The United Nations Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO Committee) on 23 July 2024 adoted a resolution in New York that aims at improving its procedures granting civil society groups a consultative status with the UN.
The Committee is a lesser-known but crucial body operating within the UN system. 19 Member States sit on the Committee, each for four-year terms, and are responsible for evaluating and deciding on NGO applications for a consultative status. If granted, the status facilitates access to and participation in various UN bodies and processes.
The NGO Committee’s work is known for political manoeuvring which has been leading to delays and denials frustrating many civil society organisations. As noted earlier by experts at the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), the committee “is notorious for lengthy delays in granting approvals, and several UN member states on the committee have been accused of silencing NGOs they disagree with. That includes groups that might be critical of a country’s records on human rights”.
The Committee’s work is known for political manoeuvring
The recent reforms initiated by Costa Rica and the United Kingdom sought to address some of these longstanding challenges. While these reforms represent progress, concerns about the Committee’s effectiveness and the broader struggle to deliver on its mandate remain. The outcome once again highlights the all too familiar “tug-of-war” between ambition and the realities of a Committee crippled by politics.
At the latest session, 476 applications for consultative status were considered but according to ISHR, only 103 were approved. The decline of the rates of accreditation and the deferral of hundreds of applications from one session to the next continues to be a critical issue, especially against a backdrop of shrinking civic space at the UN and many Member States.
Among other things, applicants in the future will be enabled to respond to questions put forward by Committee members within an ongoing session, eliminating an otherwise unavoidable delay until the next for responses to be considered.
Procedural changes intended to help avoid delays
Furthermore, annual consultations with organizations in consultative status will be held in the future and the Committee decided to review its working methods further, including application questionnaires. Introducing the annual consultations are a long-awaited move that aligns with the body’s original mandate that has been collecting dust for nearly three decades. It is a necessary step but it is being done on a shoestring budget which raises questions about the Committee’s commitment to making these consultations genuinely meaningful.
Nonetheless, the recent resolution addressed a request to the UN’s Secretary-General to increase support of the Secretariat’s NGO Branch and to take this into consideration in his next budget proposal. This too is a welcome move but the surprise appearance of a new PBI (Program Budget Implication, or UN-speak for “budget headache”), introduced at the eleventh hour, can also be read as a classic case of diplomatic and procedural manoeuvring.
Not allowing for online participateion is a setback
Equally troubling is the deletion of provisions aimed at facilitating online participation of organizations in consultative status in the Committee’s interactive segment on the initiative of India. Hybrid modalities would have provided a much-needed solution for groups unable to attend in person. This setback is a reminder of the persistent resistance to integrating NGOs into the UN’s work and intergovernmental processes, often due to last-minute practical and financial objections that seem to materialize when inclusivity becomes inconvenient. This decision feels like a retreat from progress, as if the Committee decided that the barriers to participation – technical and financial – were too steep to climb. It is a missed opportunity, particularly for NGOs from the Global Majority.
Looking ahead, there is hope pinned on the informal working group tasked with exploring further improvements to the Committee’s methods of work. The success of this group hinges on its ability to operate in good faith and cut through the red tape, with a genuine commitment to reporting actionable recommendations. Whether this group can rise to the occasion or become another talking shop remains to be seen.
What remains clear is that with every delay, deferral, and denial of accreditation, as well as the resource strain on the NGO Branch, the Committee’s mandate will continue to fall short. The meaningful engagement, participation, and inputs of civil society organizations informs and strengthens intergovernmental processes across the UN system. Civil society must continue to watch closely, scrutinize, and hold the Committee accountable, ensuring that it overcomes the political and bureaucratic inertia that has long stifled meaningful reform. The future of the UN system, civil society’s role, and trust in multilateralism depends on it.