Following the opening remarks by the Chairperson, the participants were welcomed by Mr. Anton Kruiderink, Assistant Administrator and Director Regional Bureau for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, UNDP, followed by a Keynote Address by Mr. Philippe Schmitter, Professor of Political and Social Sciences, Stanford University.  

Mr. Anton Kruiderink stated that UNDP has a strong and clear mandate to work with civil society and its respective organisations, a mandate that is derived from its member states as well as the various global UN conferences from UNCED to Habitat II. Our traditional partner in development has for a long time been the central government. However, our efforts to work directly with civil society organisations have been steadily increased over the years through programmes such as the Partners in Development Programme (PDP) and the Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environment (LIFE).  

This conference is not convened in a vacuum. UNDP believes that the capacity for good governance is the fundamental means to achieve sustainable human development. UNDP considers civil society as an essential part of governance, facilitating social and political interaction in societies and mobilising groups to participate in economic activities. Your presence in this conference confirms that people’s participation is becoming the central issue of our time. A partnership and sound alliance with civil society organisations is essential as they embrace a variety of activities which complement the role of the state. 

The ability of CSOs to contribute to public debate and to promote critical information and analysis to governance and governmental processes has been displayed and acknowledged in global, regional and national fora. It has become recognised that effective development only becomes a reality when economic and political liberalism nourishes each other. Through their valuable contributions to policy formulation, the delivery of social services and the protection of human rights, CSOs are making a very important contribution to improved governance. As a result, a vigorous system of civil society organisations and a flourishing civil society is becoming an essential part of responsive democratic governance.  

In his Keynote Address, Prof. Schmitter explained that many have argued that imperialism and colonialism have been important factors in planting some of the practices of civil society to those parts of the world where emigrating Europeans established themselves as the dominant group. However, civil society has also been able to establish itself in other parts of the world - free from European influence and value systems.  

In the view of Prof. Schmitter, governance is not a goal in itself but a method to achieve a variety of objectives that should be chosen independently by the actors involved and affected. Governance is no guarantee that these goals will be achieved successfully, but it may be a more appropriate method than the more traditional ones of resorting to public coercion and relying upon private competition. 

Good governance is the outcome or net effect of these mechanisms when they produce results that individuals in society believe are superior to those that they enjoy in their absence. The mechanisms for governance will depend on the preferences of each country’s producers, consumers, citizens, rulers, workers, employers, men, women, polluters, pollution-sufferers, and so forth. A specific governance arrangement that produces highly desirable effects in one society may fail completely or generate perverse effects in another. Therefore, the success of governance hinges upon its relation to a particular configuration of organisations into something that has been called ‘civil society’.  

There are two different ideas on the origin of civil society. The first idea assumes that civil society has historical roots, emerging out of the framework of civilisation, which precedes the nation state. In this concept, the state and the market were formed to complement the activities of civil society. Prof. Schmitter, however, argued for a second idea that the need for ‘governance’ and civil society organisations emerge because of state and market failures. The efficacy of governance, including civil society, as a mechanism depends on its symbiotic relation to both the state and the market. It can never operate alone. The increasing complexity of world affairs has also been an important factor in the emergence of civil society organisations in governance around the world. 

In the view of Prof. Schmitter, there would be no need for civil society, if the state and the market performed perfectly. Civil society was defined as a set or system of intermediary groups that: (1) are relatively independent of both public authorities and private units of production; (2) are capable of deliberating about or taking collective actions in defense or promotion of their interests or passions; (3) do not seek to replace state agents or private producers; (4) but agree to act within pre-established rules.  

The most widely discussed types of civil society organisations have involved the ideal-typical distinction between pluralism and corporatism. Their presence will have a significant impact upon the performance, distribution of benefits and "quality" of whatever arrangements emerge. Furthermore, once governance arrangements have been initiated in a given civil society, this will tend to encourage the organisations that participate in them to acquire even more autonomy from their members (as well as from political parties) and to extend their scope to bring wider and wider interest domains under their control.  

