E/AC.70/1995/NGO/7
                                        3 May 1995

                                        ORIGINAL:  ENGLISH

OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP ON THE REVIEW
  OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR CONSULTATIONS WITH
  NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
Second session
8-12 May 1995
Item 2 of the provisional agenda*

        GENERAL REVIEW OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR CONSULTATIONS
               WITH NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

     Statement submitted by the International Federation of
     Settlements and Neighborhood Centres, a non-governmental
     organization in consultative status with the Economic
                 and Social Council, category II

    The Secretary-General has received the following statement,
which is being circulated in accordance with paragraph 10 of the
annex to Economic and Social Council resolution 1993/80.

                             *  *  *

1.  The International Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood
Centres (IFS) is an international social service organization
that has been accredited to the Economic and Social Council in
category II for almost 30 years.  It is a Federation of over
4,500 agencies, some of which are national members, while others
are federations of national agencies; associate members are
single community agencies and affiliate members are agencies
providing only one or two services, such as day care or youth
programmes.  In addition, IFS has many individual members
(without vote).  IFS currently operates in 25 countries (north
and south, east and west).  Its structure includes an
international membership body (General Assembly), an elected
Board of Directors and regional groups in Europe and the
Americas.  IFS also has a growing number of members in Asia and
Africa.

2.  The present statement is based on the long and diverse
experience of IFS in working with the United Nations both in the
meetings of the Economic and Social Council and its subsidiary
bodies and in the preparatory committees and conferences convened
by the United Nations.

3.  IFS is grateful for the opportunity to discuss with the
Working Group its experience as an international non-governmental
organization.  This has been a generally satisfactory and useful
experience in the opinion of IFS, but, especially since the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, IFS has
become aware of new issues and difficulties.  Most of these are
not the result of Economic and Social Council resolution 1296
(XLIV) but of the proliferation of non-governmental organizations
with many divergent concerns and inadequate knowledge of the way
in which intergovernmental organizations must operate.  IFS is
aware of the difficulties faced both by the Secretariat and by
Governments in dealing with the problems raised by the new "civil
society" bodies as well as their potential contribution.  IFS
hopes that the current meeting, in addition to dealing with the
conference room paper submitted by the Secretariat
(E/AC.70/1995/CRP.1), will provide an opportunity for a more
general discussion of the issues arising from non-governmental
organizations' participation in United Nations activities beyond
the specific issue of their accreditation to the Economic and
Social Council.

4.  The above-mentioned conference room paper presents a basis
for discussion of the specific issues.  The parallel presentation
of Council resolution 1296 and the draft resolution submitted by
the Secretariat enables both the members of the Working Group and
non-governmental organizations to examine proposed changes and
evaluate their significance.  The comments detailed below note
those changes that IFS supports and those that it opposes, some
on the basis of substance and others on the basis of form.

Introduction

5.  IFS believes that the concept of an introduction of this
type is inappropriate in a resolution that is supposed to
determine non-governmental organizations' participation over a
relatively long term.  The specific reference to Agenda 21 is an
example of time bind that is confusing, especially in its concept
of major groups.

6.  If paragraph 1 is retained, some definition is also needed
for the concept of "monitor":  does it necessarily include
"evaluation"?  If not, the word "evaluate" should be added in
line 5 of page 3 of the proposed draft.

7.  A similar problem arises with respect to "academic
institutions".  Later in the text reference is made to "academic
and research".  The references should be consistent, if they are
maintained.

8.  In line 7 from the bottom, reference is made to development
activities.  IFS believes that this should be qualified by adding
"economic and social" before development.

Section 1, paragraph 4

9.  IFS supports the addition of the words "global" to "human
rights issues" but does not understand the elimination of
"cultural, educational, health, scientific and technological". 
These are not necessarily included in the issues in the new
provision; IFS believes they should all be covered.

Section 1, paragraph 7

10. Last line:  "trade unions" should be inserted between
"business" and "organization".

Section 1, paragraph 11

11. Here IFS has a question of substance.  IFS does not
understand the deletion from the original paragraph 4 of the
requirement "covering where possible a substantial number of
countries in different regions of the world".  IFS believes that
this is an important justification for the competence of a 
non-governmental organization in many fields of work.  In
addition, with respect to new paragraph 11 itself, IFS does not
believe that organizations should be required "for the purposes
of consultation with the Council, form a joint committee or other
body authorized to carry on such consultation for the group as a
whole". The way in which this question is handled in the original
paragraph 4 is less authoritarian in providing for minority
opinions.  This provision should in any case be maintained, but
IFS strongly believes that the formation of a joint or group
presentation should be entirely voluntary.  IFS is an example of
an organization that would have difficulty joining any of the
proposed groups since it is a social service organization, a
category that has not been specifically included.

