2. User Workshop Participative Governance beyond Borders? Civil Society Engagement in Comparative Perspective, May 14-15 2007, KOWI Conference Room, Rue du Trone 98, 1050 Brussels Responsible Christine Arnold, University of Maastricht Irina Michalowitz, European Platform of Women Scientists Participants Christine Arnold, Unversiteit Maastricht Fouad Hamdan, Friends of the Earth Regula Heggli from the Civil Society Contact Group Prof. Jutta Joachim, Leibniz University Hanover Irina Michalowitz, European Platform of Women Scientists Julian Oliver, Secretary General of Euractiv Foundation Virgile Perret, University of Lausanne Sophie Ravier, Representative of the UNEP Liason office to the EU Prof. Jan Aart Scholte, Warwick Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation Frank Schwalba-Hoth, political strategist in Brussels Alfredo Sfeir-Younis, Former World Bank Special Representative to WTO and UN in Geneva Tom Spencer, Brunel University and Executive Director of the European Centre for Public Affairs Dr. Jens Steffek, University of Bremen Dr. Heidi Ulrich, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development Tony Venables, Director of European Citizen Action Service Programme Monday, 14 May 17:00 17:15 Welcome and Introduction 17:15 18:45 Civil Society Participation in International Governance: What do we know about Civil Society Engagement in IOs and the EU? Jutta Joachim, Leibniz University Hannover Tom Spencer, Brunel University Heidi Ullrich, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development Tuesday, 15 May 9.00-10.30 Civil Society engagement in international and European governance: Cooperation and Resources of Civil Society Organizations Jan Aart Scholte, Warwick Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation Tony Long, World Wildlife Fund (tbc) Tony Venables, European Citizen Action Service Sylvie Motard, Representative of the UNEP Liaison office to the EU
10.45-12.15 International Organizations and EU institutions perspective on Civil Society Virgile Perret, University of Lausanne Alfredo Sfeir-Younis, former World Bank Special Representative to the WTO and the UN in Geneva Gérard Legris, European Commission General Secretariat (tbc) Ilona Kish, chair of the EU Civil Society Contact Group and Secretary General of the European Forum for Arts and Heritage (EFAH) 13.45-15.15 Participative Governance beyond Borders: Lessons Learned Jens Steffek, University of Bremen Julian Oliver, Euractiv Foundation 15.30-16.00 Concluding remarks Rationale of the Workshop The purpose of this conference was to examine the variation of civil society engagement across international organizations and the European Union, the incentive of such engagement and its added value. Members of civil society, international organizations, EU institutions and researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds were invited to share their experience in order to facilitate learning across diverse sectors. A set of research questions and propositions formed the basis for the exchange of ideas. The workshop brought together in total about 20 participants (with some variation according to sessions and time availability of speakers and listeners). This included a number of Ph.D. candidates from Belgian and Dutch universities and from different associations in Brussels. In four different sessions, the conference juxtaposed the view of IO/EU officials, civil society representatives engaged with these very institutions, and academic scholars with research expertise in this field. Participants received a list of questions for each session. Session 1: Civil Society Participation in International Governance: What do we know about Civil Society Engagement in IOs and the EU? In the first session the following key questions were addressed: 1.1 What criteria are applied by civil society to date? Prof. Jutta Joachim was the first speaker at the workshop. In her opening remarks she emphasized that there is a lack of comparative research of NGOs across different IGOs. Furthermore, much of the research done uses a bottom-up perspective, that is to say NGOs are viewed as entrepreneurs and carriers of new ideas and norms as well as agents of policy change. In her own research on the UN and the EU, Prof. Joachim adopts a different perspective and asks: How do institutional differences between IGOs affect the strategies of NGOs? In other words, do they adopt different strategies depending on the institutional settings they operate in? Regarding the question at which point in the decision-making process to get engaged in, Prof. Joachim found in her research that accessibility matters the most. NGOs often find it easier to have access and therefore are most prevalent in agenda-setting and implementation, but virtually absent in the decision-making phase.
