Report of 6-7 June Meeting

Summary Report of The Meeting of NGO and Civil Society Focal Points From the UN System and International Organizations

Convened by the United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (NGLS) March 6-7, 2003, Geneva

Table of Content

I. Introduction II. General Context of Work III. Current Trends in Democratic Governance IV. Inter-Governmental Responses to a Changing Political Context V. Legitimacy of Civil Society Organizations? VI. Working with CSOs Across the System: Some Lessons Learnt VII. Working With Civil Society on the Millennium Goals Campaigns VIII. Plans for the HLP and HLCP Exercises IX. Follow-up

Annexes I. Programme of the Meeting II. List of Participants

1 Summary Report of the Meeting of NGO and Civil Society Focal Points From the UN System and International Organizations

Convened by the United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (NGLS) March 6-7, 2003, Geneva

I. Introduction Held immediately after the annual Programme and Coordination Meeting (PCM) of NGLS, this gathering of NGO/CSO focal points from across the multilateral system was attended by 54 representatives of 30 UN bodies and other international organizations, and 5 invited guests from NGOs and research institutes. It provided an opportunity for participants to share their experiences, insights, concerns and aspirations with regard to relations with NGOs and civil society. The meeting was held in the context of two important reform processes within the UN system: (1) The High Level Panel (HLP) created by the UN Secretary-General to review relations between the United Nations and civil society with the objective of formulating recommendations for enhancing interaction between the UN and civil society; and (2) A study to be undertaken by the UN’s High Level Committee on Programmes (HLCP) to take stock of the state of collaboration between UN system organizations and civil society organizations (CSOs), highlighting the policy dimension of such cooperation.

The opening session on 6 March reviewed the general context of work, including the imminent war in Iraq, the growth of social movements on a global scale, what some called the “emergence of real world public opinion”, and current trends in democratic governance at national and international levels. The two keynote speakers were: Rubens Ricupero, Secretary-General of UNCTAD; and John Clark from the Centre for Civil Society at the London School of Economics. Discussants for the general debate of the first session included Martin Khor of Third World Network (Malaysia); Carolyn Reynolds of the World Bank, and Anselmo Lee of Pax Romana (Geneva). The next session examined current and recent initiatives to strengthen policies towards civil society, with presentations from: Nora McKeon (FAO); Ernesto Castagnino (IDB); Eva Wallstam (WHO); Louise Lassonde (WSIS Secretariat); and Subramonia Ananthakrishnan (UN-Habitat). This was followed by a keynote address on “Human Rights since 9/11: The Challenge to the UN and Civil Society” by Robert Archer of the International Council for Human Rights Policy (Geneva).

On 7 March, in light of International Women’s Day, Shahra Razavi from UNRISD made some remarks on the theme: “Feminists Engaging Development Institutions”. This was followed by sessions on working with civil society on development, humanitarian emergencies and human rights, with presentations from: Zehra Aydin (UN/DESA & WSSD Secretariat); Bartes Edes (ADB); Sappho Haralambous (IFAD); Craig Sanders (UNHCR); and Jutta Neizel (WFP). The state of play on the Millennium Development Goals Campaign(s) and scope for collaboration with civil society was then reviewed in some detail with lead presentations from Bruce Jenks and Caitlin Wiesen (UNDP). The meeting’s final session was devoted to outlining

2 plans for the HLP and HLCP exercises with introductory remarks by Kevin Kennedy (UN/EOSG), Eckhart Hein (HLCP Secretariat) and Karina Gerlach (CEB Secretariat). The full programme of the meeting and list of participants are contained Annexes I & II.

At the end of the meeting, it was agreed that agencies represented at the meeting would submit a short summary of how they work with civil society and what are the issues and challenges they face. They would also complete a questionnaire prepared by UNHCR on the size, composition, location(s) and policy framework of the NGO/CSO units and offices represented at the meeting. NGLS would compile and circulate this information and, in particular, make it available to the HLP and HLCP processes.

This report aims to synthesize the major points made during this informal meeting. The meeting was intended to allow participants to speak freely, even on some of the more controversial issues, so this report has been drafted according to the “Chatham House Rules” agreed to at the start of the meeting—namely that no specific point would be ascribed to any particular participant or organization.1

II. General Context of Work During the opening session, it was noted that the imminent war in Iraq and the likelihood of a “pre-emptive” military attack without explicit UN Security Council approval posed a formidable challenge to the cornerstone UN principle of collective security and to the notion that social progress is possible through the development of basic norms of international coexistence. In this context, it was suggested that a major source of hope for peace and development rested in the growth of organized civil society worldwide.

