Transcript Stakeholder Empowerment Project

Stakeholder
Empowerment
Project
The objectives of the Stakeholder Empowerment Project are
threefold;
• review the interface between governments and civil society in a
range of UN processes, agencies and programmes,
• critically analyse a set of case studies spanning different stated
objectives,
• develop a set of good practices and common terminology for the
design of future UN civil society processes.
1. What do we mean by civil society
‘engagement’?
2. How do we measure ‘success’?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Knowledge and information sharing
Influencing inter-governmental outcomes
Collaborating with the Secretariat
Reconciling different stakeholder
positions
Advocacy and lobbying
Networking and relationship building
Influencing own government delegation
•
What were the primary objectives of the
facilitators, stakeholders and
governments?
And to what extent were those primary
objectives fulfilled?
Methodology
• Analytical Framework
• Questionnaire and interviews
• Desk-based research
• Literature review
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Action Aid International
Access Initiative
ANPED
Association for Sustainable Human Development
Belarusian Public Association
Blue Link Information Network
Centre for Trade and Development (CENTAD)
Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
Citizens Association Front
Crop Life International
Eco Tiras
Ecological Society
ECOS
Environment Liaison Centre International
Environment People Law
European Environment Agency
European Bank for Reconstruction
Forum Brasileiro de ONGs e Movimentos Socias (FBOMS)
Florozen
Foundacion Salvadorena para el Desarrollo Economico y
Social
Friends of the Earth Ireland
Friends of the Earth, France
Gratis Foundation
Hungarian Environmental Partnership
IBON International
ICO Green Dossier
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
Institute of Social and Economic Studies
International Agri-Food Network
International Alliance of Women (IAW)
International Centre for Environmental Research
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturer's
Association (IFPMA)
International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP)
International Partners for Sustainable Agriculture (IPSA)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
International Gender and Trade Network (IGTN)
International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI)
Liberation Alliance for Change
Network Institute for Global Democratisation (NIGD)
NGO Terra 1530
Office Africain pour le Développement et la Coopération
Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe
Regional Environmental Centre
Rwanda Women’s Network
Salvadoran Foundation for Economic and Social Development
Stakeholder Forum
Sun Valley Association
Sustainable Development Public Union
Synergy For Development and International Partnership
Third World Network (TWN)
WBCSD
WWF
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea, Italy
Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Maritime Affairs, Spain
Ministry of Environment Protection, Georgia
Ministry of Justice, Azerbaijan
Environment Agency, Croatia
Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, Moldova
Ministry of sustainable development, France
Environmental Ministry, Germany
DEFRA, Uk
Ministry of the Environment, Slovenia
Ministry of the Environment, Norway
Ministry of the Environment, Austria
European Community
UNEP MINISTERIAL ROUNDTABLES
•
Stated objective: to allow ‘government delegations
to explore issues more fully in smaller groups’
•
6 roundtables involving 20 governments each. Head
of delegation plus one other
•
Access: Closed forum with 2/3 civil society
representatives allowed to attend.
•
Time frame: lasted 2 hours
•
Issues: Identified by UNEP’s Committee of
Permanent Representatives
•
Stakeholder definition: Major Groups
•
Participants were decided amongst the major
groups immediately prior to the RT’s.
•
Government representatives were selected to Chair
and Rapporteur each RT
•
Rules of procedure: Informal. Stakeholders
allowed to intervene at the discretion of the Chair
•
Output: The rapporteurs from each RT presented
summaries to the plenary and a section of the key
issues were included in a separate section in GC
Report
FINDINGS
Advocacy and Lobbying
Networking and relationship building
Degree to which objectives fulfilled: 5 (out of 6)
Strengths
•
Reduced number and combination of governments
•
Informality and innovation
•
Role of the Secretariat and focal points
•
Knowledge of stakeholders
•
Unforeseen positive outcomes
Constraints
•
Confusion regarding objectives and outcome
•
Experience and attitude of the Chair
•
Accountability of stakeholder views
•
Preparation time
•
Lack of clear guidelines for Rapporteurs
•
Division of governments across the RT’s
“The RT’s forced ministers to stop focusing on
process and start talking content” (major group)
“Provided a safe harbour for ministers to try out new
ideas” (major group)
“ It was less about us and more about the
governments. It was above all a capacity
building exercise for them” (major group)
“ It was a relief to get away from prepared
statements which are just deathly” (government
delegation)
“‘The UN system is cumbersome. It will only work if
you occasionally turn it on its head and shift the
paradigm to force ministers to behave
differently’ (major group)
‘”We were unsure how to proceed because no-one
was really sure what the outputs of the
discussion were” (major group)
UNCTAD CIVIL SOCIETY HEARINGS
•
Stated objectives: a constructive exchange of views;
informal, interactive debate; to hear and respond to
issues related to the topics and suggested questions.
