Displacement activity or real engagement?
Over the last twenty years or so I have seen a number of
attempts to engage stakeholders in the negotiations at the UN. These include:
- Public, stakeholder or civil society hearings (they are often called different things)
- Speaking slots at intergovernmental negotiation sessions
- Participation in Round table (where there is a round table with stakeholders participating eg UNEP GC or High Level events with Heads of State)
- Presentation as an expert on a panel
- Stakeholder Dialogues with member states (UN Commission on Sustainable Development 1998-2002)
Of these the last three
are the ones which have had the biggest impact and the first two the least
impact. There is a very good review of this done by Stakeholder Forum from
around 2009 that is worth reading.
Probably one of the best examples of impact was the
stakeholder dialogues from the 1999 CSD where for 12 hours, yes I did say 12 hours, there was an exchange between stakeholders and
governments facilitated by the Chair of the CSD Simon Upton from New Zealand.
One of the reasons why it was so successful is that only three (not 9) Major
Groups were in full participation in each three hour session. Half the time
went to governments and half to stakeholders - It did enable each Major Group over the 2 days
to have their say on a particular issue that was relevant to them in at least
one of the sessions and it did enable much more in-depth discussion.
How was this possible
you might ask?
Well, stakeholders had to produce their papers by December
for a May CSD. There was then a comparative analysis done by the UN Division on
Sustainable Development and four areas were identified for discussion in the
four sessions of three hours. This enabled a much focused discussion on issues
such as financial leakage in the tourism industry or tourism sustainability
codes. The outcome was a ‘Chairs text’.
The final aspect that made these dialogues so successful was
that the New Zealand government then entered the ‘Chairs text’ as an official New Zealand position into
the negotiations (which Simon Upton was also chairing) so then governments had
to argue to have the text removed not to have it added.
In any UN process the earlier you are able to get your views
infront of governments the best. The SDG OWG is a very good example of how
experts on panels can have an impact on government thinking. As these were
early in the process.
Post 2015 processes
Stakeholders or Civil Society?
That brings me to the present discussions around the Post 2015
process and the Finance for Development process.
But before I do that I want to explain again the reasoning
behind the Major Groups concept and why the civil society concept is outdated
and not helpful.
What the civil society concept does, is group together
everyone who is not government or industry. So in discussions with governments
there is one voice for industry and then everyone
else is included in the other voice. This reduces or in some cases
eliminates the space for stakeholders from 8
to 1 space and stakeholders such as youth, women, Indigenous Peoples, local
government and community based organizations etc lose their individual and vital voices.
The civil society process is also often dominated by the
larger NGOs which tend to be from the well-funded north. The stakeholder
discourse on the other hand recognizes those different sectors in society and
enables them to have their own voice. The definition of stakeholder is:
“Stakeholders are those who have an interest in a particular
decision, either as individuals or representatives of a group. This includes
people who influence a decision, or can influence it, as well as those affected
by it.” (Hemmati, 2002 – from Multi-stakeholder Processes on Governance andSustainability)
The UN presents this as the Major Groups – the nine agreed in Rio. I have argued since the
early 1990s that the Major Groups was an opening that should be expanded to
other sectors of society where relevant. This does not include NGO or
multi-stakeholder coalitions. The NGO coalitions should work through the NGO
Major Group and multi-stakeholder coalitions through different stakeholder
constituencies or just lobby as a coalition.
So what should be happening around the 2015 process is a process
of Major Groups and other stakeholder and not a civil society process.
One comment in passing about the Major Group organizations that
are elected as Organizing Partners, they have a responsibility to expand those
they serve particular from developing countries. I would like to see who they
are actually servicing registered in a transparent way so that it can be clear
they are enlarging the community they serve.
What at present is happening is a mess. Whoever came up with
different Steering Committees for the different negotiation sessions clearly
doesn’t understand the approach of the last twenty years and is failing to see
the co-relation between formats and channels for participation and the actual
quality of engagement and potential for impact. This mess is causing huge a amount of displacement activity and time wasting - and for what? To coordinate
input to for a 2 or 3 hour hearing with member states? Where very few member
states engage in the sessions and of course these happen after governments have
come to the viewpoint for that session so are less open to taking any notice.
If stakeholders who want to develop advocacy strategies and
engage in the process do not know by now what they want to see in the different
sections of the Outcome Document that will be adopted at the Summit in
September - in the Declaration, the SDGs, the Moi and the Follow Up &
Review and Global Partnership sections – and what is the concrete strategy they
will deploy to maximize their chances of achieving it, then there is little
point in participating.
That participation will fall short in terms of real
contribution, engagement and influence. If they know what they want, then they
also know that they need to use ALL their time - and I mean ALL their to talk
to governments informally and to be ready to produce substantive, relevant and
political savvy input with agility, timeliness, cross-constituency coordination
and rigor. With six negotiations sessions left until the summit, this is NOT a
time for new people who are not familiar, experienced or trained on UN
processes and stakeholder engagement in these processes to participate and
expect to be effective and have real impact.
Governments have little time for working out if the new
people coming convey the messages of a constituency that they should listen to
or whether it’s rather the message of a particular organisations or worse still a Non Governmental Individual (NGI). Governments
need and want stakeholder input that is adapted to the current stage of
negotiations.
The richness and freshness inherent to having new people
deserves adequate formats to make the best out of these assets. And the
incorporation of new people should not have as co-lateral consequence the removal
of stakeholders with familiarity and experience or training on UN processes and
stakeholder engagement in them.
New people can use this time to start understanding the
process, support existing coalitions, build a profile for the future, meet
donors, organize side events or network with other organizations.. These are
all valid reasons to be there.
I worked with
Beyond 2015, Civicus and DSD in running training session at the last session In
January and will do the same in February and March because as new people come
in they do need proper training and should be taking up leadership roles in the
future. Those of us around now have a responsibility to share our skills and
approaches to that next generation.
If you are new then I do suggest that you buy my and Michael
Strauss’s book How to lobby at intergovernmental Meetings – Mine is a CaféLatte which gives you a lot of the
tricks to the trade. If you see me in the Vienna Café and have a question I’m
always available to help.
If you want to understand where and how decisions are taken in intergovernmental meetings then read From Rio+20 to a NewDevelopment Agenda: Building a Bridge to a Sustainable Future by Felix Dodds, Jorge Laguna
Celis, Liz Thompson
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment