The United Nations, NGOs and Global Governance

Table of Contents

• FOREWARD
• OVERVIEW OF THE CONFERENCE DEBATE
• INTRODUCTION
• THE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENDA
• THE DEVELOPMENT AGENDA AND COOPERATION, CONFERENCE FOLLOW-UP, AND UN-NGO COLLABORATION
• WHITHER THE UNITED NATIONS?
• NGOS AND GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
• THE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE AGENDA AND DEMOCRACY, EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY WORK, AND THE ECOSOC REVIEW ON NGO ARRANGEMENTS
• STRENGTHENING UN-NGO COOPERATION: VIEWS FROM THE UN SYSTEM
• THE UN, NGOS AND GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: CHALLENGES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
• CLOSURE
• Annex I: PROGRAMME
• Annex II: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
• Annex III: LIST OF ACRONYMS

THE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE AGENDA AND DEMOCRACY, EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY WORK, AND THE ECOSOC REVIEW ON NGO ARRANGEMENTS

Discussion Groups

The afternoon session was organized into three discussion groups:

• organizing for more effective work at the international level;
• challenges to NGOs and the UN in democratizing global governance; and
• update and discussion on the ECOSOC review of arrangements for consultation with NGOs.

The following summary highlights the main observations, viewpoints and recommendations arising from these discussion groups.

NGOs are no longer marginal and have come of age. Their financial resources for development probably surpass those of the UN. NGOs contribute to setting UN agendas, influencing policy decisions and mobilizing public opinion. The human development agenda elaborated through the UN conferences represents, in large measure, the NGO agenda. At the same time, NGOs are not simply implementing agencies for UN conferences; they must demand more concrete commitments and follow-up action from governments and the UN system. The many, complex challenges that must be addressed make for a daunting, perhaps disempowering, agenda.

But much has already been achieved. The most effective NGO work has often involved taking a tiny part of the development agenda and turning it into something tangible. NGOs should unite around the funding crisis faced by international institutions such as the UN system and the World Bank's IDA. If funding continues to decline, the whole enterprise of constructing democratic, international decision making to address global problems will fall apart. Now that NGOs have influence, their analyses must improve, and their information should be of higher quality and less rhetorical. NGOs have a responsibility to be more rigorous and to provide the highest quality inputs to intergovernmental processes.

On some issues, such as Third World debt, there has been an enormous improvement in the networking and advocacy work of NGOs. There are also many areas of consensus among NGOs on trade issues, particularly with respect to the social implications of the Uruguay Round. A serious problem will be posed for NGO work on international trade if the WTO does not develop formal, consultative relations with NGOs that enable them to participate in the WTO's deliberations. Major western countries are also opposed to opening up the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to greater NGO participation, even while arguing, in the context of the ECOSOC Review, for greater NGO access to the UN. This is because there are sensitivities concerning the financial nature of the GEF mechanism. However, the recently established system of one-day trialogues between governments, GEF implementing agencies and NGOs is a positive if small step forward.

The question of equitable participation of NGOs in international processes cannot be addressed without discussing resources. How can democratic access to new tools of communication, especially in Africa, be ensured?

NGOs face many difficulties when they are invited by the UN to choose "representatives," although this is easier with thematic issues or events that call for specific expertise. Processes of formal representation are in crisis everywhere, including in governments, political parties, the UN, or international organizations. Many of these representative institutions have become detached from people and their concerns; people are becoming frustrated with and complacent about politics. One of the key tasks for NGOs is to open space for people to speak out. Issues concerning the "representativity" of NGOs could be exaggerated. At the very least, NGOs reflect, and are, concerned citizens and therefore have a right to speak. To be effective, NGOs need to receive timely information from the UN system; dissemination of the information should be the responsibility of the UN institutions and not of NGOs. To facilitate information sharing by NGOs when participating in international work, financing by donors for travel and participation could include an element for information dissemination.

