|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Multi-stakeholder Processes in Context of Global Governance Reform / Debate "Governance is the sum of
the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their
common affairs." The
United Nations was originally set up when 50 Countries met in San Francisco in
June 1945. By February 2001, membership of the UN had expanded to 189 countries. Since
1945 not only are there many more countries but there has been an enormous
increase in the number of intergovernmental fora. There are now more than 1000
international institutions that have been set up, with highly diverse and often
over-lapping mandates. Many commentators have argued that some form of
streamlining is well overdue to improve efficiency, focus, and to reduce
duplication and confusion. If you add to this situation the growth and influence
of the ‘non governmental sector’[1]
then it can easily be seen how much more complicated the intergovernmental
process has become in the past 55 years. It has caused considerable
fragmentation in the agenda and one of the key words that people are using in
the preparation for 2002 is integration - integration at all levels,
which the UK Government calls "joined up government thinking". Not to
mention intergovernmental or NGO joined up thinking. The UN was originally set up recognising the supremacy of
the nation state; it now needs to factor in the impact of globalisation on the
intergovernmental system. In the last 10 years, there has been an increased role
of other players such as multinational corporations, NGOs, women, local
government, trade unions and other stakeholders. At the same time, there has
been a move towards some lower levels of government ‑ closer to the people
where many of these groups have direct experience of the impacts of
globalisation. One of the most interesting and challenging areas of work that many
stakeholders are involved in is the development of new governance processes at
the local, national and international levels. There are many reasons that have
contributed to this, including the changing role of the nation state,
globalisation, the information age and the recognition that stakeholders play an
increasing role in implementing what has been agreed at the international level.
As UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said in a speech to the World Economic Forum
(1999): "The United Nations once dealt only with governments. By now we know that peace and prosperity cannot be achieved without partners involving governments, international organizations, the business community and civil society. In today's world, we depend on each other." At the international level, the debate on global
governance and the role of stakeholders has developed initially in an
unstructured way. The Commission on Global Governance outlined that: "Global governance, once viewed primarily as
concerned with intergovernmental relationships, now involves not only
governments and intergovernmental institutions but also NGOs, citizen's
movements, transnational corporations, academia, and the mass media. The
emergence of a global civil society, with many movements reinforcing a sense of
human security, reflects a large increase in the capacity and will of people to
take control of their own lives"(ibid. 1995: 335). The Commission did recognise that global governance now
required the active involvement of stakeholders but it didn't offer a real
vision of how this might happen at the UN level. During the same time period, we
had seen an enormous increase in the number of NGOs that are accredited to the
UN and active in the UN Conference processes. In 1946, there were only 4 NGOs
accredited; by 1992, this had grown to 928 and by the end of 2000 this had
increased to over 1900. The following table reviews the number of ECOSOC
recognized NGOs before and after each Review of Consultative Status:
(Peter
Willetts 1999: 250) The rules that governed NGOs involvement within the UN
Economic and Social Council were based on the previous review, held in 1968 when
only 377 had accreditation to ECOSOC. These have since been revised[2].