The emergence of new forms of civil society engagement (grassroots social movements, ad hoc citizen coalitions, first noticeable in the South and then increasingly in developed countries) had clearly become discernable at the global level since the 1998 international campaign against the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), which was widely believed would give excessive rights to transnational corporations and threaten national democratic prerogatives. After a series of mass demonstrations around major global events (Seattle, Prague, Genoa, some marked with tragic clashes with police authorities), global civil society mobilization around alternatives to current forms of globalization has grown in numbers and sophistication: 20,000 participants attended the first World Social Forum (WSF) in Porto Alegre in 2001; by the third WSF in 2003, 100,000 were in attendance. One speaker suggested that it was an unhelpful misnomer to keep the label of “anti-globalization” on what is emerging as a rich and diverse array of civil society demands/proposals for economic justice and social inclusion.

1 Editorial Note: For the sake of convenience and ease of language, the terms NGOs, CSOs and civil society are used, where appropriate, interchangeably. The working understanding in this report is that civil society is broader then NGOs; social movements and trade unions are part of civil society; private sector firms are outside the civil society category, and so are parliamentarians; not-for-profit associations representing either private sector interests or parliamentarians are on the border line “grey area”, respectively of the private sector and governments.

3 In light of the imminent threat of war, this global web of civil society networks and coalitions were building bridges with a re-emerging peace movement. It was noted that the third WSF in January 2003 was instrumental in the establishment of global coordination for the 15 February 2003 day of demonstrations for peace around the world. One participant suggested that through this global mobilization (which was also made possible with the technological changes brought about by the Internet), we may be witnessing the emergence of “world public opinion” for the first time in history.

Insofar as these developments since 1998 translate into an apparently growing gap between the positions of Member States and what their people (world public opinion) want, this poses a formidable challenge for the United Nations as an intergovernmental organization, particularly in terms of its relations with civil society. This issue was explored further in three major areas of discussion, which will be covered in turn: (1) Current trends in democratic governance at national and international levels; (2) Intergovernmental reactions to a changing political context and: (3) The issue of legitimacy of civil society organizations.

III. Current Trends in Democratic Governance At the global level, a number of participants noted that the range of social and environmental issues identified as priorities by the international community were not addressed with nearly the same degree of political will as the financial and trade- related agendas that have led the current forms of economic globalization. One speaker suggested that the United Nations, which he said was originally meant to support national development objectives, was increasingly “sidelined” by international trade and financial institutions. These institutions, he argued, were in many respects dominated by the major economic powers (and which today were having to respond to many of the same criticisms they have been directing at Southern governments in relation to institutional reforms needed to conform with the principles underpinning “good governance”).

Throughout the cycle of UN Conferences and World Summits since the 1990s, he said, the UN had nevertheless played a “facilitating hand” in terms of providing space for civil society participation, which had an important impact on the Conferences’ outcomes. However, the limited implementation of these outcomes was now widely acknowledged. It was argued that in many respects, the financial and trade agendas that have dominated the international scene since the 1990s have been pursued by large financial and corporate interests, which have benefited from the selective wave of privatization, liberalization and deregulation that has marked that period until today. In this context, it was argued that the UN’s current emphasis on “partnerships” with the corporate sector risked further weakening the Organization.

Another participant suggested that the WSF was, in a sense, a global civil society response to the failure of implementation of the UN’s social, development and environmental agendas. He outlined two major governance questions discussed during WSF 2003, which had implications for the UN:

4  The relevance of the UN vis-à-vis the institutions in charge of the global governance of economic and financial matters (which, to a considerable extent, sets the parameters for what is possible to achieve in the social and environmental fields, whether in terms of the impact of financial and trade measures on employment and livelihoods, purchasing power, or public resources available for the provision of essential social services and social security);  The crisis of multilateralism in view of the unilateralism displayed by the world’s only superpower, notably in the field of peace and security.

One keynote speaker elaborated on the many facets of what he described as the “crisis of governance” at the national level. In the countries with Western liberal democratic traditions, current established political parties do not represent anymore the major cleavages and concerns in society, whether in relation to corruption (including the financing of electoral campaigns), the effects of globalization, environmental degradation, or discriminatory policies and practices. Meanwhile, global norms in areas such as trade, taxation and financial policy have become very powerful factors in narrowing the scope of national policy options, particularly in developing countries. In other words, he said, while “formal democracy” had spread, “substantive democracy” had shrunk—in the sense that the scope/likelihood of elected representatives to determine policies on the basis of their explicit electoral platform was diminishing, either due to the plutocratic practices linked to the financing of electoral campaigns, or to constraints imposed by the international economic and financial system.