At the extreme, in a ‘high quality governance polity’, the system for decision-making and policy-implementation would become populated with a series of ‘private interest governments’ covering many sensitive policy areas, with profound consequences for political parties, local clienteles and the legislative process, as well as for the overall governability of the political order.  

In the view of Prof. Schmitter, many of the contemporary democracies in continental and ‘Scandinavian Europe’ have reached this condition – while countries such as Great Britain and the United States with their more pluralist configurations have much less governance capacity and, hence, rely more on market-driven distribution mechanisms and state regulation.  

One major hypothesis is that where and when countries manage to acquire intermediary organisations – especially class, sectoral or professional associations – that have both strategic capacity and an encompassing scope, this more corporate type of civil society will have greater capacity for practising governance than where a great multiplicity of narrowly specialised and overlapping organisations emerge with close dependencies upon their members. Pluralist organisations tend to weaken the role of organisational intermediaries while the corporatist ones strengthen it.  

The activation of civil society is not an automatic product of capitalism, urbanisation, literacy, social mobilisation, formation of the middle class and so forth. Rather, its emergence in a specific setting requires explicit policies by public authorities and implicit practices by private producers. A great deal of variation in the outcome hinges upon policies followed by both public and private actors that channel conflicts and institutionalise their resolution in different ways.  

Civil society can be both helpful to governments and make life more difficult for them. It provides assistance to government by: (1) organising the interests of society into chunks which makes such interests more comprehensible and manageable; (2) encouraging members to behave with a sense of civic responsibility; (3) providing channels for the expression of dissent, which to some extent insulates the state from direct confrontation; (4) controlling the behaviour of its members through its own rules and regulations; and (5) resisting arbitrary or tyrannical action by the state.  

There are many ways in which public policies and private actions can contribute to building governance into civil society. These have varied considerably over time and many are probably unique to specific cultures. Conditions favourable to the emergence of civil society were considered to include: (1) freedoms of association, petition and assembly; (2) legal recognition; (3) special fiscal treatment (e.g., tax exemptions); (4) guarantees of access to governance decision-making; (5) protection from state interference; (6) government subsidies; (7) member contributions; and (8) contractual ability under the law. 

In the view of Prof. Schmitter, the state should provide funds to support the creation and growth of CSOs. One way to accomplish this objective is for the state to issue vouchers which citizens can transfer to a particular CSO of their liking. In this way, somewhat of an ‘election’ for CSOs was created and they would have to compete for funds. 

Following the Keynote Address by Prof. Schmitter, the Chairperson invited three panellists to make a short statement on the topic of discussion. The panellists were H.E. Mr. Carlos Hugo Molina, National Secretary of Popular Participation, Bolivia, Ms. Katherine Therup, Director, Office of Development Partners, USAID and Ms. Gloria Cuartas, Mayor, City of Apartadó, Colombia. Below is a brief summary of their interventions. 

Although CSOs can make an invaluable contribution to society, they also have their shortcomings and sometimes negative connotations. Irrespective of these ideas, the CSOs serve as the basis for consolidating democracy. We need to respect and encourage CSOs that fight poverty and promote human rights issues and help establish CSOs in places and situations where they do not exist. Government can play an important role in strengthening CSOs. However, sometimes they do not have adequate resources to do so. In many countries, there is a need to develop proper policies and legal norms to facilitate the growth of CSOs. Similarly, we need enhanced economic resources to facilitate the establishment and growth of CSOs in developing countries. The support to CSOs should go beyond NGOs to foster the development of neighbourhood organisations that promote social development. Bolivia is perhaps the first country where the state has passed a law for popular participation and a national system for community development has been put in place. The policy promotes people’s participation in indicative planning and about three hundred municipalities in the country are implementing a process of participatory planning.

The key to lasting development results resides in the capacity of the three main domains of governance – state, private sector, civil society - to work together. External actors can play a catalytic role to foster such linkages at the country level. The development arena is increasingly characterised by four trends: reduction in official development assistance; enhanced capacity at the local level; growing recognition among governments of the value and role of non-governmental actors in development; and political and economic liberalisation which are creating an environment in which democratic liberalisation is possible. This context is opening new possibilities to link efforts at the local level with national policy reforms. As a result, there is a shift in emphasis among donors from development assistance to development partnering.  

External actors particularly bilateral and multilateral donors are well positioned to engage governments in a policy dialogue and encourage the development of institutional mechanisms that foster stakeholder participation in decision-making and transparency and accountability in government operations. Civil society will be most effective in the context of national democratic institutions that ensure political competition, rule of law and transparent and accountable administration. For example, the freedom of association, laws and regulation that create a space for citizen participation, supportive tax code and freedom of press and expression, are all very important enabling conditions for civil society formation and growth.  

We need to move beyond massive pendulum shifts between top down and bottom-up approaches to a development that focuses on the integration of the two in order to involve all development stakeholders and ensure that we are working simultaneously on both the supply and demand side of development. Therefore to work in the area of the enabling environment, it is important to add a fundamental concern for local capacity building and development partnering. Taking these three elements together and adopting them to the local context, provides a comprehensive and deliberate framework for problem-solving at the local level and a way to take advantage of democratic decentralisation in order to integrate national level policy reform and institutional reform with community level capacity building. Development is most effective when it reinforces local initiative that encourages all partners to work together within a framework characterised by clearly articulated tangible results that produces harmonisation of programmes and policies among development partners.

In Colomiba, there is a lack of faith in all institutions due to forced participation in rebel and drug movements and people are afraid to participate in political life. Although Latin America has rich democracy, we have not been able to solve many of our social, economic and environmental problems. In Colombia, for example, where people are fighting for territorial rights and there is rampant drug trafficking and armed violence, communities turn to the government for solutions and for building consensus. Thousands of people have been killed in arms struggle and many NGO leaders who have been involved in social development have lost their lives. How can we restore dialogue between various parties under such conditions?  

Here the government, NGOs and the church need to form a strategic alliance to restore peace that is a prerequisite for economic and social development. We need a new social consortium to bring about more national cohesion, integration of rural and urban planning, culture development and increased business investment in the development of cities and human resources. And central government needs to strengthen significantly its capacity for policy analysis and policy development, to ensure that people are not engulfed by the forces of globalisation but rather can take advantage of new opportunities. The task of creating an enabling environment for CSO formation and growth in Colombia is therefore large and will require the integration of all of the above-cited factors into a coherent national plan.

Lively discussions followed the Keynote Address and the statements made by the panellists. Below is a brief summary of these deliberations. 

The issue of how civil society was formed and the perceived European origin of civil society aroused some considerable comments from the floor. Many speakers pointed out that the struggle for independence in many countries in Africa, Latin America and other parts of the world was organised by CSOs, and that this struggle was entirely civic. At the time, the European civil society was under-developed and not capable of promoting the concept outside the continent. The concept of community in African countries was largely based on civic organisation from the tribal to the community level, where the community contributed to the wellbeing of the individual. 

The concept of CSO as presented by Prof. Schmitter was also found to be based purely on a functional analysis and ignored the structural relationship between various interest groups and the normative values that bind civil society and their organisations together. In Africa, for example, the normative values bind civil society and CSOs together and the discord between the government and CSOs is not because of functions but rather because of differences in values and the need to check state encroachment on civil boundaries. In Europe the CSO has a utilitarian value and the development of CSOs is primarily based on functions/class and not so much on social needs as in developing countries. 