Some of the larger global networks such as the ICC, ICFTU, World Federalists
Movement, WFUNA and the like have had offices in New York since the beginning of
the UN. This all changed with the enormous influx of new international, national
and local NGOs and Community Based Organizations that occurred during the 1990s,
kicked off by the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and followed up by the conferences on
Human Rights, Population, Social Development, Women, Human Settlements, and the
Food Summit. Together, they set out the standards by which the UN,
governments and now stakeholders operate in most of the key areas that effect
our lives. They also brought a
new generation of organizations and individuals into the UN, who saw it as a
vehicle to highlight their concerns and a place to put pressure on their
governments as well as other governments. Through nine chapters in Agenda 21, the Rio Conference
formally introduced into the agenda the concept of Major Groups[3]
or key stakeholders in society. It recognised the need to engage these
'stakeholders' in the development, implementation and monitoring of the global
agreements. Agenda 21 sets it out
in the Preamble: "Agenda
21 addresses the pressing problems of today and also aims at preparing the world
for the challenges of the next century. It reflects a global consensus and
political commitment at the highest level on development and environment
cooperation. Its successful implementation is first and foremost the
responsibility of Governments. National strategies, plans, policies and
processes are crucial in achieving this. International cooperation should
support and supplement such national efforts. In this context, the United
Nations system has a key role to play. Other
international, regional and sub regional organizations are also called upon to
contribute to this effort. The broadest public participation and the active
involvement of the non governmental organizations and other groups should also
be encouraged." Earth
Summit '92 1992: 47 Through the 1990s, the reform packages that have had
impact on the UN and global governance have nearly all been accompanied by an
increase in the role and responsibilities of stakeholders. Impact
of UN Reform Packages The UN Track One and Track Two Reports of the UN Secretary General
addressed an increased role for stakeholders in the UN’s work. Track 2
recognised "that our common work will be the more successful if it is
supported by all concerned actors of the international community, including
non-governmental organizations, multilateral financial institutions, regional
organizations and all actors of civil society. We will welcome and facilitate
such support, as appropriate." (Section 215). The UNEP Task Force on Environment and Human Settlements
(1998) called for:
And
the UN Secretary General's Millennium Report (2000:13) said: "Better governance means greater participation, coupled with accountability. Therefore, the international public domain — including the United Nations — must be opened up further to the participation of the many actors whose contributions are essential to managing the path of globalisation. Depending on the issues at hand, this may include civil society organizations, the private sector, parliamentarians, local authorities, scientific associations, educational institutions and many others." Some organizations have been promoting the idea of adding
a People's Assembly to the United Nations. Prima facie, this would not
necessarily require a Charter Amendment, since the General Assembly has the
power under Article 22 of the UN
Charter to create auxiliary bodies to itself. Such a
body would, of course, only have advisory power. One of the questions
raised against this idea is the legitimacy of such a body. NGOs are not in many
cases democratically constituted and what about trade unions, industry
associations, youth organisations, women's organisations, local government
associations and other stakeholders? Another key concern is that the Assembly
might be too Northern and that the costs involved in participating would make it
very difficult for NGOs from the South to take part. This would then just mirror
the problems of the UN where the Northern governments are well resourced and
those from developing countries are not. Just as the People's Assembly can be created under Article
22, so can the other interesting idea that of creating a UN Parliamentary
Assembly. Again this would be only advisory. But it would have the strength of
being built on the idea of electing our representatives to the world body that
is creating the norms and standards by which we live our lives. We have an
example of what this might look like with the European Parliament. As with the
European Parliament it could be done in a gradual way. First perhaps with
sitting parliamentarians from the national parliaments, then building up to
directly elected representatives over a period of time. The advantages are
clearer than with a People's Assembly of NGOs as the representatives actually
would have a mandate from being elected. They would enable the discussion to
move away from just a narrow national perspective to one taking a global
perspective. Also, governments
could be held accountable to what could be seen as the 'voice of the people'.
The Global Governance Commission does warn: "When the time comes we believe that the starting
with an assembly of parliamentarians as a constituent assembly for a more
popular body is the right approach. But care would need to be taken to ensure
that the assembly of parliamentarians is the starting point of a journey and
does not become the terminal station" (Global Governance Commission 1995:
258). There are some difficulties though and that includes what
can be done with countries that are not democracies. On the issue of size and composition Dieter Heinrich
(1995) says: "The ideal would be representation by population, but
this would be impractical in the beginning, especially if it meant giving a 20%
of the assembly to the world's largest non-democracy." (ibid.
