning the way in which the ECOSOC Committee on NGOs has granted consultative status to some organizations in recent years, particularly since the adoption of ECOSOC resolution 1996/31. For example, the Committee has granted status to organizations which would not appear to fit the definition of a non-governmental organization. Some of these entities are perceived to be "government- organized NGOs", which has the effect of undermining the essential character of legitimate NGOs.
The report does not evaluate in a critical way the Secretariat's methods in dealing with NGOs which do not respect the decorum of the United Nations. Given the fact that some member states, through the Committee on NGOs, have shown interest in developing a "code of conduct" for NGOs, the report does not evaluate what has or has not been done to instill an climate of proper conduct among NGOs or how the relevant units in the Secretariat have handled breaches of appropriate behavior with administrative measures. The result has been member state pressure to propose more onerous rules for the entire class of NGOs, rather than the Secretariat exercising its prerogative to take disciplinary action against those very few NGOs which do not conduct themselves properly. If the Secretariat was more pro-active in this area, member states would be less inclined to take matters into their own hands as some have suggested they may do via the Committee on NGOs.
The report does not lift up another issue of increasing concern to NGOs, namely the politicization of NGO accreditation due to challenges which NGOs present with respect to the policies of member states in ECOSOC fora such as the Commission on Human Rights. The Secretariat could do more to appeal to member states not to seek retribution (such as efforts to demote, suspend or revoke consultative status) against NGOs for statements with which the member states do not agree. NGOs consider their prerogative to comment on human rights matters to be consistent with the purposes and principles in the UN Charter.
After the reference to the Conference of NGOs in the penultimate sentence of paragraph 11, it would be important to add that the Conference is "an independent organization that facilitates participation by NGOs in United Nations discussions, inter alia through substantive NGO committees".
Paragraph 14 prompts the question of whether it is the work of the Secretariat to orchestrate or to facilitate the work of NGOs. It is the view of many NGOs that the Inter-Departmental Working Group on NGOs has not yet yielded concrete, visible benefits for NGOs and that the basic responsibility for dealing with NGOs needs to be given higher profile within the UN system.
Paragraphs 15-30 are valuable contributions to an understanding of the kinds of relationships which UN specialized agencies, subsidiary bodies and related organizations have with NGOs.
Given the degree to which NGO access is now being restricted -- ostensibly for security reasons - - the final sentence in paragraph 31 needs strengthening regarding NGOs being the source of very few disruptive incidents.
The report fails to draw a distinction between NGOs in the non-profit sector and those in the for- profit sector. In an effort to promote transparency, the report should make explicit what has only recently been brought to our attention, i.e. that responsibility for UN relations with the business sector lies with the Deputy Secretary-General, while those with non-profit NGOs are handled by the Assistant-Secretary-General for External Relations.
The report sometimes treats NGOs in consultative status in the same way as NGOs without such status and the business community. Consultative NGOs consider themselves "within the family" since the beginning of the UN in 1945, as stated in Article 71 of the Charter.
In addition, the access needs of NGOs associated with the Department of Public Information should be acknowledged in view of their important function to disseminate UN information among their constituencies.
The report offers no guidance to member states with regard to the possibility of establishing a set of "rules" on a par with ECOSOC resolution 1996/31 for businesses and business-related groups. Since there is increased cooperation by the Secretariat with the "for-profit" sector at a variety of levels procurement and the annual Davos Summit being two of the more obvious examples members states should, in the interest of greater transparency, give consideration to codifying, with an ECOSOC resolution, appropriate arrangements for the "for-profit" sector.
Bearing in mind the diverse arrangements with various parts of the UN system outlined in paragraphs 12-30, consideration should be given to the development of uniform, flexible, but clear, guidelines for accreditation throughout the system and include streamlined procedures for NGOs already in consultative status with ECOSOC.
At the same time, some NGOs have found the practice of making joint oral or written statements, when possible, by recognized consultative NGOs, both efficient and sometimes more effective. Even so, NGOs should not be pressured to do so.
In the context of both global conferences and annual Commission meetings, note should be taken of the role of NGOs in holding daily briefings which many find beneficial to both monitoring the proceedings and influencing the development of policy.
III. A growing operational partnershipThe report does not acknowledge adequately the degree to which UN cooperation with NGOs at the operational level has been critical even essential to the delivery of services to populations in need.
