Upload
metapresents
View
485
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This presentation was made at the first meeting of the MeTA International Advisory Group.
Citation preview
Multi-stakeholder Working:Lessons from the Frontline
Richard Calland
MIAG
Conceptual Understanding of MSIs Mode of Governance: ie a decision-making forum
about the rules of the game for a particular issue MSIs comprise a process-orientated, joint approach
to benchmarking, rule-making and implementation
MIAG
Rules/Lores of the (MSI) Game
True joint decision-making power of the participating actors may not be certain…but:
Deeper legitimacy for the role of non-state actors at the negotiation table
Therefore, MSIs are a step beyond “mere” consultation: NGO stakeholders are active role-players - they are at the table and in the game
MIAG
MSI Typology*
Purpose Drivers & Motive Status & Composition Arena of Intervention
*This Typology is drawn from the work of
Lucy Koechlin of the Basel Institute of
Governance – with whom I am
collaborating on a book chapter on MSIs.
MIAG
Purpose
Dialogue/forum
Institution-building
Rule-Setting
Rule Implementation
Rule Monitoring
Purpose/Area of Intervention
Dialogue/ Forum
Institution-Building
Rule-setting Rule-implementation
Rule-monitoring
Peace-agreements COIEPA (Angola)
National Peace Committees (S.A.)
Tax-Reform Guatemala
Sustainable development International Alert (Azerbaijan)
EITI, Global Reporting Initiative
EITI
Conflict financing EITI, Kimberley Process
Kimberley Process
Human Rights Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights
MIAG
Consensus-Finding Potential of MSIs
Compare: Eye on EITI October 2006 Report: Civil Society (PWYP/Revenue Watch) International Advisory Group of the EITI: Final Report, September 2006
MIAG
…large degree of consensus:
1. Real Implementation by Governments
2. Validation by Companies (including disaggregation)
3. Need to deepen the multi-stakeholder approach
4. Deepen the sub-national system
MIAG
Main Differences/Concerns:
1. Incentives 2. Cheating – ‘bogus’ representation by corporations
and especially host governments3. Particular stakeholders being marginalised4. Self-selection of CSO participants5. Some evidence of harassment 6. Co-option…and:7. Funding/resources8. Uneven information base
It’s all about TRUST…
And POWER!
…OR GOOD, CONSISTENT PROCESS & CLARITY ABOUT OBJECTIVES AND THE RULES OF THE GAME?
MIAG
Other Issues/Challenges
Differences in language and culture (individual and institutional)
Each set of stakeholders has to learn a new lexicon in relation to the other
And, to ignore the “parrot on the shoulder” So as to get past previous, often deeply ingrained,
prejudices…
MIAG
THE CHALLENGE OF VALIDATION Is this just a question of M & E? Or is there a process element? Or, if transparency is the means to the end, is it also about how to measure
the ends as much as the means?