1995: 99) These ideas for a more formal increase in the role of
particular stakeholders have occurred at the same time as the UN Commission on
Sustainable Development has been exploring a different approach. The
Role of the CSD in evolving change In creating the mandate for the UN Commission on
Sustainable Development, governments recognised the important role that Major
Groups would have in the realisation of Agenda 21. There is no question that the
Commission on Sustainable Development gives the Major Groups the greatest
involvement in the work of any UN Commission. The CSDs Mandate is to:
The
Commission on Sustainable Development, created in 1993, is to-date the most
interesting political space within the United Nations for Major Groups to
experiment with individual and joint advocacy, and with multi-stakeholder
engagement. One indicator of the success of this has been the increase in their
involvement. In 1993, around 200-300 Major Groups representatives attended; by
2000, this had increased to between 700-800. The 'political' leadership shown by
the Chairs of the CSD had some impact on this. The CSD is the only functioning
Commission of ECOSOC to have a Government Ministers as the Chair. It also has
between 40 and 60 Ministers attending and has Ministers or Ex-Ministers as the
chair. The CSD has 53 states as members elected for three year terms of office. Some of the creative activities relating to the development
of political space at the CSD have included: 1993
Stakeholders being admitted to informal and 'informal informal' meetings
and then invited to speak; 1994
Stakeholders being able to ask their government questions in front of
their peer group (other governments) as they present their national reports; 1994
The establishment of the CSD NGO Steering Committee to facilitate NGO
involvement in the CSD; 1995
The introduction of ‘Day on a Major Group’; 1997
The introduction of the Dialogue Sessions - as a series of 5 half day
Major Group presentations; 1997
Presentations of ten Major Groups: representatives for the first time
addressed the UN General Assembly at the review of UNCED (“Rio+5”). (NGOs
have no right of access to the General Assembly); 1997
At the 19th UN General Assembly Special Session on Rio,
negotiating committees operated on the basis of the norms from the UN Commission
on Sustainable Development - a first in the UN; 1998
The Dialogues developed as an interactive two day discussion among
governments and certain stakeholder groups on a specific topic (Industry); 1998
The setting up of the first multi-stakeholder process to follow up a CSD
decision (on voluntary agreements and initiatives of industry); 1999
The Dialogues' outcomes (on tourism) were given higher status: they are
put on the negotiating table by the CSD Chair, together with the Ministerial
discussion and the CSD Intersessional document for governments to draw on; 1999
The Dialogues on tourism set up a second multi-stakeholder process to
follow up the CSD decision; 2000
The Dialogues on agriculture set up a process under the Food and
Agriculture Organisation (FAO) to continue and develop new governance approaches
in that agency to take forward issues raised in the CSD; 2000 The UN General Assembly agreed to multi-stakeholder processes to be an integral part of
the Earth Summit 2002 process, including multi-stakeholder Dialogues or Panels
at The
CSD has pioneered a greater involvement of Major Groups in the sessions of the
Commission. None of the sessions are now closed; even the small working groups
are held open for Major Group representatives to attend and in many cases to
speak. However, this approach is an ad hoc one and is at the discretion
of the Chair of the CSD. While the formal ECOSOC rules do not allow for this to
happen, the 'tradition' of the active involvement of Major Groups has led to it
being allowed. The
increased involvement of Major Groups in the implementation of the UN Conference
agreements has seen an increased involvement in the framing of the agreements.