In addition to those cited in paragraph 33, among other frequently cited comparative advantages which NGOs bring to operational matters are: 1) the greater institutional flexibility of NGOs compared to both government and UN agencies; 2) the cost effectiveness of NGOs; and 3) the additional financial and voluntary resources NGOs frequently are able to bring to any given task.
The overview of operational practices by agency in paragraphs 34-45 is informative and helpful.
Capacity-building for NGOs in developing nations may be as important as the capacity-building UN and bilateral donors may undertake for government agencies. The collaboration with NGOs to deliver services will have much greater impact if it includes provision for local capacity- building, as recognized later with FAO in paragraph 65 and NGLS in paragraph 75.
Initiatives of UNDP (paragraph 42) and the World Bank (paragraph 43) to engage NGOs in policy dialogue are important. The significance of the relationships outlined in paragraphs 41- 46 could be strengthened with specific mention, for example, of the World Bank NGO dialogue on the impact of Structural Adjustment Programs.
The report also omits mention of NGO cooperation with the human rights treaty bodies which has now become routine.
IV. Building bridges between civil society and the United NationsIn keeping with the need to critically evaluate the work of various UN units relating to NGOs, the Secretariat should examine the efficiency and effectiveness of the activities conducted by the Department of Public Information as described in paragraph 51. NGOs based outside the major UN centers need to be better informed about up-coming UN meetings and events. This task is one in which the UN Information Centers could intensify their efforts.
NGOs can help the United Nations consider new approaches and new conceptual language to reflect both global and local needs. It will be crucial for the UN Secretariat and the various agencies and subsidiary bodies to take more readily into the account work being undertaken at the grassroots by NGOs.
The role of the International Campaign to Ban Land Mines (ICBL), as outlined in paragraph 56, may be misleading. The ICBL has done more than "lend tremendous weight to International and United Nations-led campaigns." In this instance NGOs eventually found the existing UN mechanism -- the Convention on Conventional Weapons -- inadequate to achieve the objective of a total ban on anti-personnel landmines. The ICBL searched for governments to support their cause and jointly developed a more comprehensive treaty for which the United Nations became the depository. The collective victory for citizens of the world represented in this achievement shows the synergy that can exist when NGOs take the lead and governments, the United Nations and NGOs work as equals.
While UN officials and member states may feel that there was a breakthrough in perceptions of the role of NGOs with the United Nations conferences as asserted in paragraph 57, such a perception ignores the fact that NGOs were having an impact on the deliberations of the United Nations from the day of its founding, in such areas as human rights, conditions of work, arms control and economic and social development. The statement perpetuates a myth that suggests NGO participation is all new. While NGOs did not organize the global conferences of the 1990's, they did organize -- often involving CONGO -- the large NGO forums that had a crucial impact on government positions at the Earth Summit, the World Conference on Human Rights, the International Conference on Population and Development and the Fourth World Conference on Women.
Many NGOs have stressed the importance of these meetings to the outcome of the conferences themselves and expressed appreciation to the Conference of NGOs and its committees which have often organized or helped organize them.
The report does not give adequate attention to an important portion of ECOSOC resolution 1996/31 Part VII relating to participation of non-governmental organizations in international conferences convened by the United Nations. While this is mentioned in paragraph 58, it would be particularly important to make this information more visible to member states and all other interested parties because it presents a possible model also for NGO accreditation and access to special sessions of the General Assembly and perhaps even to the General Assembly itself and its Main Committees. If the General Assembly could consider this model, it might: 1) avoid an otherwise lengthy process of creating new and different arrangements specifically for the General Assembly and its Main Committees and 2) raise up the possibility of one Secretariat unit handling NGO accreditation with both the ECOSOC and the General Assembly, thereby contributing to efficient use of the United Nations' resources.
In a fashion similar to that described in paragraph 58 with regard to global conferences, the report could have made a similar point that the growing number of NGOs usually has not led to increased logistical or political difficulties for the work of ECOSOC and its subsidiary bodies. This would be relevant also to some of the contentions about numbers presented, with a rationale related to security concerns, with which most NGOs disagree, based on statistical data.
The assertion in paragraph 59 that NGO involvement in the world conferences demonstrates a worldwide constituency for United Nations activities is indeed true, but too one-sided. The accomplishments demonstrated what can be achieved when the United Nations and NGOs are engaged when awareness is raised in a way neither could effectively do alone and when focused debate forms a consensus. A new benchmark is established for performance by the United Nations, by individual governments and this affects the entire world.