NGOs should not become locked into cycles of international meetings, but rather make strategic choices on how best to pursue the issues on their agenda. NGOs must be more results- and solution-oriented. When working for empowerment, sustainable development and equity, NGOs must talk the language of real people and address their concerns. At the same time, NGOs should build stronger links with research bodies and institutes. Southern NGOs need to build their capacity for advocacy work. So far, their capacity building has focused on institutional management to enable them to better comply with the administrative requirements of donor NGOs and official agencies. Southern NGO staff need training in lobbying, diplomacy, negotiating, research, dissemination and public relations. There is a need for more direct South-South NGO exchange and dialogue, which occurs most often via the North. More dialogue would also help NGOs resolve the issue of NGO representation.

NGOs have an under-utilized capacity to bring together different groups and evoke change. At the international level, NGOs are often fragmented, poorly prepared, and too critical of the dominant powers without proposing alternatives. NGOs should not get into the unwinnable game of trying to beat the World Bank and others at research. The comparative advantage of NGOs lies not in a different analysis, but rather with their starting point, by asking what things mean from the point of view of the poor. More emphasis should be placed on key official decision makers who should be sent on "exposure trips" to spend time with poor people. NGOs must acknowledge the responsibilities of national governments, in both North and South. Nobody is forcing Southern governments to join the WTO, to embrace structural adjustment policies or to follow market-led development strategies.

NGO initiatives and processes at the international level cannot be legislated in advance. Like-minded NGO representatives come together around the UN conferences to establish caucuses. There has been much clustering around issues and venues, and bridge-building between different groups where necessary. At the WSSD, NGOs firmly rejected the "steering committee" model. The Quality Benchmark document prepared by NGOs for the summit is an excellent blueprint for an inclusive NGO process. At the summit, the document was not presented as the NGO document, but as one document among many that NGOs could consider signing. It was eventually endorsed by over 1000 NGOs from 60 countries and acquired considerable political weight.

There is a clear divergence between progress in democracy and good governance at the national level in many countries and in international decision making, which sometimes resembles the "law of the jungle." At the international level, the executive, judicial and legislative branches are not properly separated and independent. The Security Council, Bretton Woods Institutions and WTO must be democratized, and the latter linked more closely to the UN. Some NGOs are concerned about the involvement of private corporations in helping to finance UNCED and the UN's 50th anniversary celebrations. Does this mean there is a creeping privatization of the UN?

Is the ECOSOC review being imposed on NGOs by governments? NGOs want access; governments want control. It is not in the interests of NGOs to play too much the game of governments in establishing rules. Compiling comprehensive and reliable information on NGOs, their constituencies, expertise and sources of funding would be extremely useful.

NGOs are very concerned about differences among UN member states and within the NGO community on a number of key issues in the ECOSOC review of arrangements for consultations with NGOs. Governments favouring greater NGO access to the economic and social work of the UN do not seem to support greater NGO access to other UN bodies, such as the General Assembly and Security Council, or to the World Bank, IMF and World Trade Organization. Other governments do not seem to appreciate the value for the UN of opening its work to a broader range of NGOs. At times the debate between UN member states seems to take place in a vacuum, with little or no recognition of the tremendous advances made, particularly since the beginning of the decade, in NGO participation in the work of the UN. Some international NGOs argue that wider NGO participation would dilute the value of consultative status and pose insurmountable logistical problems. Other NGOs do not accept this position, and point to positive examples of NGO participation in the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) and the Commission on Human Rights. In fact, it was pointed out, in the day to day policy-related work of the UN there is an "NGO deficit." Regional commissions should be more NGO-friendly, and secretariat services for NGOs at UN meetings should be upgraded to accommodate increased NGO interest and activity. International NGOs in consultative status should be leading the call for wider access for a broader range of NGOs to the UN. NGOs should take up the issue of NGO access to the UN with their governments while the ECOSOC review is still underway. At a minimum, formal UN procedures should be flexible enough to allow any competent NGO to make a relevant contribution.