1971
Use of Multi-Meetings
Proposal for Improvement to NGO / UN Relationships
- / -
A group of London-based NGOs met at the request of the NGO Standing Committee
of the Conference of international Nongovernmental Organizations Approved for
Consultative Status with UNESCO and agreed to transmit the following suggestion
to the Committee. (The matter was duly considered at the March 1970 meeting and
postponed for consideration at the June meeting). Published in International
Associations, 1971, 6, pp 354-359 [PDF version]
Proposal
As a relatively simple change of procedure which does not imply any "
massive
structural reorganization "of NGO relations, each of the various "
consultative
status "NGO Conferences could be scheduled to take place at the same place
during the same period, instead of being held in different places at different
periods. In other words without in any way linking them together procedurally
it would be quite possible to hold the plenary sessions in the same physical
setting (e.g. in neighbouring conference rooms with a common reception /refreshment
area) mainly as concurrent sessions with the possibility of joint sessions on
substantive matters where these were felt to be useful (e. g. a briefing on
development).
Resultant Organizational Flexibility
In the case of
international NGOs a multi-meeting
could be arranged every 1 or 2 years to bring together the NGO representatives which meet on such
occasions as the ECOSOC/NGO Conference, the
UNESCO/NGO Conference, or any other UN/NGO
grouping where relevant. But the programme committee, which could include representatives of these
bodies and of the relevant Specialized Agencies,
need not limit the multi-meeting to sessions on the
procedural aspects of consultative status. Substantive matter meetings of NGO representatives could
also be scheduled so that the following range of
possibilities is made available for use as required :
- separate consultative status procedure formal conferences (ECOSOC/NGO,
UNESCO/NGO, UNICEF/NGO, etc.).
- separate standing committee and bureau meetings of any such plenary
bodies.
- working or ad hoc groups of NGOs meeting separately around each consultative
status conference on either substantive or procedural matters.
- working or ad hoc groups of NGOs meeting jointly where the groups
around each consultative status conference have a sufficiently common or overlapping
interest (e.g. development, peace, youth, education, etc.).
- joint plenary conferences on substantive matters whenever a common
interest topic requires discussion. This could either take the form of a plenary
conference arranged jointly by several of the consultative status groupings,
or it could be scheduled within the multi-meeting framework as a session totally
independent of the formal groupings as a one-off meeting. There is, for example,
no reason why mixed plenary conferences should not draft resolutions which,
for the benefit of the Agency concerned, would only be actually voted by those
NGOs present which had consultative status with that Agency.
- nor is it necessary for the programme committee to limit participation
to Agency-oriented NGO groups. If the multi-meeting setting is a useful occasion
for an NGO group, not specifically associated with the UN or its programmes
to meet (perhaps because most of the members are present for other sessions
within the multimeeting framework), then such activity should be facilitated.
- separate substantive matter formal or working groups (e.g. on disarmament,
women, childhood and adolescence, crime and treatment of offenders) could
be held as appropriate ; as could
- contact meetings of executives of NGOs with similar problems (for
example, such a multimeeting would be an appropriate occasion for the potentially
important, and little known, informal contact meetings between the executives
of the major formal scientific NGO groupings which have been initiated by
ICSU).
The attitude
should be to maximize inter-NGO activity, and the possibility for NGO-IGO activity, rather
than to set up barriers to it based on procedural or
other criteria.
There could be times when it would be advantageous that participation of an
individual NGO at multi-meetings should not be based on the consultative status
criterion (except for admission to procedural or other closed sessions). This
is no way affects the rules on the right to vote or speak developed for any
particular session, open or closed. This policy :
- exposes such individuals or organizations to substantive matters
related to UN programmes
- provides a context in which representatives of organizations without
consultative status with a particular Agency can make informal contact with
Agency officials, possibly as a prelude to an official application for consultative
status, contracts, etc.
Furthermore,
this policy permits individual NGOs if
they so wish to schedule meetings of their executive
bodies on the occasion of such multi-meetings
(whether within the multi-meeting framework or
not), with the consequence that members of such
executive bodies can both gain some understanding of inter-NGO activity and respond rapidly (if the executive meeting is appropriately
scheduled) to questions referred upwards by the
NGO's official representative at a particular
NGO conference session.