Regarding the question which NGO appears to do particularly well in a multi-level setting, Prof. Joachim reported that in her research she finds those NGOs that have the following characteristics do particularly well: manage to have continued presence on all levels, are well endowed, provide scientific expertise, use insider lobbying strategies and are able to mobilize unified issue frames. Regarding the question how much interaction there is between levels of governance, Prof. Joachim finds in her research that NGOs in the EU and the UN use other levels of governance as leverage when they find that particular channels on one level appear to be closed or blocked. There is evidence that points to the fact that there is a lot of moving up and down. Additionally, a lot of 'frame-borrowing' appears to occur: what worked well on one level is carried over and applied at the other level. In concluding her presentation, Prof. Joachim pointed out that one of the effects of the institutional differences of the IGOs on the strategies of the NGOs appears to be a taming effect: NGOs tend to assimilate to the needs of the IGOs. The second speaker of the panel was Dr. Heidi Ulrich, a representative from the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. In her presentation she described the work and activities of the ICTSD such as information generation, issuing of research papers, organizing dialogues, networking and capacity building. She pointed out the importance of multi-level engagement, multi-stake holder and timing is in the work of the ICTSD. Regarding the question at which point in the decision-making process to get engaged in, Dr. Ulrich pointed out that strategies are guided by the opportunities provided. NGOs go where they find open doors. One incentive for IGOs is the demand for information. If an NGO serves as an honest-broker there is a higher chance for opportunities. Responding to the third question of this panel, she pointed out that a more appropriate metaphor than a conveyer belt for the interaction of civil society on the different levels of governance is the metaphor of a lasagna: the ripples are weaving their way through the system. These ripple effects are going from the national to the international and then again back to the national level. In those interactions the following arrangements matter: formal and informal networks, formal and informal partnerships, policy entrepreneurs and advocacy coalitions. Dr. Ulrich concluded her presentation by listing the following recommendations for effective cooperation, at e.g. the WTO level: institutional engagement, creation of enabling environment, institutional mechanisms, policy mechanisms, empowerment of stakeholders and increase knowledge of WTO-civil society through open and transparent information exchange. The third speaker of the panel was Tom Spencer, who is at Brunel University and who is Executive Director of the European Centre for Public Affairs. In his presenation he pointed out that NGOs face the same the challenges as other organizations such as business, churches, etc. The process is very similar in that they learn and recruit from business. When comparing NGOs today to the ones of the 1970s, there are some differences in enthusiasm and institutional opportunities. Regarding the question at which point in the decision-making process to get engaged in, Mr. Spencer pointed out that a NGO will answer this question partly also with reference to what other NGOS are doing. Given the scarcity of resources, a NGO will likely not get involved if it thinks that its interests are already represented by another NGO. Regarding the question at which level NGOs will aim to get involved, Mr. Spencer pointed out that this will depend on the game an NGO is playing. For the big game an NGO has to
be involved on all levels at all times. If one is a smaller NGO then strategic concerns become relevant in the decision where to get involved and when. 1.1 At which point in the decision-making process to try to get engaged at which level of governance? 1.2 Which NGOs appear to do particularly well in the complex multi-level system of governance? And why could this be the case? 1.3 Is there an interaction effect across the different levels of governance? Do members of civil society act like a conveyor belt in the channeling of information from one level of governance to the other? Session 2: Civil Society engagement in international and European governance: Cooperation and Resources of Civil Society Organizations In the second session the following key questions were addressed: 2.1 Recently, has there been an increase in the institutionalization of cooperation among civil society organizations? If so, are there differences in the degree to which the institutionalization across civil society organizations has taken place? 2.2 In the last years, IOs/EU institutions have explicitly welcomed the input of civil society. Has this led to an increase in cooperation across civil society organizations? Are there differences in the degree of cooperation among NGOS that are active at the international compared to NGOs that are active at the European level? 2.3 Has there generally been a trend of professionalisation of public relations? The second session was introduced by Prof. Jan Aart Scholte, Warwick Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation. He started his presentation by pointing out that one should not be too western oriented (regionalism in East Asia is different; EU may be exception rather than model). Additionally he pointed out that research needs to ask who are the people who have consultations with organizations. This analysis should be carried out in social structural terms. What is needed is a sociology of participation which would bring into focus issues such as political identities and faith groups. Regarding the question if IOs/EU institutions have welcomed the input of civil society, he pointed out that it varies by degree and institution. International governance is only a small part and we tend to miss context. The degree depends on (expert) staff, staff training on civil society liaison (hence lack of expertise on both sides), the weakness of the guidelines. Additionally, he pointed out that the kind of civil society that is typically welcomed is one that is conformists, reformists, but also one that does not rock the boat too much. In concluding the presentation Prof. Scholte pointed to the importance of how IOs derive legitimacy. To examine this one needs to look into questions of legality, morality, democracy, advocacy and personality. The second speaker of the panel was Sophie Ravier, Representative of the UNEP Liason office to the EU. She remarked that the nature and scope of the issues at hand determine where civil society tends to get engaged. Additionally, she pointed out that civil society as political entrepreneurs and advocacy coalitions tend to be more effective. In her concluding remark she emphasized more important than professionalism for the effectiveness of a civil society is the fostering of mutual trust.