Definitions of civil society in terms of market failure and state failure is not only functionalist but also negative as it implies that CSOs would not exist if the state and the market performed their functions satisfactorily. The proposal made by Prof. Schmitter, that the state should give citizens a voucher to choose a CSO for affiliation received mixed response. Some participants felt that the experience in the former USSR, where people were forced to contribute to civil society was not positive. Contrary to its intention, such an arrangement may end up isolating civil society.  

The CSOs were recognised as a legitimate partner alongside state and market actors in a range of governance activities at all levels, including the international level. The sphere of civil society was not just seen as important for politics and distribution of power but also as an arena where cultures are promoted and articulated and where social capital is developed that promotes values and networks that enable people to work together. Irrespective of the models and frameworks of CSOs, peace, democracy, decentralisation, right to information, respect for local knowledge, a culture of consensus, national policies and the capacity of all actors were considered critical enabling conditions for the growth and effective functioning of CSOs.  

Capacity building is a long-term commitment. Institutional capacity cannot be managed as an input to fit government budget cycles. If civil society is to flourish, governments will have to be willing to make long-term commitments to invest in the formation and growth of CSOs. A study in Latin America has found that government emphasis on sustainable development and governance can play an important role in fostering the creation of an enabling environment for CSOs. In the Republic of South Africa, the Constitution has created an enabling environment to address gender issues through the equality clause that includes gender and race and has provided for a gender commission which monitors gender equality across government and civil society. 

Some participants argued that creating an enabling environment for CSO formation and growth was becoming ever more difficult due to wide disparities in income distribution in most countries. How can civil society be developed in a sustainable manner under such circumstances? CSOs in many developing countries will need enhanced international support if they are to survive. Experience has also revealed that decentralisation from central to local government is a necessary factor in sustaining democracy and fostering CSO formation and growth. Cultural policies are also important because the values of citizens are often shaped in the civil society arena. 

A CSO representative from Costa Rica explained that because democracy has been firmly planted in that country, civil society now actively participates in dialogues on development issues. For example, CSOs have created a rich peasant platform and are participating in an alliance including other like-minded CSOs in South America. Many governments in the Arab region are required to hire handicapped individuals in 4 percent of their staff positions. A question was therefore raised whether it was unreasonable to expect the private sector to do the same.  

On no continent is the need for a strong civil society greater than in Africa. However, the institutional environment is extremely weak; income distribution is becoming increasingly unequal; globalisation and privatisation have weakened the capacity of the state; trust is lacking; violence and crime are rife; and there is lack of understanding of the meaning and role of democracy in improving people’s lives. This situation has made it very difficult for CSOs to achieve their full potential in Africa.  

There was general agreement that CSOs need to be better linked at both the national and global level. This, however, should not lead to CSOs speaking by one voice. That was not a healthy trend. The strength of civil society is in its diversity. Participants, however, agreed that trust and credibility between the state and CSOs is a necessary prerequisite for enhanced political space for CSOs. The capacity of the state and the private sector to engage in a dialogue with civil society also needs to be enhanced. In each country, a careful diagnosis should be performed of both the enabling and disabling factors to the active involvement of CSOs in public management. This should be followed by new objectives for improved relationship between the three domains, including respect for the independence of CSOs.  

When we talk of CSO services for the poor, it needs to be ensured that we are not using a new term for old approaches. If this conference had taken place two or three years ago, we would probably have been talking about NGO services to the poor. The willingness of CIVICUS to sponsor the Civil Society Organisations Dialogue is in recognition of UNDP’s commitment to and promotion of what we consider to be a new ‘International Social Contract’. In practical terms this means that civil society is taken as a legitimate partner alongside state and private sector actors in a range of governance matters.  

As more democratic systems have become the norm throughout the world, it has opened a wide range of new opportunities for citizens and their organisations to participate in the making of decisions that affect their wellbeing. It is this fundamental right – the result of democracy’s global ascendance – of CSOs acting on behalf of their members to participate in the making and not just the implementation of public policies that address societal problems that distinguishes sustainable human development from previous and failed development paradigms.  