Perhaps the Habitat II Conference in Istanbul expanded the involvement to where
the norm should be. At that Conference and its preparatory meetings, NGOs and
local governments were allowed to submit proposals for textual amendments. To do
this, they were required to organise themselves into a negotiating block for the
Habitat II Conference. The UN then published the consolidated NGO amendments out
as an official UN document (A/Conf.165/INF/8). This was the first time this had
happened at a UN Conference. Habitat
II had another first, and that was Committee 2. In Committee 2 in Istanbul there
was a series of half-day dialogues between stakeholder groups. The reality,
however, was that as the negotiations were going on in Committee 1, the level of
participation was low and the input into the negotiations was close to zero. At
UNED’s suggestion, the idea of the Dialogues was taken up by the CSD NGO
Steering Committee, who wrote to the Under Secretary-General Nitin Desai in
August 1996, requesting his support for the introduction of Dialogues at the CSD
in 1997. The General Assembly agreed in November 1996, and asked each of the
Major Groups to prepare for half a day dialogue sessions on the role they have
taken in implementing Agenda 21. At
present, none of the other UN Functioning Commissions operate such a model
similar to the CSD but there are evolving some interesting approaches in the
area of UN bodies (see Chapter 8). It
might be noted at this point that practice varies widely in other international
forums as regards NGO access and rights. In some forums and treaty negotiations,
such as the London Convention, NGOs were given the right to make amendments to
proposed text from the floor. In other cases, they were obliged to do this
through friendly-countries, or by means of written submissions. The practice
seems to vary according to the discretion of the Chair. Increasingly,
governments appear to be taking the line that NGOs or other stakeholders may
comment and suggest, but cannot ‘negotiate’, meaning intervene from the
floor on draft text. Since
many of the Major Groups serve as the ‘delivery system’ for implementing
Agenda 21 and the other global agreements, it has become increasingly clear that
they must be more involved in more formal (multi-stakeholder) debates and
consultations. If this does not happen, governments lack the ‘reality
checks’ that NGOs and other stakeholders can bring to the table, and the
commitment they can bring to implementation.[4] Stakeholders
know they aren’t elected and are not asking for a seat at the table to vote on
agreements. What they want is the opportunity to present their ideas and
expertise. Governments - as (in most cases) the elected representatives of the
population, should make the final decisions on global regimes. However, those
decisions will be better informed, more rooted in reality and more likely to be
implemented on the ground if all the relevant stakeholders have been involved in
the discussions. UNAIDS UNAIDS offers another example of the increasing
involvement of stakeholders in global governance.
The program co-ordinating board (PCB) of UNAIDS co-ordinates the
activities of seven international agencies in the area of HIV/AIDS – the World
Health Organisation (WHO); the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); the
UN Education, Science and Culture Organisation UNESCO; the UN Fund for Children
(UNICEF); the UN Population Fund (UNFPA); the World Bank and UNDCP (United
Nations International Drug Control Programme). The PCB is a tripartite body
including representatives of the donor and recipient countries and of the NGO
sector, with ten full and alternate NGO members on it. "This is the first time a United Nations body has
included representatives of affected communities on its governing board. The
move was opposed by some governments, notably China (but also the Netherlands),
for fear of the precedent it might set for other international agencies."
(Altman, 1999: 20) One of the problems faced is who selects those ten NGO
representatives to go on the Board. To quote Dennis Altman again: "The
choice of the ten full and alternate NGO members of the PCB were made by the
three official NGO observers at the WHO Global Program on AIDS Management
Committee. While they made huge efforts to consult significant networks across
the world there has been some discontent with the process and the actual choice
of NGO delegates, though no one has proposed an alternative way of doing
it." (ibid. 22) Although UNAIDS offers an interesting model for the
involvement of NGOs, there are still questions about its legitimacy by those it
seeks to represent. The Future The
emerging diplomacy for NGOs is different than for governments. The role of
diplomacy for governments is based on their national interest, (although there
particular exceptions to this e.g. the Scandinavian countries come to mind)
while other stakeholders and advocacy groups can often take a broader view. This
is particularly true in the area of environment and development where global
commons issues (such as climate change), or issues of global significance (such
as loss of ancient forests, or trade policy) demand an approach both global and
local in perspective. "We are seeing the emergence of a new, much less
formal structure of global governance, where governments and partners in civil
society, private sector and others are forming functional coalitions across
geographical boarders and traditional political lines to move public policy in
ways that meet the aspirations of a global citizenry. These coalitions use the
convening power and the consensus building, standard setting and implementation
roles of the United Nations, the Bretton Woods Institutions and international
organizations, but their key strength is that they are bigger than any of us and
give new expression to the UN
Charter’s "We the people"" (Mark Malloch Brown 1999: iii). It is worth remembering that the first international body
to recognise the role of relevant stakeholders was the International Labour
Organization which in 1919 set a model for tripartite representation from
governments, employers and unions.[5] We are witnessing the
recognition that – in a highly complex , globalising and inter-dependent world
- governments no longer have the power and ability to forge and fully implement
all the various agreements that they conclude. Society is made up of interacting
forces - some economic, some institutional, some stakeholder-based, some
citizen-based. This recognition can be liberating but at the same time it can be
very daunting. If you take away the belief that governments might know best then
it can become a very insecure and thus a more frightening world for some. The
multi-stakeholder processes can make this process less frightening and can also
contribute to a higher likelihood that agreements will be implemented, as the
stakeholders themselves have been involved in the creation of the agreements.