As membership of political parties and voter turnout has declined over the last 20 years, particularly in the West, he noted the formidable increases of membership of, and active involvement with, NGOs and other civil society organizations working on a host of societal issues at local and global levels. He did caution that the “thirst for identity” outside established political structures also takes the form of increased ethnic and religious extremisms, a growing interest in cults and extreme-right neo- nazi type groupings. It was also noted that a number of very conservative organizations have lobbied with some success to undermine programmes supporting certain goals of the United Nations, notably in the field of the reproductive rights of women. However, in counterpart, it was added, civil society organizations (of the “civil” kind) have a vocation to challenge fundamentalists and act as bridge-builders between communities.

With the advent of organized civil society and the new opportunities offered by the Internet for both coordination and the sharing of knowledge and ideas, it is possible that traditional representative democracy is evolving towards more “deliberative” forms of democracy. In other words, between election periods, the views of “local and global communities of interest” are increasingly being made widely known in the public domain, with the concomitant pressure upon elected representatives to take these into account in policy-making. The same dynamics obviously pose comparable challenges to the UN system. Some described organized global civil society as a sort of new countervailing “superpower” to military and corporate interests. These new pressures upon governments and some international organizations may have contributed to another major trend highlighted during the meeting: a possible “backlash” against civil society participation on the part of some governments.

5 IV. Inter-Governmental Responses to a Changing Political Context It should be made clear at the outset of this section that what follows does not place into question the stated commitments by most governments and secretariats of international organizations to incorporate the views of civil society into their deliberations and policy and programme processes. A recent case in point is the recognition by Member States in the preparatory process of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) that effective participation of NGOs and civil society is essential for a meaningful outcome. PrepCom II of WSIS in February 2003 took the important step of incorporating the written inputs of civil society and other observers to draw from in the main intergovernmental negotiating document.

Nevertheless NGO/CSO focal points at the NGLS meeting noted that there have been frictions and serious concerns expressed by some governments at different levels.

The Numbers Problem The most immediate issue (the so-called “numbers problem”) is reflected in the UN Secretary-General’s reform report of 30 September 2002 which states: “Many Member States are wary of the constant pressure to make more room for NGOs in their deliberations…” and: “It is now physically impossible for the Organization to accommodate all NGOs requesting participation in UN Conferences and meetings”. It has become obvious that in recent world conferences such as the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) and some functional commissions such as the UN Commission on Human Rights, the numbers of NGOs wishing to participate and take the floor has become difficult to manage within the existing resources and size of venues.

At one level, the strategic choice is whether to go down the road of restricting participation, or increasing resources/meeting time to accommodate civil society requests for participation. Budget restrictions do not bode favourably for the latter direction. For example, last year, UN conference services in New York decided to abolish evening sessions at the Commission on Human Rights, which had hitherto been a way for the Commission to cater for greater numbers of NGO participants wishing to speak. This year, speaking time for NGOs on some agenda items had been reduced to as little as 1.30 minutes per speaker. Unless there was a major change at the highest intergovernmental decision level to free resources for “high demand” bodies like the Human Rights Commission, it was likely that such types of restrictions will have to continue2.

It should be noted that, while the “numbers problem” is an issue frequently mentioned by governments and some UN officials, the problem is mainly confined to New York based events, the Commission on Human Rights and some World Conferences, while

2 It is important not to extrapolate too much from the experience of the Commission on Human Rights, which is probably the only intergovernmental UN body that explicitly provides scope to “name and shame” individual governments. This increases proportionately the demand by NGO participants to provide individual “testimonies” of country situations, and therefore the exceptionally high rate of single-organisation requests for the floor (as opposed to group statements). Most human rights treaty bodies do not appear to be facing quite the same pressures when reviewing individual country progress reports, particularly through the effective development of civil society “shadow reports” as has been the case, for example, at a number of proceedings of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

6 many of the issues pertaining to UN-civil society relations are much broader; for example, the perennial under-representation of Southern NGOs at such events. In this context, some participants stressed the need to link global events/processes into decentralized deliberative processes. One example cited at the meeting was the Asian Civil Society Forum 2002 (held in Bangkok in December 2002), which promoted civil society advocacy coalitions on implementation of UN commitments at regional and national levels.

Deeper Substantive Questions At the same time, if the analysis is limited to such simple arithmetics, it may miss deeper concerns than “the numbers problem”. The qualitative or substantive concerns raised during the meeting were considered just as, if not more, important. On one side of the equation, a number of governments may feel somewhat overwhelmed by the increasing influence of civil society voices on some inter-governmental outcomes if and when these do not correspond to their own political objectives. These concerns may have been exacerbated by negative reactions to the wave of mass protests surrounding meetings in recent years of the WTO, the Bretton Woods Institutions and the G-7/8. On the other side, as mentioned in the same report of the Secretary- General, “…NGOs feel they are not allowed to participate meaningfully.” And as was noted above, even when civil society groups feel they have had a meaningful impact on inter-governmental outcomes, these outcomes have often not been adequately implemented, or have been “sidelined” by other priorities.

