Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
NGOs Statement by the Union of International Associations
on Secretary-General's Report on NGOsBy Anthony Judge
Director, Communications and Research
Union of International Associations, Brussels, BELGIUM
May 21, 1999
The SG's report on "Arrangements and practices for the interaction of NGOs in all activities of the UN System" (A/53/170, 10 July 1998) is a very helpful summary of many aspects of the situation.
The following comment focuses on possibilities for improving the situation. These have been inadequately addressed. This comment takes into account the report of the 5th May 1999 follow up meeting organized by CONGO
The discussion tends to focus heavily on classical institutional and procedural issues that have long been debated with relatively little possibility for improvement given the well-known financial, geographical and legal constraints.
As is widely reported in the media, many organizations operating internationally are now engaged in examining their structures and mode of operations in the light of Internet and Web communications. The SG's report limits its discussion of this to the use of the UN's own websites as a means of disseminating UN information to NGOs (para. 52). Reference is however also made to the long-standing problem of duplication of databases on NGOs within the UN system (in para 72 ), to the potential of electronic conferences (para. 76), and to access to the ODS (para. 78).
With respect to the SG's discussion of databases on NGOs working with the UN system, the report failed to mention the databases of the Union of International Associations (UIA) which have continued to profile all international NGOs and their relations with intergovernmental bodies (as specifically provided by ECOSOC Resolution 334 B (XI) of 20 July 1950) at no cost to the UN system. These databases now also over profile 10,000 issues identified by such bodies, the strategies advocated for dealing with them, and the hundreds of thousands of (hyper)links between them. The information is updated annually in book form and on CD, and has been available on the web since 1998. An interactive version is currently being tested to facilitate participation of NGOs in distant locations.
Given the financial constraints on ensuring the presence of Southern (or smaller) NGOs in New York, and the severely limited possibility for effective and meaningful interaction of any such representative with UN officials there (that are already dealing with hundreds of NGOs), there is a strong case for exploring how specific concerns and exchanges of information could be managed through the internet. The UN should play an active role in scoping out such possibilities in the light of current best practice and appropriate alliances, rather than awaiting the pressures that will render such a switch in procedure essential. Specifically there is a need to shift the focus from dissemination techniques to interactive techniques, bearing in mind the numbers of bodies involved and the challenges of information overload.
It is important to recognize that the nature of "NGOs" in "civil society" is in process of rapid transformation. Increasingly nongovernmental action will be enabled electronically, notably in order to involve geographically distant partners at reasonable cost. An increasing number of "organizations" acting electronically will cease to conform to traditional patterns of legal entity. Coalitions will emerge and be dissolved in rapid response to the urgency of issues.
Neither the SG's report, nor that of the CONGO, addresses the implications of such changes for future NGO-UN relationships. This is in contrast to studies at the national and regional level (notably in the European Union). For democratic and consultative processes to be more than tokenistic, new approaches are required that can benefit from communication technology now widely available. These will also be essential in order to move beyond the conceptual tunnel vision through which issues tend to be managed in isolation -- if the international community is to deal with the complexes of issues now characteristic of a complex society and the challenges of cross-sectoral strategic demands.
The CONGO report makes no mention of internet facilities as a means of responding to the specific issues of access and communication, as they are currently constrained by geographical, legal and financial factors. In fact the CONGO report is excessively focussed on the issues of physical access at a single location at a time when many organizations are exploring ways of achieving more cost-effective global communications by electronic means.
As the SG's report indicates, the number of NGOs has increased from 377 to 1,550 in 30 years. There is no reason to assume that this figure will not increase even more rapidly over the next 30 years (possibly to figures in the region of 5,000 to 10,000) -- as more NGOs become active and seek access to the UN. It is unrealistic to assume that the communication issues can be satisfactorily resolved by a focus on physical arrangements or any form of face-to-face encounter -- unless NGOs are prepared to continue to accept the position of a mass audience receiving information from a panel of speakers (as is characteristic of "briefings").
A recent estimate by the UIA showed that of 6,250 intergovernmental bodies, 12 percent had web access and 20 percent had e-mail access. In the case of NGOs, the figures were 25 percent and 32 percent. As with the wider internet explosion, these percentages are growing extremely rapidly, notably in developing countries. The internet offers a major commnication opportunity to NGOs in the south as statistics already confirm.
These developments should not be ignored.