The organization
behind the multi-meeting need only
be limited to the programme committee and arrangements for a reception desk, document distribution,
interpretation and translation. (The latter tasks are
usually undertaken by the Agency Secretariat concerned). An additional feature which could well be
considered is charging a registration fee to those
participants which are not registered as members
of an NGO Conference. This could prove to be a
very useful source of income, particularly if members
of the general public are admitted.
Advantages
The advantages
of this proposal may be summarized
as follows :
- all the people necessary to make any new NGO-NGO or NGO-IGO activity
happen are brought to the same location. What happens and when it happens
depends on individual initiative and "
corridor activity "during the multimeeting.
- the multi-meeting provides an occasion on which a variety of formal
or informal inter-NGO activities can be catalyzed
NGO consultative
status conferences for those
those NGOs in consultative relations with a
Specialized Agency for which such a conference does not exist (Note that such conferences could be single session conferences
within the multi-meeting framework. Such short
sessions would not normally justify bringing
NGO representatives together just for that
purpose outside a multi-meeting framework).
- conferences of NGOs with a special concern for a particular continent or
region (e.g. Africa, Latin America, etc.)
- conferences of NGOs with a special programme interest (youth, peace, human
rights, development, environment, discrimination, crisis relief, etc.)
- conferences of NGOs with technical or scientiffix preoccupations.
- more meetings are scheduled covering a wider range of topics. It is therefore
more useful for an NGO to be represented which should therefore build up attendance
and therefore increase the significance of such events. The aim is to make
of the multi-meeting an ideal environment from which inter-NGO and NGO/IGO
projects can crystalise possibly catalysed by the presence of foundation representatives.
- from a public relations point of view a yearly or two-yearly multi-meeting
would be an ideal opportunity to make evident to the general public any
NGO perspectives emerging from the individual conferences. The substantive
matter resolutions of some sessions would not be swamped by the procedural
context which is totally insignificant to the mass media. Such meetings
would merit press participation because of the concentration of NGO representatives
(as opposed to the current dispersion which never results in a significant
international press reaction). Consequently more attention would be paid
to resolutions, where voted by governments and Specialized Agencies. A
not unimportant aspect of this is the effect such a large gathering would
have on the national affiliates of NGOs which would then have proof of
the problems of and need for cooperation between NGOs at international
level.
- the multi-meeting is an ideal occasion for the Specialized Agency representatives
responsible for contact with NGOs to meet. Furthermore, the switch to
greater possibility of discussion of substantive matters would encourage
the participation of Agency officials responsible for programmes as opposed
to the current limitation to those responsible for NGO relations.
- the multi-meeting provides an occasion on which an NGO's own representatives
to each Agency can meet and coordinate their approaches. This helps to
resolve the problem of the lack of communication between representatives
of the same NGO to different Agencies.
- the looser framework should encourage the participation of NGOs currently
avoiding the formal NGO Conferences because of their procedural/human
rights emphasis. The framework would for example permit scientific, medical,
professional NGOs both to arrange their own sessions and to participate
in procedural conferences or UN programme-oriented sessions where this
seemed warranted. The multi-meeting is seen primarily as a collection
of meetings of NGOs and only secondarily as a forum for discussion of
consultative status matters.
- controversial procedural points which tend to arise in consultative
status conferences and block discussion of substantive matters or joint action
by limited groups of NGOs are restricted to the appropriate meetings which
were conceived for such questions. NGO representatives do not attend such
sessions in order to benefit from inter-NGO action-oriented debate, as at
present.
- restriction of UN programme-oriented discussion to certain sessions
could have the advantage of freeing NGOs from their current consultative status
role of "
followers "commenting on minor details of UN defined programmes.
Some of the informal multi-meeting sessions should permit NGOs to recover
their pioneering spirit and to discuss new initiatives which could later"
take the form of UN programmes.
- grouping the consultative status conferences physically should reduce
the time and funds which NGOs have to spend on representation at meeting in
different locations.