Discussions at the meeting suggested that this possible “backlash” against civil society cuts across the North-South divide, albeit for different reasons. In seeking to explain some of the more legitimate concerns behind the defensive attitudes of some developing country governments, the following questions were noted:  Is it the case that the agendas of large influential Northern NGOs have disproportionate place in the policy debates, in a manner that risks further weakening of the power of Southern governments?  Are there ulterior protectionist motives behind some Northern governments’ willingness to adopt some (mainly Northern) NGO and trade union positions to use trade disciplines to enforce social/labour and environmental standards?  Is it acceptable, from a local “democratization” point of view, that in the country-level exercises of the IFIs, NGOs are now increasingly consulted (albeit not so much on the macro-economic and structural reform questions), whereas elected parliaments are so far by and large left out of these national processes?  Does increased NGO participation in such exercises simply raise the number of conditionalities on the social/governance questions, but without heeding NGO demands for macroeconomic alternatives and substantial easing of the fiscal and monetary burdens tied to adjustment programmes?

V. Legitimacy of Civil Society Organizations? In terms of concerns expressed by some Northern governments, the main one mentioned at the meeting touched on the question of the legitimacy of civil society organizations—an issue that has also been raised by a number of developing country governments and the leadership of some international organizations. As outlined by one keynote speaker, the key questions raised regarding civil society interlocutors are: (1) their legitimacy; (2) their accountability; and (3) their representativity. In some

7 ways, the key questions raised by civil society organizations vis-à-vis governments are now being turned back on them. The discussion suggested that to treat this question in those terms (which could imply the notion that NGOs have similar or competing functions with respect to governments) would be conceptually, organizationally and politically misguided. Unlike political parties, the governance role of NGOs does not include the objective of taking over the decision-making powers of governments, but to enrich their deliberations, mobilize communities of interest around issues of public concern, and contribute to holding decision-makers accountable for their actions and/or omissions.

It was emphasized on several occasions that the strength of civil society is its dynamic diversity, meaning that civil society forms of organization and alliance-building are not only complementary and at times competing, but also evolving over time, depending on circumstances and issues. The very nebulous nature of civil society has defied the establishment of any meaningful and robust taxonomy of civil society, other than in very broad terms or very context-specific situations. In other words, a note of caution was struck by several speakers about any attempt to find an expedient “quick-fix” to the issue of representativity, such as through developing a formal civil society assembly mirroring an inter-governmental set up—that may be based for example on across-the-board fixed quotas for representation of different civil society constituencies.

The discussion suggested that the legitimacy and accountability of civil society organizations and networks is not a problematic issue as long as the organisations are honest and transparent about who they are and what they do to serve the public interest as institutional entities (there is in fact a steady growth in the literature on how this can be done and refined, particularly on operational projects). However, as one speaker suggested, the problem comes when, from the advocacy perspective of CSOs’ work, their legitimacy to voice an opinion becomes confused with their representativity. This may open the door to restrictive criteria that require demonstration of large memberships and would rule out the participation of smaller NGOs or even civil society “personalities” who, while only speaking in their own name, may echo authoritatively important currents of public opinion.

Having said this, it was also stressed that it is important to distinguish between small NGOs and social movement organizations emerging from the worlds of small farmers, indigenous peoples and other marginalized groups. Both categories are legitimate, but the nature of their legitimacy is different: the latter are empowered to speak for those people whose interests they reflect, whereas the former are not.

VI. Working with CSOs Across the System: Some Lessons Learnt This section provides a synthesis of some of the key challenges and lessons learnt from the experience of NGO/CSO focal points from across the UN system and other international organizations. A detailed compilation on how each agency works with civil society and the major issues and challenges it faces will be prepared by NGLS on the basis of written submissions by agencies represented at the meeting and others wishing to contribute. Below are just a few highlights.

