18 May, 2006¹

The purpose of this meeting was to solicit an informal exchange of views between delegations and NGO's on the issues related to NGO participation and access to the Human Rights Council. Specifically, six clusters were presented as possible discussion points. The meeting itself was attended by NGO and governmental representatives, and the discussion points sparked a lively and interactive dialogue about these important issues.

The six main clusters about NGO participation, which were to guide the discussion:

1. NGO participation in the first session of the Council.
2. Past practices and achievements in NGO participation in the Human Rights Commission
3. Consultative Status and ECOSOC resolution 1996/31
4. Modalities of participation (for example: statements, shadow reports, access to meetings, expertise, parallel events, etc.)
5. The NGO participation review process during the first year
6. Participation of non-Geneva-based NGO's

Generally, some points where highlighted:

It became clear from the interventions that everyone was glad to have a forum for government and NGO representatives have a collective reflection about the issue of NGO participation in the Human Rights Council. As one representative put it: there are many other “hot” issues regarding the Council right now and other equally important mandates of the Council tend to be less prioritized. It was highlighted that the method of work (a roundtable discussion) should continue to be used, as well as a recommendation that NGOs submit concrete proposals on how NGO's can participate in the Human Rights Council in the future.

1. NGO participation in the June Session of the Council.-
   1. Time management: It would be difficult to expect the exact same participation level for NGO's as in the Commission (through oral and written statements), since the June session will take place over one-third of the time (two weeks), and it is foreseen that one week of these will be spent on a High-Level segment. It will be important to establish which item under the agenda where NGO's will speak.The need for an agenda: Several NGO's emphasized the importance of having an agenda to work with for both the first session and the rest of the year as soon as possible. Participants mentioned that this should be the first priority in order to make the agenda public, since many have to make travel arrangements, coordinate meetings, and prepare to contribute positively. There was the thought that the first year of the council might be spent doing a review of mandates and considering the pending reports from the Commission, and that might be the agenda for the year. This long-term agenda it should be worked out in a roadmap, an annual program of work, which should be transparent in order that NGO's can be alerted when certain items will be discussed and can engage through various means in those discussions.
   2. Discussions on NGO participation should not be reduced to speaking time within an agenda item, but looked at more broadly. NGO's can be part of the process through other means, such as informal interactions with missions and special rapporteurs, parallel events (panels, discussions) and having a role in the opening ceremony. Within the latter, NGO's could perhaps be present in a symbolic manner and this should reflect the diversity of NGO's (different sizes and missions).
   3. There should be some gender balance among the dignitaries and high-level guests at the opening ceremony of the first session.
   4. There was also a proposal that the exact same arrangement for NGO participation as in the Commission be kept for one year until the processes are reviewed.
   5. Regarding access of NGO's to the High-Level Segment, a representative did not think it would be a problem to have civil society observers. Someone wondered whether the High-level segment would be based on speeches only or if it will be handled creatively, so as to foster some dialogue and whether the planning will be done upholding the spirit of transparency.
   6. There is some expectation that the June session will address some substantive matters, so NGO's should also be present in that section of the session.
2. NGO participation in the year-long review
   1. Attention was drawn to OP 11² of the Resolution establishing the Human Rights Council, which calls for the effective participation of NGO's and civil society to be guaranteed in the work of the Council in the same terms and practices as in the Commission.
   2. Looking at the long-term vision of NGO participation after the June session, this question will be brought up again in the year-long review. Where participants could foresee issues coming up with accreditation within a framework of GA rules as well as participation in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
   3. Some representatives thought that the wording of the resolution is clear enough to ensure that NGO participation will be at least the same as the Commission. Moreover, it was raised that the Council can easily work with the existing rules of procedure (from the Commission) and that there is no need to re-draft any rules or spend too much time on this procedural matters.