Thus, when we talk of partnerships it is most fruitful to talk about how CSOs operating at the local level can contribute alongside, not by replacing, local governments and the business sector, in the process of identifying, prioritising and resolving local problems. In our deliberations, we need to pay particular attention to the following questions. What should be the role of CSO intermediary organisations in the design and implementation of programmes? What is the comparative advantage of grassroots CSOs and intermediary CSOs in service provision respectively? What are the implications in terms of CSO autonomy and sustainability when CSOs accept government funding? And what are the new skills and capacities that grassroots CSOs need to acquire to be able to assume increased responsibilities in the provision of services? 

In his Keynote Address, Prof. Onibokun emphasised that the renewed emphasis on empowering civil society organisations to address the challenges of sustainable development, reflected the weaknesses of both state and market actors to address the needs of the people, particularly the poor. The living conditions of the poor in different parts of the world have called into question the legitimacy of government and the relevance of government to the governed. Paradoxically, the world is witnessing an increasing evidence of insensitivity, lack of transparency and lack of accountability on the part of governments in many countries where poverty is endemic.  

Today, it is generally acknowledged that CSOs have a central role in promoting sustainable development. The private sector in developed countries, dominated by multinational corporations, is too preoccupied with the mathematics of poverty and as a result pays lip service to the problems of the poor. The social and physical environment is also being destroyed in many developing countries because of activities undertaken by the private sector. It is in this context that CSOs are being formed to provide essential services and to defend the interests of the poor in an often harsh living environment.  

As a result, CSOs are increasingly assuming responsibilities that traditionally have belonged to the state. For example, it is common knowledge that due to various structural adjustment programmes, hospital and medical costs have increased significantly and beyond the purchasing power of most poor people. The church and affiliated institutions have therefore had to move in and provide essential services because of failure of public programmes in this area. 

The legislative discrimination against women in many developing countries has also led to the establishment of women’s movements. Civil liberty organisations have emerged in busy numbers where dictators and antidemocratic rulers have constantly abused the rights and privileges of the common man. Prof. Onibokun estimated that more than fifty thousand CSOs were in Nigeria alone. These CSOs are the cornerstone of community development and poverty alleviation in a very difficult social and economic environment.  

As examples of very good partnerships between the government, the private sector and CSOs in developed countries, Prof. Onibokun mentioned the St. Helen Project in Wales and the Sustainable Seattle Project in the United States. He also mentioned two successful projects in developing countries, demonstrating effective partnership between local government and CSOs, namely, the Sustainable Cities Project in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania and a project in Costa Rica, where an NGO has pioneered the use of bamboo to provide affordable housing for the poor. All of these projects demonstrate the benefits of the partnership approach. 

However, despite the inherent advantages of the partnership approach, it is still an elusive goal in many countries, particularly developing countries. Mutual suspicion among the partners, lack of understanding, ignorance, the entrenched old order and norms all constituted major impediments to effective partnership between the government and CSOs. In many African countries, dictators and semi-dictators hold the reign of government. These governments are intolerant of opposition; sensitive to criticism; and often see CSOs as anti-government.  

It will require education, demonstration and persistence on the part of CSOs to change this image. However, this wall that has been created between the government and CSOs and mainly caused by lack of information, can be broken down. For every CSO whose activity may be critical of government, there are nine CSOs whose activities are complementary to the work of the government.  

Following the Keynote Address by Prof. Onibokun, the chairperson invited three panellists to make a short statement on the topic of discussion. The panellists were Mr. Tierno Kane, Secretary-General, Federation of Foula Associations for Development, Senegal, Ms. Ana Hernandez, Alliance for Costa Rican Women and Ms. Amelia Zambeze, National Association for Rural Women, Mozambique. Below is a short summary of their presentations.