V. Participation of NGOs from all regionsThe report unfortunately does not link its discussion of the lack of access to information for southern NGOs in paragraph 66 to paragraph 78 in section VI. where access to the Optical Disk System (ODS) is mentioned. Despite the latter's reference to the need to review funding for the ODS, the relationship between these two concerns could be more closely drawn. On the other hand, it should be noted that some NGOs consider the ODS cumbersome, sometimes of limited utility (such as lacking a printer) and, in fact, inferior to alternative information technology that may be available. For example, through e-mail lists it should be possible to integrate the UN mailing list with a document base. NGOs themselves have managed lists and make documents available for the Committee on Sustainable Development.
Many NGOs believe there needs to be increased NGO participation from the South. The report does not describe adequately the ways in which the UN system has facilitated the presence of NGOs at UN meetings and the importance of additional resources being made available for such participation to enhance the presence of NGO representatives from all regions. It could, for example, be more direct in suggesting a stronger role for the regional Economic and Social Commissions in relating to NGOs especially from developing countries and enhancing their participation in UN activities at the regional and national levels. This role would be important with respect to assistance to national NGOs (paragraph 67) where regional offices should have a role along with UN field offices since the regional bodies might be less susceptible to local political pressures.
In this section the report could have acknowledged that, to an increasing degree, international NGOs are taking steps to have representatives of their national affiliates present at UN meetings in an effort to achieve greater balance from all regions among NGO representatives. Regional and national affiliates of international NGOs have been informed about UN activities and been asked for their feed-back, even though for practical and financial reasons it has not been possible for these affiliates to attend UN meetings and events. While much remains to be done (and funding is one of the greatest impediments), highlighting this fact would help dispel the misconception among some member states that because some international NGOs are based in the North, they are "Northern NGOs", when indeed most of their members are from the South.
Efforts by NGLS (paragraph 68) in identifying and financing participation for NGO representatives from developing nations need to be transparent and utilize widely-understood criteria.
As mentioned in paragraph 69, bringing together NGOs from different regions and from north and south in such large numbers has been one of the greatest contributions to the success of the global conferences. Their presence has had a major impact on the discussions and recommendations. The next version of the report should consider how the links and networks that consequently have been generated should be strengthened.
Paragraph 70 might have given greater emphasis on the possibilities of using the Internet for networking and communication.
VI. Enhancing the participation of NGOs in all areas of the UN systemWithin the context of paragraph 71, a survey of all NGO databases would be an important contribution and should be made accessible to NGOs. For example, we have also become aware of databases which profile most international NGOs and their relationship with intergovernmental bodies and could be accessed by the Secretariat as well as the general public via the Internet.
Concerning paragraph 74, NGOs are interested in the review of the policies and procedures outlined in the Secretary-General's Bulletin of 1984 which remains in effect. They should be consulted in the process of this review.
Discussion about relations with NGOs cannot be done authentically in the absence of NGOs. Therefore, it is questionable whether the Inter-Departmental Working Group on NGOs, mentioned again in paragraph 75, is a valid vehicle for such discussions given the absence of NGO representatives. In a related way, a system-wide survey of experiences and best practices in NGO capacity-building would be welcome and the results should be useful to all NGOs, as it would respond to some of the questions about capacity-building mentioned in section III. Participation by NGOs at some stage prior to publication would be beneficial. Dissemination of results could be extremely valuable, and something in which NGOs might participate.
In paragraph 75 the report helpfully suggests that best practices in the area of relations with NGOs by organizations in the UN system might be catalogued utilizing the Interdepartmental Working Group as a tool for this endeavor. NGOs would also find such a sharing of experiences useful and would be interested in knowing whether there has been any progress in this effort.
In paragraph 76, the report does not fully explore the growing possibilities for the utilization of existing or rapidly evolving technologies which may enhance the participation of NGOs in distant locations. Interactive, as compared with one-way, communication is becoming increasingly feasible. In many instances these methods may be used to partly bridge the physical limits to NGO access for those away from the main UN offices. Furthermore, greater attention needs to given to sharing information with NGOs at the regional, sub-regional and national levels (This is also relevant to our comments on section V. above).
With respect to paragraph 78, please see our comments on the ODS and the use of the Internet (paragraph 66) in section V. above.
The proposal in paragraph 79 of the establishment of a trust fund to facilitate NGO participation from developing, least developed and transitional countries is an important element of ECOSOC resolution 1996/31, which should be pursued, based on clear and transparent criteria. Such a fund might also be utilized to familiarize those NGOs with UN procedures and practices in advance of their participation in meetings and events and provide training opportunities as well.