Despite a difficult and uncertain overall context, it was striking to note the degree of dynamism displayed by agencies and their NGO/CSO units to strengthen relations

8 with civil society. The presentations made by NGO/CSO unit representatives demonstrated how agencies are moving forward in a range of areas:

 A growing number of agencies have been producing their own CSO newsletters to keep their constituencies up to date with latest developments and initiatives.  Many agencies have developed regular consultative processes with civil society constituencies—some of them highly institutionalized around the agencies’ governance boards.  There is a trend to improve information disclosure policies and to make current practices more transparent and predictable.  There have been efforts to review current policies/procedures towards CSOs in an effort to adapt to the new needs and dynamics of civil society.  There were examples of CSO unit staff developing a culture of treating civil society partners as “clients” on a par with governments.  There was the example of a pilot poverty reduction framework which strengthens stakeholder participation and the scope for NGOs to influence policy-based lending, and seeks to develop the agency’s capacity for NGO cooperation, notably through staff exchange programmes with NGOs.  Some CSO units have adopted the approach of facilitating self-organizaing of civil society networks and constituencies around major issues of mutual concern; and then seeking to relate to the civil society agenda rather than expecting CSOs to engage on a UN agenda. This approach requires developing relations of trust and a robust knowledge of civil society substantive concerns and proposals.  In humanitarian and emergency situations, agencies are increasingly relying on NGOs on the ground, whether in the areas of food distribution, de-mining, or refugees; in crisis situations, agencies often have to lobby reluctant governments to accept working with NGOs. At the same time, agencies were said to be experiencing major difficulties in playing their traditional coordinating role in the face of increasing numbers of independently-financed NGOs.

The following are a few highlights of lessons learnt by agency representatives at the meeting.

Invest Seriously in the Relationship Throughout the discussion, a number of participants raised the question of the perennial need to adequately invest and fund the relationships with civil society. Some argued that there is in fact a contradiction between the low priority frequently given by senior management to civil society liaison units (that are not uncommonly among the first to be hit by budget cuts) and the discourse of the UN leadership and governments on the increasing role and importance of civil society in global governance issues. Effective civil society liaison services are resource- intensive in terms of staff time and competencies, requiring pro-active efforts to: keep civil society constituencies abreast of latest developments; ensure that key information and public documents are made available to CSOs at the same time as to governments; to research and understand the substantive issues that form the basis of the relationships between civil society organizations, secretariats and Member States; and carry out both “outreach” and “inreach” work to nurture the

9 relationships in the most productive and constructive ways. The latter point also requires scope and willingness on the part of other Divisions’ staff to support the relationships and take them seriously.

The importance of dedicating CSO liaison staff at the country mission/offices level was also highlighted. It was noted that even though regional development banks have a more recent history of engaging with civil society, a number of them have been systematically dedicating resources to such relationships at the national level.

Respect CSOs’ Autonomy and Self-Organizing Experiences shared around the table suggest that it is important to avoid pre- determining what the interface between civil society and an inter-governmental process should look like. As one participant put it, “it is up to CSOs to get their act together, not the bureaucracies of international organizations.” An effective strategy used in one case, the 2002 World Food Summit: five years later (WSF:fyl), was for the secretariat to facilitate a process for civil society groups to organize themselves and then jointly determine the best modalities of the interface. This “home-grown” approach has contributed to the sustainability of the process, with a solid and broad constituency actively involved in the follow-up.

An approach that has also emphasized respect for CSO self-organizing was gradually developed in the follow-up to the 1992 Rio Summit at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development.

A somewhat different approach is being experienced in the context of the upcoming WSIS, whereby the secretariat took the initiative to set up a “Civil Society Bureau” to liaise with different civil society constituencies and the intergovernmental Bureau of the WSIS PrepCom. While the functions of the Civil Society Bureau (which is a historical first for the UN) could play an important role on procedural matters—namely to lobby for improved civil society participation —it soon became clear that civil society groups insisted on maintaining their autonomy with regard to how they wanted to organize themselves and coordinate their substantive contributions to the intergovernmental process.

Reaching Out Beyond Established Partners and Maintaining Space for Diversity A generic theme that emerged across a range of agency-specific experiences is to find ways to reach out to some of the new civil society actors, notably social movements, which in some cases, have brought in more grassroots experience/expertise and political energy to the issues than some of the more established interlocutors that have marked agencies’ historical relations with civil society. This did not denigrate the substantive or political contributions of the traditional partners—which in fact, can help sharpen the institutional understanding of newcomers and help them “find their way around the system”. The problem occurs when the traditional partners believe their “seniority” automatically grants them exclusive or privileged rights of participation, particularly when this is supported by a UN agency’s specific procedural modalities.

10 In some cases where rules of participation were flexible, CSO focal points have faced pressures by longstanding partners to push for the establishment of more permanent mechanisms of participation, which they believe may help ensure more predictable impacts on decision-making. However, one concern expressed was that attempts to convert informal practices into more formal mechanisms are likely to become subject of formal negotiations with the risk of resulting in more restrictive arrangements. In addition, there were concerns expressed that permanent mechanisms for participation risk creating “fiefdoms” of insider civil society groups, as well as forcing respective civil society constituencies to speak with one voice that may mask important differences within each group. In the Latin American context, one speaker spoke of the danger of “corporatist mechanisms”, preferring the establishment of flexible principles and criteria rather than rigid rules.