Section 1, paragraph 15 (new text)

12. The restated paragraph leaves too little specification as to
what is a special case.  This should be spelled out somewhat
along the lines of old paragraph 9, especially "to help achieve a
balanced and effective representation ... where they have special
experience".

Section 1, paragraphs 18-20

13. IFS strongly supports paragraph 18.  IFS does not fully
understand paragraph 19, since its experience indicates that the
United Nations Children's Fund has very strong cooperation with
non-governmental organizations at the regional level.  However,
IFS agrees that the United Nations Development Fund and possibly
the United Nations Population Fund need to undertake such
re-examination.  With respect to paragraph 20, IFS agrees that
the specialized agencies etc. should re-examine their cooperation
with non-governmental organizations but does not see any
advantage to their harmonizing, since their mandates and their
methods of operation imply different means of cooperation.

Section 2

14. No objections:  the changes seem useful.

Section 3, paragraph 25

15. IFS prefers option 1, which defines organizations with
special competence in a limited number of fields.  However, IFS
still believes that the existing definitions are preferable to
all the alternatives.

Section 4, paragraph 30

16. The new addition is a great advance over previous practice
and IFS hopes that it will receive strong support.

Section 4, paragraph 31

17. IFS protests the limitations placed on circulation by
linking it to available resources:  IFS knows that this means in
practice that the United Nations will not circulate non-
governmental organizations' statements, on the grounds of
unavailability of resources.

Section 4, paragraph 32

18. IFS would like to see a further change with respect to
written statements; there is no real reason why organizations in
general consultative status should be enabled to circulate
statements four times longer than those in special consultative
status.

Section 4, paragraph 33

19. IFS believes that a change should be made here to take into
account the actual procedures followed in preparations for the
recent series of conferences (preparatory committee sessions and
inter-sessional meetings), during which less formal procedures
have proved valuable.

Section 4, paragraph 38 (d)

20. IFS prefers the procedures outlined in paragraph 38 (d), (e)
and (f) to those outlined in paragraph 32 (d).

Section 7

21. The spelling out of non-governmental organizations'
participation in international conferences, including their
preparatory processes, is excellent and IFS welcomes that
development.

Section 7, paragraph 50

22. IFS recognizes the reason for this paragraph but believes
that if it is to be included there ought to be some definition of
"negotiating role".  Current practice seems to be that
non-governmental organizations may observe and are sometimes
encouraged to lobby; sometimes they are welcomed in negotiating
groups at the invitation of the chairman.  In other cases, they
are asked not to attend.  The diversity of cases is justified but
some clarification might help to implement the provision.  It
might help to say that non-governmental organizations do not have
a negotiating role but may be invited or authorized to work with
Governments when they are seeking to negotiate a document.

Section 8

23. IFS strongly supports the provisions concerning suspension
and withdrawal and likes the change in paragraph 55 (c).

Section 9, paragraph 58

24. Council Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations:  IFS
does not like either option.  IFS believes that the Committee
should be increased in size but does not understand the regional
distribution or the numbers contained therein.  IFS thinks that
the current procedures should be followed based on an increase,
probably up to 24.

Section 9, paragraph 59 (e)

25. IFS has submitted quadrennial reports over many years. 
Originally, IFS found this a useful process since it was made to
assess its own role and review its own contributions.  Recently,
however, since the reports have been limited to four double space
pages, IFS has found it to be almost impossible to cover four
years of activity within those limitations; it therefore believes
that the periodicity should be more rather than less frequent. 
On the basis of its experience with quadrennial reports, IFS
thinks that it would be more appropriate to have such reports
submitted every three years, and that for the sake of the
Secretariat they should be staggered to a greater extent.  IFS
also urges that greater weight be given to the reports; it has
always been frustrating to take the writing of reports seriously
and then realize that in most cases no one read them.

26. IFS suggests that there should be provision for a
subcommittee or an ad hoc committee to meet relatively frequently 
- at least twice a year - to examine the reports of
non-governmental organizations and give their contents more
serious discussion.  This discussion should conclude with
recommendations not only on classification and status but also on
the nature of non-governmental organizations' activities. 
Recommendations concerning non-governmental organizations'
reports should be part of a wider effort to bring
non-governmental organizations into closer contact with members
of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations of the
Economic and Social Council and to further governmental
understanding of the role of non-governmental organizations at
the United Nations.

________________________

    *   E/AC.70/1995/1.