The third speaker of the panel was Tony Venables, Director of European Citizen Action Service, started his presentation by pointing out that in terms of the relationship between civil society and public institutions not quite as much has changed as one might believe. Yet we are witnessing an inflation of language: the titles being given are getting bigger. What is needed is to deconceptualize the issues, otherwise there is the risk that the gap between what is happening and the concepts would increase even further. Regarding the question if there has been a trend towards professionalization of public relations, Mr. Venables pointed out that no general rules can be observed. The types of activities in which NGOs perform best and are very professional are the following: campaigning strategies, forming coalitions, and reaching the media. Yet there are many other activities in which the NGOs cannot match the resources of the business community. The fourth speaker of the panel was Fouad Hamdan, Friends of the Earth, started his presentation by pointing out that there is an increase in professionalisation in the way in which NGOs work. This trend can be seen especially in PR and communication. But communication alone is not decisive; an organisation also has to have visibility. Additionally, he pointed out that within the EU, cooperation among the green NGOs is quite high, even though they do pursue different campaign strategies. While Friends of the Earth has a more grass root approach, Green Peace is a bit more top-down. Session 3: International Organizations and EU institutions perspective on Civil Society In the third session the following key questions were addressed: 3.1 Generally speaking, can we observe differences in the financial and organizational support of civil society across IOs and EU institutions? 3.2 Can we speak of a professionalisation of PR tools on both sides by Civil Society organizations and political institutions in communicating their work? Does this have an impact on the interaction of civil society organizations and institutions? 3.3 What advantages and disadvantages at the international and the European level are there due to formal accreditation requirements of civil society organizations? This session was opened by Virgile Perret, University of Lausanne. He outlined the following three perspectives of International Relations theories that can be used to explain the added value of civil society groups: neo-liberal, neo-gramscian, and neo-keynesian. He concluded his presentation by pointing out that the neo-keynesian approach is more relevant for the European context since it links to deliberative models of democracy. The second speaker of the panel was Alfredo Sfeir-Younis, Former World Bank Special Representative to the WTO and the UN in Geneva. He started his presentation by pointing out that today we have markets without borders but we do not have democracy without borders. While there has been a loss of sovereignty for countries because of the dominance of markets and there has been an increase in economic competitiveness, we are not observing an increase in social competitiveness. In such a world, civil society plays an important role. Yet, the issue of accountability is also one that needs to be asked of civil society. He concluded his presentation by pointing out that accreditation will not solve the democratic deficit, as NGOs need to be more discriminatory in distinguishing who should be allowed to come to the negotiation table. The third speaker of the panel was Regula Heggli from the Civil Society Contact Group. In her presentation she pointed out that the EU institutions work with a wide understanding of civil society and are rather open to civil society. She concluded her presentation by pointing
out that there is a variety of actors that are labeled as stake-holders, but yet there is a lack of clarity and transparency on how stake-holders are chosen to participate in the consultations. The fourth speaker of the panel was Frank Schwalba-Hoth, political strategist in Brussels. In his presentation he distinguished five types of NGOs that one finds in Brussels: Brusselsbased headquarter of a Europe-wide organization, Greenpeace-type (headquartered at different location, but the Brussels office has the same importance as member branches), likeminded organization, network of network, organization founded for specific issues Eintagsfliegen. He concluded by pointing out that EU financing is very different from one type of organization to the other. Session 4: Participative Governance beyond Borders: Lessons Learned In the fourth session the following key questions were addressed: 4.1 Are the current instruments of consultation (e.g. online consultations, stakeholder meetings) and representation (e.g. through networks/associations, individually or via commercial public affairs consultants) appropriate to guarantee the representation of diverse societal interests? 4.2 Could an enhanced consultation of civil society by IOs and EU institutions contribute towards a strengthening of an international/european public sphere? Or does the creation of a public sphere depend on other factors? The first speaker of the panel was Dr. Jens Steffek, University of Bremen. He started his presentation by pointing out that it is often argued that civil society enhances the legitimacy of European and global governance. When one disaggregates this claim one finds a two-fold promise: First, democratic accountability of governance points to the hope that civil society can help citizens to efficiently monitor and sanction decision-makers. Second, there is the notion of epistemic quality of decisions which points to the promise that civil society can improve the quality of decision-making. In his research Prof. Steffek finds that civil society participation has clearly increased. Yet there also is a trade-off between public campaigning and chances for deliberative input. The role conflict boils down to the following: watchdogs don't deliberate. Prof. Steffek concluded his presentation by pointing out that when designing/revising participatory arrangements one needs to set priorities. One of the key questions is what one expects from civil society participation? The second speaker was Julian Oliver, Secretary General of the Euractiv Foundation. In his presentation he characterized Brussels as a market for ideas. Yet in an intergovernmental system there is a conflict: government has full responsibility to listen to all the stakeholders, yet ultimately government only takes into consideration the views of a few select members of civil society. He concluded his presentation by pointing out that in order to avoid this, there is a need for greater transparency. The media is one important factor that helps in bringing about greater transparency and technology has helped with that as well. Workshop conclusions and outlook
In the concluding session of the workshop the following themes were highlighted as having emerged from different presentations: times of change (changes in the working of the NGOS such as an increase in professionalisation, NGOs learned better where to exert influence, more issue networks); relevance of accountability both of IOs/EU institutions, but also NGOs (civil society actors cannot be assumed to be keepers of the public good). Some participants pointed out that a greater geographical representation of regions/countries would be useful to study the interaction of civil society and IOs/EU institution. The following issues were identified as fruitful avenues to continue research on the topic covered by the workshop: the role of civil society to contribute towards the fulfillment of key values; clear definition of civil society encompassing both formal and informal networks; and the relevance of endogenous factors such as personality. Overall, all participants felt that the workshop was an extremely worthwhile exercise and benefited from the exchange. A large number of participants encouraged the workshop organizers to investigate possibilities to draw one or more publications from the workshop. The next step is to explore possibilities for a conference report in a political science journal by Christine Arnold and Irina Michalowitz. Subject to the availability and willingness especially of the practitioner participants, further publications in an essay-like structure may emerge. Report by Christine Arnold (June 2007)