An Informal Consultative Process of Accountability to Civil Society Partners? One participant suggested that instead of seeking the establishment of formal permanent mechanisms, it may better to set in motion a regular (perhaps annual) informal consultative process where civil society partners can track progress on commitments made by governments and secretariats, based on a set of agreed benchmarks and expected policy changes.

Issues Cut Across the System; But Not Procedures for NGO Access Another problem noted during the meeting, was the complexity of UN access rules as seen from the perspective of NGOs. It was noted, for example that NGOs accredited to ECOSOC working on specific cross-institutional issues such as health or food, find it incoherent that their ECOSOC status does not automatically give them access to the relevant specialized agency, even if that agency participates actively in ECOSOC and its functional commissions. When applying to the agency, they may then also discover that they do not meet the agency’s criteria that may exclude, for example, the candidature of national NGOs. Participants at the meeting understood this to be a system-wide issue.

At the same time, previous interagency exercises of this kind (e.g. the 1997 CCPOQ/NGLS interagency consultation on operational collaboration with NGOs) suggest that the diversity of issues and partners dealt with by different agencies across the system would make it virtually impossible, and probably counter- productive to seek common accreditation rules for all UN bodies. Yet, the above problem remains in terms of NGOs’ ability to operate effectively on cross- institutional issues: so the question was posed whether NGOs with a track record in a given field and that are already accredited to ECOSOC can be granted a “fast- track” access to the relevant specialized agency and its inter-governmental deliberations, even if not all of the existing criteria can be met.

11 Some Difficulties Encountered in Working with NGOs at the National Level Experience shared by some presenters suggest that external institutions can only have a limited impact on influencing relations between national actors. Civil society involvement in public affairs was usually resisted by less democratic regimes, but also by some of the more democratic ones who not uncommonly invoked the fact that the general public had voted for them and not their NGO critics. In some contexts, it was noted that this issue surfaced more at the national level, while better relations had developed with government authorities at the local level. In humanitarian and emergency situations, agencies were said to be experiencing major difficulties in playing their traditional coordinating role in the face of increasing numbers of independently-financed NGOs.

VII. Working With Civil Society on the Millennium Goals Campaigns During the session on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) campaigns, the main speakers highlighted the energy and excitement they felt was being generated around the Goals. It was an unprecedented opportunity for the UN system, governments and civil society to work on common objectives in a creative and decentralized manner. The aim was not to attempt one single global strategy that everyone was expected to join, but to support a multitude of national and international campaigns that could benefit from incorporating the MDGs in their existing work.

The UN’s core strategy was said to have four major components:

1. Supporting country level dialogues and the issuing of national MDG reports with the catalyzing support of UN country teams, but within an effort to ensure country ownership. To date, 25 reports were completed, another 25 were near completion, and 100 completed reports are expected within a year. The key yardstick of progress would be real policy and budget impacts resulting from these exercises, and it was important to track information in this regard. Would the national dialogues generate parliamentary budgetary debates? Would the cabinet ministers seize the issue? It was important to emphasize the power of data in these political processes. Mention was also made of comparing consistency between PRSPs and MDG indicators, bearing in mind that there are not one-size-fits-all MDG indicators, which must be contextualized at the national or local level.

2. Supporting a multitude of campaigns in North and South, through facilitation of a small team in New York headed by former Dutch development minister, Evelyn Herfkins. In the North, the focus would be primarily on Goal 8, which relates to the different facets of international cooperation (debt, finance, trade, etc.), while in the South, the main emphasis would be on the national level issues contained in the other goals (bearing in mind that all the goals are obviously and considerably interlinked). In particular, the UN can facilitate the provision of data and know-how to interested parties, as in the case of a recent Social Watch budget monitoring project linked to the MDGs in the Philippines.

3. The Millennium Project, headed by a well-known economist, Jeffrey Sachs from the United States, who will report to the Secretary-General with an analysis

12 of what it would cost to meet the Goals. Mr. Sachs has started 10 projects looking at different targets linked to the Goals.

4. Embedding the MDGs within common UN frameworks for operational activities in developing countries, such as the UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) and as a rallying point for the different agencies of the system.