   4. Some participants pointed out that the review of NGO and civil society participation in the Human Rights Council should not be reduced to a matter of minutes of oral intervention or length of written statements, but it should be mainstreamed through the review of the methods of work of the Council: NGO access and participation in the universal periodic review, in building partnerships and networks through informal consultations, having interactive dialogue with the Special procedures, access on urgent situations, etc. One participant pointed out that if the newly-elected Council members create working groups on each of these mandates, NGO participation should be considered within the context of each.
   5. It was also mentioned that if the rules of procedure and agenda are revised, that they should not be too predictable and strict, but rather flexible and corresponding to the organic nature of the Council, providing opportunities to address emerging issues.
3. New ways in which NGO's can participate in the Council.- Many participants would be keen to see some new practices develop in relation to NGO participation. Below is a list of possible new ways brought up in which NGO's can be part of the work of the Council:
   1. Based on already-existing rules of procedure NGO's could make more use of joint statements, so as to address the issue of time management. Internet-based forums such as the NGOIC could be used to prepare in advance and discuss thematically.
   2. There is also room for NGO's to engage in interactive dialogue with the mandate-holders of Special Procedures through forums and discussions. Again, the issue of how to coordinate the submission of questions in these forums so as to prevent abuse of this speaking time was raised. A possibility of having online forums through the OHCHR to submit questions in advance was proposed, so that mandate holders can prepare answers by clustering the questions thematically.
   3. Distinctions among NGO's mandates and roles where highlighted:
      • While some NGO's roles focus on influencing in government behavior UN procedures and institution-building, others focus on the preparing reports and document human rights violations at the national and local levels. There is a danger in mixing up the two roles and have the same methods of participation for both. There should be space for both roles in the Council, and it should be done creatively. On the participation of National HR NGO's it was mentioned they could probably participate on sessions of the Universal Periodic Review while International and issue-based NGO's participate on other working methods of the Council.
   4. The better use of technology was brought up several times: The Human Rights Council sessions could be webcast, could be broadcasted to the public in regional UN centres as well as in field offices of the OHCHR.
   5. Many participants would like to see a better use of the time of the Council so that written and oral statements lead to dialogue instead of several monologues. For example, some kind of follow up mechanism about statements that leads to action. Someone else mentioned that 1 page of UN paper = 1000 dollars the UN spends in translation, photocopying, etc.
   6. There could be some institutionalization of the informal interaction NGO's have amongst themselves and with missions. One way in which this could be better achieved could be by having 2 or 3 day preparatory Council consultations with civil society in the same way world conferences and other UN forums operate. Another way would be to ensure that NGO's have access to the use of rooms at the Palais de Nations for parallel events (panels, presentations, workshops) during the Council sessions.
   7. As well, it was mentioned that the Council should look at best practices in NGO participation elsewhere in the UN and regional organizations.
4. Other considerations and non-Geneva-based NGO's
   1. One suggestion which would also address the issue of relevance of human rights world wide, was to consider having some sessions or inter-sessional meetings in different parts of the world, perhaps hosted by member states or held in regional UN centres. This would also allow for non-Geneva-based NGO's to participate in their own regional contexts.
   2. Another participant mentioned that there could be an arrangement to have a main substantive long session so that NGO representatives can travel once a year and plan their budgets accordingly.
   3. The idea of establishing a fund for NGO's from developing countries was welcomed by many participants as well.
   4. Several NGO representatives would like more transparency, access to meetings, to information about the modalities of the Council.

Footnotes

1. This report was prepared by the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and Pax Romana, the views and perspectives displayed reflect the ideas brought up at the Roundtable discussion and do not necessarily reflect Pax Romana or WILPF's policy.
2. . “Decides (...) that the participation of and consultation with observers, including States that are not members of the Council, the specialized agencies, other intergovernmental organizations and national human rights institutions, as well as non-governmental organizations, shall be based on arrangements, including Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 of 25 July 1996 and practices observed by the Commission on Human Rights, while ensuring the most effective contribution of these entities”