- the loose framework in which programme-oriented sessions can
be organised, means that only those NGOs interested in the subject under discussion
need attend.
- the multi-meeting can be held in different cities in successive years since
there is less justification to relate it to the Secretariat of the Agency
of the consultative status conference. (On this point, the last ECOSOC/NGO
meeting in Geneva was held in the 1LO building). NGOs should not ignore
the possible financial and other advantages which they can derive from government
and city administrations anxious to encourage individual NGO conferences in
a given country or city by partially subsidizing multi-meetings in their own
cities. This would also help to increase public understanding of NGOs in each
such city.
- the multi-meeting environment should lead to a much improved exchange
of information between all Secretariats of NGO Conferences and Committees
whether specifically concerned with the consultative status machinery or not
- the multi-meeting permits NGOs to work out a solution to their problem
of regular contacts, particularly between :
- Secretariats of the formal "
permanent "NGO groups and the secretaries
of temporary or ad hoc groups
- Conference Secretariats and Agency Secretariats
- Conference Secretariats and NGOs
- NGOs and NGOs
- NGOs and Agency Secretariats.
A first step towards this might be an information service at the reception
desk to permit NGOs to register topics in which they are interested with a view
to contacting other NGOs, and possibly arranging a small meeting within the
multi-meeting framework. New activities are in this way facilitated.
Conference Secretariats might enter into reciprocity agreements with regard to representation of NGO members at Specialized Agencies
or meetings in the cities in which they are
based. This could be particularly important
with respect to regional activity (e.g. African
or Asian Conference Secretariats).
The disadvantages of the multi-meeting technique
derive mainly from the problems of organizing
adequate meeting space with simultaneous interpretation. Nevertheless, such practical aspects are
surmountable and more manageable than the semipolitical/procedural/autonomy problems which arise
if significant forma] changes to the consultative
arrangement machinery are considered.
In addition, a dynamic environment of this kind, in
which more new people from the national level can
each year be involved in international activity, is
surely a desirable NGO goal.
It should be remembered that the plenary sessions of the main NGO Conferences,
together or separately, are by no means large meetings when compared to the
average international congress. It may be that the usual five day meeting period
would be insufficient even with some sessions run in parallel but this
must be offset against the number of additional, possibly evening, meeting sessions
which could benefit from the multi-meeting framework (A table has been prepared
showing the extent to which NGOs have multiple overlapping membership of several
UN Agencies). An indication of the subjects discussed by some of the NGO groupings
and the degree to which these coincide is given in the inset on page 357.
Recommendation
- that representatives of the NGO (UNESCO) Standing Committee and the
Conference of NGOs in Consultative Status with ECOSOC, together with representatives
of their respective UN bodies, meet to discuss the possibility of holding
their Conferences within a common multimeeting framework ; these to take place
in 1972;
- that this recommendation be transmitted to the Bureau of
the ECOSOC Conference for consideration and that the Secretariats of the other
NGO groupings be invited to comment on these suggestions.
Examples of subjects being discussed by more than one UN NGO group
Youth
- Unesco/NGO Working Party on Youth and Society (this working party
has set up a sub-group on education and employment in the context of the Second
Development Decade what is the contact between this group and
the ILO ?)
- Informal group of Youth NGOs meeting with the UN Inter-Agency Youth
Liaison Officer
- FFHC Young World Promotion Group
- FFHC national seminars on Youth programmes
- Second World Food Congress discussed an item on the Role of Youth
in Development.
- Unicef/NGO Committee to consider encouraging the strengthening of
bilateral and multi-national aid programmes of economically advanced countries
in relation to service for children and youth ; the development of public
understanding ; the needs of children and youth.
Peace
- Unesco/NGO Working Party on Peace, International
Understanding and Coopera__tion in the Second Development Decade
- ECOSOC/NGO Special Committee on
- DisarmamentDevelopment
- ECOSOC/NGO Special Committee on the Second Development Decade
- Unesco/NGO Sub-group on Education and Employment (see above under
Youth)
- Unesco/NGO Working Party on Peace, International Understanding and
Cooperation in the Second Development Decade
- Unicef/NGO Committee to consider providing direct services to children
and youth in developing countries in a co-ordinated way with Unicef, thus
making possible more effective use of available resources and more strategic
attacks on the priority problems of children and youth in the context of national
development.