•
Access: To participate an NGO must have an observers
status with UNCTAD or receive special accreditation
for the Hearings.
•
Participants: 20 - 40 NGOs, INGOs, research institutes
and parliamentarians
•
Issues: identified by Trade and Development Board
(TDB)
•
Time-scale: 2-3 hours. Usually held on the eve of
the TDB meeting on an annual basis.
•
Preparation: Secretariat holds informal meeting prior
to the Hearings with stakeholders at which speakers
are decided and topics are discussed.
•
Location: Geneva
•
Rules of procedure: ‘Chatham House Rules’. Option
to submit a statement if unable to attend. Each
topic on the agenda is presented by a stakeholder
after which two discussants from civil society and
two from the members states address the topic and
any related questions. Interventions are capped at
3 minutes
•
Outcome: Secretariat produces a short report
summarising key points. Summary is then presented
at the Plenary of the TDB and is included in the
final report submitted to the General Assembly.
FINDINGS
Influencing Intergovernmental Outcomes
Lobbying and Advocacy
Degree to which objectives fulfilled: 3.5 (out of 6)
Strengths
•
Rules of procedure were clear and well identified
•
Simple format
•
Opportunity to work with the Secretariat
Constraints
•
Lack of stakeholder expertise
•
Quality of inputs from stakeholders variable
•
Lack of resources to attend
•
Few veterans of the process
•
UN setting intimidating
•
Lack of regional representation
•
Accreditation system confusing
“I came here on another UN ticket, that is the only reason I
could afford to attend” (Southern NGO)
“An enhanced use of the internet as a tool for reaching more
NGOs would be useful, particularly those in the South”
(Southern NGO)
“We would like to see more exchange and fewer statements
but I don’t know how you would achieve this in the UN
setting” (government)
“The Hearings are an important first step, but the question is
where do we go from here and at the moment it doesn’t
seem evident that we’re going anywhere” (INGO)
“Strengthening the facilitation of the process should come
from the Secretariat, no other entity” (INGO)
COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Stated objectives: Major Group participation in the work of the
CSD aims to ‘enrich the debates and influence the
outcomes’. The interactive dialogues aim to provide the
opportunity for a ‘focused, yet informal discussion’
Access: Open to accredited NGOs and other Major Group
organisations either by being in consultative status
with ECOSOC or listed in the CSD Roster.
Timeline: Two year cycle involving a policy year and a
review year. Commission itself meets for two weeks
annually. Interactive dialogues last for one and a half
hours.
Stakeholders defined under ‘Major Groups’. Each major
group selects ‘organising partners’ to provide
coordination and preparation.
Preparation: Six months prior to CSD Major Groups are
required to submit written inputs or ‘discussion papers’
or ‘Priorities for Action’ in consultation with global
stakeholders. Consultations amongst major groups
either conducted through phone conferences or
meetings.
Funding available for 24 participants in Policy Year, 16 in
Review year. Limited funds for organising partners.
Each dialogue is broken into three half hours. Each block is
opened with three Major Groups presentations
after-which the discussion is opened to the floor for
fifteen minutes. Interventions are limited to 3
minutes each.