Initial Reactions by CSOs According to one UN participant that undertook a range of CSO consultations on the MDGs around the world in recent months, the initial reaction was one of skepticism. CSOs were concerned that the MDG campaign would increase conditionalities and further contribute to the “bilateralization” of international cooperation. They were concerned that if the IFIs were not involved in the process this would make it irrelevant; but when it later became clear that financial institutions were involved, subsequent CSO consultations revealed, paradoxically, that such involvement was also seen as a potential problem.

On the positive side, it was noted that in the post-Conference period, the MDGs provided an opportunity to debate the issues and address questions related to policy coherence, and with the short-term peace and security issues dominating the international scene with the war in Iraq and the “war against terrorism”, the MDGs could help put development back on the agenda. A number of CSOs have also begun to see MDGs as tools for accountability at national and international levels, including accountability of the IFIs.

In the discussion, a number of challenges were raised, including the risk that, as more UN system agencies and other international organizations get involved, contradictory messages from different quarters could emerge. Another challenge was how to make MDGs an attractive notion for the media and general public. A third was the need for the UN General Assembly to open up the MDG review process to NGOs.

(For more details on the MDGs, see NGLS Roundup 98 “MDGs: Moving Forward on the Millennium Development Goals”, November 2002.)

VIII. Plans for the HLP and HLCP Exercises The final session of the meeting was dedicated to examining what is in store with two important reform processes of the UN system: (1) The High Level Panel (HLP) created by the UN Secretary-General to review relations between the United Nations and civil society, the private sector and parliamentarians, with the objective of formulating recommendations for enhancing interaction; and (2) A study to be undertaken by the UN’s High Level Committee on Programmes (HLCP, which reports to the Secretary-General’s Chief Executives Board (CEB)) to take stock of the state of collaboration between UN system organizations and civil society organizations (CSOs), highlighting the policy dimension of such cooperation.

13 The HLP is chaired by former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardozo and composed of 12 members from government, NGOs, academia and the private sector, acting in their independent capacity. It is a one-year exercise, which began formally on 1 March 2003 and should be completed by the same date in 2004.

The HLCP initiative was endorsed by the CEB, whose Secretariat has already circulated draft terms of reference for the proposed study. On the basis of a variety of inputs, including the results of the present meeting, the CEB Secretariat will prepare a discussion paper on possible areas for HLCP to focus on in future work/collaboration with CSOs, which will be presented to the Committee at its September 2003 session.

During presentations, it was emphasized that the HLCP study would not duplicate the work to be carried out by the Secretary-General’s Panel. The HLCP study was an attempt to take stock of the current state of collaboration and assess challenges and would serve as a starting point for HLCP in its future work in this area. It would also serve as an input to the HLP whose remit is considerably broader in scope. In particular, the HLP is to include examination of the work of international organizations outside the UN system, and would also cover relations with the private sector and parliamentarians.

The outcome of the HLP, facilitated by the broadness of its scope, would hopefully have an educational, institutional and political dimension. Some of the recommendations may fall under the Secretary-General’s prerogatives, while others may involve decisions to be made by Member States. The HLP was intended to go beyond access issues (linked to the “numbers problem”) and would examine more effective means for the UN to foster meaningful communication (in a “trialogue spirit”) between UN secretariats, Member States, and civil society.

IX. Follow-up In addition to the present report of the meeting, NGLS will compile the written texts to be submitted by participating agencies, and which will provide inputs into the HLP and HLCP exercises. The 6-7 March meeting was the first of a two-phase consultation process facilitated by NGLS. After having heard the views of CSO/NGO focal points from across the multilateral system, NGLS will convene a second consultation for CSOs/NGOs on similar themes. The latter meeting will provide further inputs to the HLP and HLCP exercises.

It was also announced that UNESCO has set up an online discussion forum for NGO/CSO liaison officers only. (This is a private forum. If you have not received instructions on how to access it please contact: [email protected].)

At the close of the meeting of focal points, it was agreed that steps would be taken to explore the possibility for IFAD, in cooperation with NGLS, to host a follow- up inter-agency meeting of this kind in Spring 2004 at its headquarters in Rome, back-to-back with the 2004 NGLS Programme and Coordination Meeting, if possible.

Several participants thanked NGLS for successfully undertaking an unprecedented initiative and providing a useful forum for information sharing and discussion.