This approach also offers the opportunity to hold stakeholder groups
accountable. What we need in this increasingly globalised
world are agreed norms and standards by which we can operate. This will require
a clearer definition of the role and responsibility of governments, as well as
of stakeholders, and to agree the modes of interaction. In
this context, MSPs offer significant attractions for those concerned with the
improvement of global-governance. As
Reinicke (2000) has observed:
As
a final note, it is useful to recall that MSPs are yet to be seen uniformly
favourably by all stakeholders in all forums. On the one side, many governments
(or arms of government) are not persuaded that their approach to decision-making
is wanting. Major groups regularly encounter official objections from nation
states to their meaningful inclusion in some forums. On the other hand, some NGOs have reservations about the
potential of MSPs to further erode the role of governments in decision-making.
There is also long term conflicts with industry on certain issues. While
recognising the greater access they themselves might be afforded to important
policy discussions, they argue that if MSPs increase the role of industry, or
promote the role of non-binding voluntary agreements for the business sector, or
lead to a reduction in the use of legally-binding regulations, MSPs are
inappropriate. What is required, they argue, is more – not less –
government, and better implementation of existing commitments. Smaller NGOs,
particularly from Southern countries, argue that they do not have the time,
experience or resources to engage in MSPs, or express concern that their voices
will not be heard. Some stakeholders do question the issue of involvement in
MSPs from a resource level. The question for them is priority, will their
involvement in the MSP impact on
the work they are doing on the ground? The
more there is an obvious link between the local and the global the more interest
they would have. These are all important issues and, as suggested in this report, will need to be taken into account as stakeholders develop frameworks for specific MSPs. It is not our contention that MSPs be a substitute for existing governance processes based on democratic governments, but rather a supplementary and complementary process to improve the quality of issue-finding, decision-finding and, where appropriate, decision-making and implementation.
[1]
Non Governmental Organizations here mean all stakeholder groups the United
Nations recognizes as NGOs : trade unions, local authorities, non for profit
organisations, women, youth, academics and other stakeholders [2]
In July 1996 the UN's Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) adopted a
resolution dealing with the new consultative relationship of NGOs with the
UN. It was hoped that this would extend beyond ECOSOC to the General
Assembly but hasn't yet. [3]
Major Groups in Agenda 21 are: women, children and youth, indigenous people,
non government organizations, local authorities, trade unions, business and
industry, scientific and technological community and farmers (Agenda 21,
Chapters 24 to 32 respectively ). [4]
This point was made clearly in a recent article by a leading French
official, Laurence Tubiana (2001). [5]
The ILO has a Governing Body which has 28 member governments, 14 members
representing workers and 14 representing employers. Also the ILO has 168
member states each national delegation has four members, two government
representatives, one workers delegate and one employers delegate. [ Up ] [1]
Non Governmental Organizations here mean all stakeholder groups the United
Nations recognizes as NGOs : trade unions, local authorities, non for profit
organisations, women, youth, academics and other stakeholders [2]
In July 1996 the UN's Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) adopted a
resolution dealing with the new consultative relationship of NGOs with the
UN. It was hoped that this would extend beyond ECOSOC to the General
Assembly but hasn't yet. [3]
Major Groups in Agenda 21 are: women, children and youth, indigenous people,
non government organizations, local authorities, trade unions, business and
industry, scientific and technological community and farmers (Agenda 21,
Chapters 24 to 32 respectively ). [4]
This point was made clearly in a recent article by a leading French
official, Laurence Tubiana (2001). [ Up ] |
Contact Minu Hemmati and Felix Dodds for further information. |