CIVICUS discusses the workings of the United Nations (UN) Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) with Maithili Pai, Senior Programme Officer at the International Service for Human Rights, an organisation that supports civil society and human rights defenders at the UN.

Tasked with processing civil society applications for UN consultative status, the Committee has long been criticised for political manipulation and excessive delays, earning the nickname ‘anti-NGO Committee’. Change is urgently needed, but states with interests in preserving the status quo are resisting reform.

What’s the Committee on NGOs and why does it matter?

The Committee on NGOs is a subsidiary committee of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), comprising 19 states. As the primary formal mechanism for civil society organisations to access the UN, it acts as a gatekeeper for their participation in global governance.

Its main function is deciding on NGO applications for ECOSOC consultative status, which opens several avenues of UN engagement. NGOs with consultative status can attend meetings, conferences and negotiations, submit written statements, make oral interventions and organise side events in UN buildings. The Committee’s decisions determine who gets to influence international norms and policies and who is excluded, significantly impacting on the diversity and independence of civil society in global governance. The Committee also has the power to withdraw ECOSOC consultative status previously granted to NGOs.

Civil society engagement at the UN is essential. It brings the voices and experiences of people, including those at the grassroots, into global deliberations on pressing issues. NGOs hold states accountable for their commitments, advocate for excluded groups and contribute expertise that strengthens UN decisions. Their participation also increases transparency and trust in the UN and supports implementation of its mandates. UN access is particularly critical for human rights defenders and NGOs operating in repressive contexts, where domestic advocacy is severely restricted.

How is the Committee fulfilling its mandate?

It is failing to fulfil its mandate to the point that it has even earned the moniker of ‘anti-NGO Committee’, particularly among human rights NGOs that face the worst consequences of its failure.

A majority of Committee member states use their power to block NGOs, particularly human rights NGOs, rather than assess applications on objective grounds. Over 400 NGOs are currently awaiting a decision, a figure that does not include applications that are backlogged and yet to reach the Committee.

States delay decisions by subjecting NGOs to invasive and repetitive questioning well beyond the eligibility criteria set out in ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31, the governing framework for civil society –UN relations. The clearest example is the International Dalit Solidarity Network, whose application was deferred for a record 15 years before it finally obtained consultative status in 2022. Persistent advocacy efforts ultimately prevailed by escalating the case to ECOSOC, the Committee’s parent body.

ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31 also requires the Committee to consult with NGOs before each session, with two sessions taking place annually, but only two such consultations have taken place since 1996.

What reforms are needed, and what can realistically be achieved?

The Committee must be reformed to restore its credibility and ensure it fulfils its mandate as a genuine facilitator of civil society access, rather than a blocker of it. Politicisation, excessive delays, lack of transparency and lack of accountability have impacted on the Committee, as pointed out by the UN Secretary-General, UN experts, several states and civil society organisations, to a point where it is failing to fulfil its core mandate. The Committee needs radical change. But any meaningful reform requires the agreement of sitting Committee members, and states with entrenched interests in preserving the status quo strongly oppose it.

At present, incremental reform is still possible, including through procedural steps. NGO applicants should be allowed to participate virtually, while the current system only permits in-person participation, which requires NGOs seeking consultative status to travel to New York. The current system, which relies on UN staff to relay hundreds of questions and responses back and forth between the Committee and hundreds of NGO applicants each session, is extremely inefficient and resource intensive. The scope of questions must also be limited to the grounds listed under ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31 to prevent politically motivated questioning leading to prolonged deferrals of applications.

Strengthening the roles of ECOSOC and the Secretariat would also help reduce abuse of power. A stronger Secretariat role in assessing applications on objective, technical grounds would reduce political interference. ECOSOC, as the Committee’s parent body, could exercise stronger oversight to ensure it fulfils its mandate.

In the longer term, deeper reform might entail creating an independent expert body, transferring accreditation decisions fully to the Secretariat, or revising Committee membership criteria to remove states that do not qualify. I believe that the barriers impeding reform can be overcome by strong political will and leadership of states that recognise the value of civil society contributions at the UN.

What role can civil society play in these efforts?

Civil society can play a crucial role in reform, drawing on its first-hand experience of the Committee’s functioning. NGOs serve as critical monitors of the accreditation process. They can track delays, report inconsistencies and engage with ECOSOC oversight mechanisms to uphold resolutions such as Resolution 1996/31. They can provide policy recommendations to streamline the accreditation process, promote standardised application guidelines and reduce political bias.

By advocating for greater transparency, with open dialogue sessions and reasoned decisions for deferring an application, civil society can help ensure that Committee processes are fair, accountable and accessible.

NGOs can also drive innovation by promoting user-friendly digital application platforms, data-driven monitoring of Committee outcomes and clear and reasonable mechanisms for appealing against rejected applications. NGOs with capacity and expertise on the process can support other NGOs engaging in this process.

By combining monitoring, knowledge-sharing and advocacy, NGOs can drive the Committee towards fulfilling its mandate and operating more efficiently, in alignment with the principles of accountability, inclusivity and transparency and to further meaningful civil society engagement.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.