1 / 15

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,

rosie
Download Presentation

Stakeholder Empowerment Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Stakeholder Empowerment Project

  2. 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.  

  3. 2. How do we measure ‘success’? • 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 • What do we mean by civil society ‘engagement’? • 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

  4. 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 MovimentosSocias (FBOMS) Florozen FoundacionSalvadorena 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

  5. 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

  6. 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)

  7. 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.

  8. 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)

  9. 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

  10. 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)

  11. AARHUS CONVENTION MOP Stated objective: Review the progress achieved in the Convention and adopt a strategic plan for the future. Access: Very open. ‘Relevant intergovernmental non-governmental organisation, qualified or having an interest in the fields to which the Convention relates’ are granted access as observers. 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. 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. 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.

  12. 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)

  13. 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

  14. 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?

  15. 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

More Related