- FFHC Young World Development Programme.
Audio-visual
media
- Unesco/NGO audio-visual Working Party
- the 4th FFHC Conference discussed audiovisual techniques in relation
to rural education ; and mass communications media at the service of development.
NGO Interdependence and Isolationism
Some UAI comments on the above proposal.
Most reports
circulating at the international level,
and most international conferences, stress repeatedly the importance of collective activity. A recent
meeting of NGO's in consultative status with UNESCO, discussed the shortsightedness of governmental
thinking on NGO activities with respect to NGOs
and racism as typified by the UNESCO plenary resolution
in 1970 requiring UNESCO to cut of contact with
all NGOs with branches in South Africa by December
of 1971. "
What we do say is that Unesco should
not associate itself with NGOs which are active in
South Africa, "Tanzanian Delegate, 16 C/VR. 32 (prov),
p. 34,
And yet at this very same NGO meeting, one NGO representative stated, with
reference to the possible collaboration with "
non-UNESCO "NGOs in consultative
status with other UN agencies, "
We don't have anything in common with them
"Other NGO representatives and the representative of the UNESCO Secretariat
agreed.
This comment
raises a very fundamental question.
At a point in time when the United Nations system is
starting to recognize that every problem, and particularly development problems, is related to every
other problem, when is it valid for one organization
to assert that it has nothing to do with another organization ? Are NGOs now trailing behind the United
Nations in the belief that each Specialized Agency
deals with a neat group of problems unrelated to
those handled by a second Agency. The Jackson
Report showed very clearly how the subject areas
of the "Specialized Agencies overlapped. If this is
so, then many NGOs in consultative status with
one Agency should also have consultative relations
with others in order to cover all aspects of the
problem which interests them (e.g. education from the
cultural (UNESCO), health (WHO, UNICEF), rural (FAO),
and workers (ILO) points of view).
Table showing degree of overlap in consultative relations
Thus 46 % of the INGOs in consultative relations with ECOSOC (I or II)
also have consultative relations with UNESCO (A or B). Alternatively,
132 INGOs have ECOSOC I or II status and of them 61 have UNESCO A or B
consultative status. All percentages greater or equal to 30 % are In bold
characters. |
|
ECOSOC l/ll
|
ECOSOC
I/II
100
132
|
ECOSOC ROS
|
ILO
39
51
|
FAO
21 28
|
UNESCO
A/B
46
61
|
UNESCO C
16 21
|
WHO
13
17
|
ICAO
7 9
|
ITU
6 8
|
WMO
5 6
|
IMCO
5 6
|
IAEA
8
10
|
UNICEF
42
55
|
UNCTAD
14 19
|
UNIDO
8 10
|
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
23 30
|
o
11 14
|
|
ECOSOC
|
|
100
|
9
|
17
|
47
|
25
|
6
|
3
|
3
|
5
|
3
|
9
|
5
|
3
|
8
|
2
|
|
|
Ros
|
|
235
|
21
|
39
|
111
|
9
|
58
|
13
|
7
|
6
|
11
|
6
|
21
|
12
|
7
|
18
|
4
|
|
ILO
|
55
|
23
|
100
|
26
|
51
|
12
|
16
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
5
|
8
|
42
|
11
|
7
|
33
|
7
|
| |
51
|
21
|
92
|
24
|
47
|
11
|
15
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
5
|
7
|
39
|
10
|
6
|
30