14 Annex I

Meeting of NGO and Civil Society Focal Points from the UN System and International Organizations

March 6-7, 2003

Room No. XXVII, Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland

Programme

March 6: (Day One):

0930-1000 Opening: Background to the meeting and its aims. Tony Hill, NGLS Louise Lassonde, WSIS Secretariat Massoud Abtahi, UNESCO

1000-1030 Welcome Remarks: Rubens Ricupero, Secretary-General, UNCTAD

1030-1100 Global Governance & Civil Society: John Clark, Centre for Civil Society, (LSE-UK)

1100-1130 Break

1130-1300 General Discussion with interventions from: Carolyn Reynolds, World Bank; Martin Khor, Third World Network; Anselmo Lee, Pax Romana

1300-1430 Lunch

1430-1600 Current and recent initiatives to strengthen policies towards Civil Society: best practices, bad practices, issues and challenges: Lead Discussants: Nora McKeon, FAO; Ernesto Castagnino, IDB; Eva Wallstam, WHO; Louise Lassonde, WSIS; Anantha Krishnan, UN-Habitat.

1600-1630 Break

1630-1730 Human Rights since 9/11: The Challenge to the UN and Civil Society: Robert Archer, International Council for Human Rights Policy

Wrap-up for the day: review of the programme for the second day

15 March 7: (Day two):

0900-0930 Coffee & Croissants

0930-1000 Remarks in light of International Women’s Day “Feminists engaging development institutions” Shahra Razavi, UNRISD

1000-1100 Working with Civil Society on Development Lead Discussants: Zehra Aydin, UN/DESA (WSSD); Bartes Edes, ADB; Sappho Haralambous, IFAD

1100-1200 Working with Civil Society on Humanitarian Emergencies and Human Rights Lead Discussants: Craig Sanders, UNHCR; Jutta Neitzel, WFP

1200-1300 The Millennium Development Goals Campaign Introduction: Bruce Jenks and/or Caitlin Wiesen, UNDP

1300-1430 Lunch

1430-1530 Matters arising from the previous sessions. Further Discussion

1530-1600 The Secretary-General’s High Level Panel to review UN relations with Civil Society. The study being undertaken by the UN’s High Level Committee on Programmes.

1600 Review of the meeting Follow-up Close

16 Annex II

Informal Meeting of NGO/Civil society Focal Points

6-7 March 2003

Room XXVII, Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland

List of Participants

UNDP Bruce Jenks [email protected] Caitlin Wiesen [email protected] Betsy Lippman [email protected] Jeau-Luc Stalon jeau-luc. [email protected] Celine Aucouturier [email protected] Vinciane Quoidbach [email protected]

UNICEF Cecilio Adorna [email protected] Janet Nelson [email protected] Katharina Borchardt [email protected]

UNHCR Craig Sanders [email protected] Anne Marie Kerrigan [email protected]

UN/DESA Judith Brister [email protected] Zehra Aydin [email protected]

UNCTAD Dieter Koenig [email protected] Amel Haffouz [email protected] Jean-Claude Zanga [email protected]

UNODC Smart Eze [email protected]

UNFPA Safiye Cagar [email protected]

UN/DPI Paul Hoeffel [email protected]

UNECE Patrice Robineau [email protected]

UNESCO Massoud Abtahi [email protected]

UNEP Megan Howell [email protected] Wondwosen K. Asnake [email protected]

17 UN/ HABITAT Subramonia Ananthakrishnan [email protected] Seyda Turkmemetogullari [email protected] Sylvie Lacroux [email protected]

UNAIDS Bai Bagasao [email protected]

UN/EOSG Kevin S. Kennedy [email protected]

UN High Level Committee on Programmes Eckhart Hein (Secretary) [email protected] Susan Toh [email protected]

Secretariat of the UN Chief Executives Board (CEB, ex-ACC) Karina Gerlach [email protected]

WHO Eva Wallstame [email protected] Josephine Matsumoto [email protected] Philippe Stroot [email protected]

World Bank Carolyne Reynolds [email protected] Rachel Winter Jones [email protected]

WFP Jutta Neitzel [email protected]

FAO Nora McKeon [email protected] Diego Colatei [email protected]

IFAD Sappho Haralambous [email protected]

ILO Dominique Peccoud [email protected] Audrey Esposito [email protected]

OECD Meggan Dissly [email protected]

WTO Peter Werner [email protected] Bernard Kuiten [email protected]

Asian Development Bank Bart W. Edes [email protected]

Inter-American Development Bank Ernesto Castagnini [email protected]

18 EBRD Doina Caloianu [email protected]

European Commission Maria Badekas [email protected]

WSIS Secretariat Louise Lassonde [email protected] Alain Clerc [email protected]

NGLS Tony Hill [email protected] Hamish Jenkins [email protected] Beth Peoch [email protected]

Invited Guests :

John Clark Center for Civil Society [email protected] (LSE, London)

Robert Archer International Council for Human Rights Policy (Geneva) [email protected] Shahra Razavi UN Research Institute for Social Development. [email protected]

Anselmo Lee Pax Romana [email protected]

Martin Khor Third World Network [email protected];/ [email protected]