The UN Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, which acts as the gatekeeper to NGO access to the UN, continues to wrongly delay, deny, and reject access to credible human rights NGOs.

At its most recent session in New York in January 2013, the Committee approved 159 NGOs for access (or ‘consultative status’) to the UN, but deferred a further 180 applications.

The UN Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, which acts as the gatekeeper to NGO access to the UN, continues to wrongly delay, deny, and reject access to credible human rights NGOs.

At its most recent session in New York in January 2013, the Committee approved 159 NGOs for access (or ‘consultative status’) to the UN, but deferred a further 180 applications.

“It is deeply regrettable that some States on the Committee continue to oppose NGOs that hold views they do not agree with, or that have been critical of a government’s human rights record,” said Madeleine Sinclair of the International Service for Human Rights.

“NGO accreditation should be accessible, expeditious and based on fair, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria,” said Ms Sinclair.

ISHR’s research reveals that the NGOs that are most frequently and persistently delayed or deferred include those that work on sexual orientation and gender identity issues, women’s rights, reproductive rights, minority issues, caste, freedom of expression and association, and human rights more generally. Some NGOs waiting for accreditation have had their applications deferred for up to 10 years.

According to Ms Sinclair, “States that are not supportive of civil society engagement at the UN continue to use strategies to control the review process and defer applications, such as asking irrelevant or repetitive questions that go far beyond the scope of what NGOs are required to submit with their applications.”

ISHR welcomes statements from some states which decry this practice. At the January session of the UN Committee on NGOs, for example, Belgium noted “serious concerns about the long list of deferred applications and huge backlog” and expressed “deep regret” that many human rights organizations were blocked on arbitrary and spurious grounds. Bulgaria noted its concern that the applications of the “most knowledgeable and meaningful NGOs have been deferred”, saying that the Committee must be more efficient and ensure equal treatment.

For a full summary and analysis of the January 2013 session of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organisations, please click here

Background

The Committee on NGOs is tasked with considering the applications of NGOs for consultative status with the UN as well as the quadrennial reports submitted by NGOs already in consultative status. Consultative status provides NGOs with access to a range of fora at the UN, including the Human Rights Council, ECOSOC and its subsidiary bodies, UN conferences, and special events organized by the President of the General Assembly.

The Committee has come under criticism in recent years for failing in its core task of giving civil society a voice at the UN and deviating from the guiding principles in ESOCOC resolution 1996/31 in its handling of applications for consultative status and review of quadrennial reports. It is widely accepted that State membership of the Committee lies at the root of these negative trends and the balance of the Committee’s membership tends towards States that do not support a vibrant civil society at the UN. Members of the NGO Committee for the period 2011-2014 are: Belgium, Bulgaria, Burundi, China, Cuba, India, Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, Turkey, United States of America, and Venezuela.