|
6
|
|
FAO
|
25
|
36
|
22
|
100
|
34
|
9
|
8
|
3
|
5
|
6
|
6
|
9
|
28
|
13
|
5
|
18
|
3
|
| |
28
|
39
|
24
|
107
|
36
|
10
|
9
|
3
|
5
|
6
|
6
|
10
|
30
|
14
|
5
|
19
|
3
|
|
UNESCO
|
35
|
64
|
27
|
21
|
100
|
_
|
11
|
2
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
5
|
27
|
5
|
3
|
15
|
5
|
|
A/B
|
61
|
111
|
47
|
36
|
175
|
|
20
|
4
|
7
|
7
|
5
|
8
|
48
|
9
|
5
|
26
|
9
|
|
UNESCO
|
21
|
9
|
11
|
10
|
_
|
100
|
5
|
1
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
10
|
5
|
3
|
17
|
4
|
|
C
|
21
|
9
|
11
|
10
|
|
100
|
5
|
1 •
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
10
|
5
|
3
|
17
|
4
|
|
WHO
|
21
|
72
|
19
|
11
|
25
|
6
|
100
|
1
|
4
|
4
|
|
6
|
28
|
3
|
1
|
9
|
1
|
| |
17
|
58
|
15
|
9
|
20
|
5
|
81
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
|
5
|
23
|
2
|
1
|
7
|
1
|
|
ICAO
|
32
|
46
|
7
|
11
|
14
|
4
|
4
|
100
|
25
|
14
|
21
|
11
|
_
|
14
|
4
|
_
|
_
|
| |
9
|
13
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
1
|
28
|
7
|
4
|
6
|
3
|
|
4
|
1
|
|
|
|
ITU
|
25
|
22
|
3
|
16
|
22
|
9
|
9
|
22
|
100
|
19
|
16
|
19
|
|
9
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
| |
8
|
7
|
1
|
5
|
7
|
3
|
3
|
7
|
32
|
6
|
5
|
6
|
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
|
WMO
|
40
|
40
|
20
|
40
|
47
|
13
|
20
|
27
|
40
|
100
|
13
|
27
|
13
|
20
|
|
13
|
|
| |
6
|
6
|
3
|
6
|
7
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
6
|
15
|
2
|
4
|
2
|
3
|
|
2
|
|
|
IMCO
|
29
|
53
|
24
|
29
|
24
|
5
|
_
|
29
|
24
|
10
|
100
|
24
|
10
|
43
|
14
|
10
|
_
|
| |
6
|
11
|
5
|
6
|
5
|
1
|
|
6
|
5
|
2
|
21
|
5
|
2
|
9
|
3
|
2
|
|
|
IAEA
|
59
|
32
|
37
|
53
|
42
|
11
|
26
|
15
|
32
|
21
|
26
|
100
|
21
|
32
|
15
|
21
|
_
|
| |
10
|
6
|
7
|
10
|
8
|
2
|
5
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
5
|
19
|
4
|
6
|
3
|
4
|
|
|
UNICEF
|
72
|
26
|
51
|
39
|
62
|
13
|
30
|
_
|
_
|
3
|
3
|
5
|
100
|
10
|
4
|
33
|
12
|
| |
55
|
21
|
39
|
30
|
48
|
10
|
23
|
|
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
77
|
8
|
3
|
25
|
9
|
|
UNCTAD
|
54
|
34
|
29
|
40
|
26
|
14
|
6
|
11
|
9
|
9
|
26
|
17
|
23
|
100
|
23
|
20
|
|
| |
19
|
12
|
10
|
14
|
9
|
5
|
2
|
4
|
3
|
3
|
9
|
6
|
8
|
35
|
8
|
7
|
|
|
UNIDO
|
63
|
44
|
38
|
31
|
31
|
19
|
6
|
6
|
6
|
_
|
19
|
19
|
19
|
50
|
100
|
31
|
6
|
| |
10
|
7
|
6
|
5
|
5
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
8
|
16
|
5
|
|
|
COUNCIL OF
|
28
|
17
|
28
|
18
|
26
|
16
|
7
|
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
24
|
7
|
5
|
100
|
7
|
|
EUROPE
|
30
|
18
|
30
|
19
|
26
|
17
|
7
|
|
i
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
25
|
7
|
5
|
106
|
7
|
|
OAS
|
30
|
9
|
13
|
7
|
20
|
9
|
2
|
_
|
2
|
_
|
_
|
_
|
20
|
2
|
2
|
15
|
100
|
| |
14
|
4
|
6
|
3
|
9
|
4
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
9
|
1
|
1
|
7
|
46
|
How can this overlapping of interests be illustrated in the
row corresponding to that Agency indicates to underline the
dangerous nature of the -comment the number of NGOs which also
have consultative cited above ? After experimenting with a
number of relations with another Agency (named in the row
different approaches, the Table on this same across
the top of the Table). Thus in the case of page was produced.