Output: Section summarising the interactive dialogue is
included in the Chair’s summary
FINDINGS
Relationship and network building
Knowledge and information sharing
Degree to which objectives achieved: 4 (out of 6)
Strengths
•
Openness and transparency
•
Well established stakeholder networks
•
Relationship with the focal point
•
Length of the CSD as a whole
•
Different opportunities for interaction
Constraints
•
Lack of cooperation between MGs
•
Resource intensive
•
Position paper topics are too broad
•
Global consultation requires a lot of time
•
Formality of the UN system
•
Experience and attitude of the Chair
“There have been times in the past when we’ve
submitted a joint statement with another Major
Group, but we have now given up trying because
everyone has different agendas” (major group)
“The two week period is a training ground for new
participants” (major group)
“This was my first time in the UN but I didn’t find it
intimidating because we were working as a
group” (major group)
“We need as much time as possible for the preparation
documents and it puts a huge stress on our
resources” (major group)
“None of these processes are really dialogues because
everyone sticks to their prepared statements”
(major group)
“The CSD has undergone big changes. It is now less an
opportunity to impact decision making and now a
forum for capacity building” (major group)
AARHUS CONVENTION MOP
Stated objective: Review the progress achieved in the
Convention and adopt a strategic plan for the future.
Rules of procedure grant observers and members of the
public full access to all of the associated meetings.
Interventions are allowed at the discretion of the
Chair.
Access: Very open. ‘Relevant intergovernmental nongovernmental organisation, qualified or having an
interest in the fields to which the Convention relates’
are granted access as observers.
Outcome: MOP Declaration relating to the programme of
work for the next three years. One key outcome of the
Meeting of the Parties is a MOP Declaration over which
NGOs are treated as parties.
NGOs provided access to taskforces, working group of
the parties and working groups. One elected stakeholder
representative sits as an observer on the Secretariat.
However, access is denied to the EU coordination
meeting.
Participants: Broad range of regional organisations and NGOs
from the UNECE region
Timescale: 2-3 working group of the parties each year. MOPs
held every 3 years and last 3 days.
Stakeholder coordination: An NGO committee is responsible
for coordination and distribution of funds and to ensure
geographical representation. The group is organised via
eight elected panel members who represent different
UNECE regions and are elected to sit on the panel.
Funding : UNECE provides limited funding for participants.
Additional funds are raised by Eco-Forum for greater
participation rates.
FINDINGS
Knowledge sharing
Advocacy and Lobbying
Degree to which objectives fulfilled: 5.5 (out of 6)
Strengths
•
Role and attitude of the Secretariat
•
Stakeholder coordination group
•
Expertise of the participants
•
Process design involved stakeholders
•
Funding available for participation
•
Website and documentation
•
Clearly defined time lines
Constraints
•
Stakeholder representation dominated by NGOs
•
Process needs to be re-evaluated
•
Limited participation on the part of the
governments
•
Lack of NGO capacity to follow continuing process
•
Heavy process
“Civil society are the watchdogs of a full and effective
implementation of the Convention in their country
and can report back to the MOP about it.”
(government delegation)
“Civil Society organisations are usually very well informed,
and have a good way of expressing their arguments”.
(government delegation)
“Due to the culture and evolution of this convention, in
Aarhus the chair is there to try and find consensus
among all who are present not only the parties”
(INGO)
“We convinced our delegation to support the taskforce on
public participation” (NGO)
“We would like to enable distant participation into the
discussion through ICT tools”. (NGO)
“This is not like the other UN conventions where NGOs
come on their own behalf. Here Eco-Forum creates
the umbrella and without it the NGO efforts wouldn’t
have been effective” (INGO)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Establishing and communicating the objectives of the engagement
Integrating stakeholders into the process as early as possible
Provision of a time line in advance
Allowing enough time for adequate consultation and network building
Providing clear rules of procedure
Establishing reliable and accountable stakeholder networks
Establishing the ‘veterans’ of any given process
Relationship with the focal point and secretariat
Adequate finances for participation
Defining civil society
- What do we mean by effective stakeholder engagement?
- What other UN forums have been considered useful by stakeholders
and governments?
- What are the key elements of any given forum to ensure a
successful process?
Project Advisory Board
Jeremy Wates (Aarhus Convention) Secretary to the Convention
Elisa Peter (NGLS) Chief of New York Office
Ricardo Espinosa (UNOG) Liaison Officer
Federica Pietracci (DESA) Major Groups Programme Coordinator
Achim Halpaap (UNITAR) Principle Coordinator
Stakeholder Forum International Advisory Board
http://www.stakeholderforum.org/index.php?id=intadvis