This can be used in the follow the 175 NGOs with consultative
status A or B with ing way. NGOs in consultative status
with a given UNESCO : 61 (35 %) also have ECOSEC I or II, and III
Agency can look for that Agency in the left hand (64 %)
with ECOSOC Roster 47 (27 %) with ILO, column of the Table.
Each square across the Table 36 (21 %) with FAO, 20 (11
%) with WHO 4 (2 %) with ICAO, 7 (4%), 7 (4%) with WMO, 5 (3%) with IMCO,
8 (5 %) with IAEA, 48 (27 %) with UNICEF, 9 (5 %) with UNCTAD, 5 (3 %) with
UNIDO, 26 (15%) with the Council of Europe, and 9 (5%) with the OAS.
Similarly 42 % of
the 132 ECOSOC
I or II NGOs
have consultative status with UNICEF. 34 % of the
107
FAO NGOs have consultative status A or B with
UNESCO. 62%
of the 77 UNICEF NGOs
have consultative status A or B with UNESCO. And so on.
This type of information raises a very interesting
question with regard to the degree of justification
required for cooperation between NGO groups. The
comment cited above considered that UNESCO
A/B NGOs had nothing in common with the other
NGO groups
namely that a percentage of 100% in
the above Table was essential before cooperation
was conceivable. But the essence of international
cooperation is contact between groups with different
but related fields of concern. When, for example,
does it become justifiable to organize an international meeting or some sort of federation of national
bodies ?
Only when all potential participants agree
or are concerned with exactly the same thing ?
Each of the national bodies of a world wide association does not have the same perspective or
priorities, but when does this justify one group
saying of the other "
we have nothing in common
with them "
? Just how different do they have
to be to be rejected
or how similar to be accepted ?
Is cooperation possible when the participating
bodies are 80
% similar 60 % ? 40 % ? 30 % ?
When should the possibility of cooperation be excluded ?
It should be possible for one group of NGOs to conceive of some joint activity
with another group if 50 % of the NGOs belong to both groups. But again what
if only 30 % belong to both groups ? Each of the bodies represented at an international
meeting is not equally concerned with every item on the agenda and may even
consider many to be of no significance but when does this justify setting up
a separate meeting ? And what arguments do the central committees use in the
case of the organization and the meeting to show the extent of common interest
and justify a single joint activity how common does the interest have
to be ? This is a consideration that each NGO must face with respect to its
own members and potential members in different countries. This question may
be approached from another angle. How many NGOs with a common interest are necessary
before a viable working group is formed ? In the case of the UNESCO A/B NGOs,
a working group of :
- 10 NGOs represents 6% of the total in consultative status A or B
- 20 NGOs represents 12 %
In the case of ECOSOC I/II NGOs, a working group of :
- 10 NGOs represents 8 % of the total consultative status I or II.
- 20 NGOs represents 15 %.
Now the working
groups of both the ECOSOC and
UNESCO NGO Conferences do not often succeed
20-30
NGOs. It would therefore appear that a
figure of 15-20
% is an acceptable basis for cooperation, in the estimation of active NGOs.
Yet another approach to the study of the limits
within which international cooperation is justifiable
is to consider the number of NGOs actually attending the NGO Conferences as compared to the number which could attend. In the case of ECOSOC
NGOs, for example :
- 91 NGOs were present at the 11th Conference (1969), representing
25% of those which were entitled to attend
- 127 NGOs are in fact members of the ECOSOC NGO Conference, namely
35 % of those which are entitled to be members.
(Presumably 65 % of the NGOs entitled to be members consider that they have
"
nothing in common "with the 35 % which are members). Is the current
period of social crisis a time for NGOs to be more exclusive or less exclusive
? How small must the percentage of common interest be before the possibility
of international cooperation should be excluded ?
|