There is need to clarify our understanding of CSOs. Civil society does not only include urban people. Young men and women selling merchandise on sidewalks in major cities or elsewhere often organise themselves with reference to their respective villages. They send money back to their villages to meet various needs of their families. These people are part of civil society. Rural societies and especially women in rural areas also form part of civil society. And NGOs as service providers are an important part of civil society as well.  

The role of NGOs as service providers can be called a "complicity relationship" that depicts their close interaction with the community. In situations where NGOs and technicians decide what service needs to be provided to citizens, they perform what can be called a "duplicity relationship". However, the issue of service delivery cannot be isolated from the nature of the poverty situation it tries to deal with. For example, contemporary poverty in Africa can best be described as the ‘feminisation of poverty’. This has happened due to three main factors; a) an extra ordinary migration of men in search of jobs has taken place, b) poor health and old age problems of women are not being taken care of, and c) wars have led to dislocations and deaths. 

However, the range of CSO activities is increasing - from service delivery in such areas as sanitation, health, waste disposal, and education to more complex issues such as community empowerment, gender equality, food security, and human rights. And the participation of CSOs is becoming more strategic in a number of areas. 

Given the context of poverty, two important issues need to be addressed. First, unlike the popular perception, the central concern of the civil society movements is not creating space for selected urban NGOs in the power structure, but providing access to power to the poor people directly. Secondly, the provision of social services does not settle the question of poverty. It is in the development of economic policies at the national level that major decisions are made that affect poverty. Until CSOs are able to acquire a political space to participate in the setting of macro-economic policies at the national level, they will only be dealing with the symptoms of those policies.  

The situation of women in Costa Rica is characterised by lack of equal opportunities, very weak representation of women in decision-making and often domestic violence. A large number of households have women as their head. A situation that can truly be described as the ‘feminisation of poverty’. Of nineteen government ministers, only two are women. Large migration of people from Nicaragua to Costa Rica has also aggravated the conditions of women in the country. There are now more than five hundred women’s organisations in Costa Rica, providing various services to women. One of the key priorities for women is to increase their representation in the political system. But this will require more concerted efforts to build the capacity of women to exercise their democratic responsibilities.

Today, we have more than twenty women’s organisations that work to advance the cause of women in various areas in Mozambique. In our parliament, there are now more women parliamentarians than ever before. However, much more needs to be done to enhance women’s representation in decision-making bodies. In Mozambique, the legal system used to give only rights to men to hold a title to a land. The wife could only own such a title if her husband was deceased. As a result of the efforts of the women’s movement in Mozambique, this discrimination has now been removed.  

In Mozambique, women have realised that equal representation in decision-making bodies is very important if their concerns are to be heard. The desire to raise women’s issues at the highest levels of policy-making resulted in women parliamentarians being invited to monthly meetings of the Women’s Forum, organised by CSOs. These consultations played an important part in securing the rights of women to hold a title to a land.  

However, the day to day work of most women’s movements is devoted to helping needy communities in overcoming the current social, economic and political difficulties that engulf the country. Of particular importance in this context is to increase income-generating activities for women and that is why the right to hold a title to a land becomes so important to women.  

Following the statements by the panellists, the floor was opened to other participants. Below is a summary of the comments made during the discussion session. 

Participants noted the constructive role-played by women parliamentarians in Mozambique in the struggle to legalise the right of women to hold a title to a land. Such consultations with women leaders have become an important mechanism to advance the interests of women in law making in Mozambique. More systematically than in the past, CSOs should consider establishing such consultative mechanisms with lawmakers and other policy makers on a wider range of issues.  

It was stressed that civil society is not a homogenous group. There is need to differentiate between issue-movements such as those dealing with human rights, the environment, women and so forth, and the civil society movement as whole. Advances in computer and telecommunications technologies have opened-up whole new possibilities for these issue-movements to connect with like-minded groups in other parts of the world, strengthening their identity and often enhancing their leverage on policy-making at both the national and international level. The diversity of the civil society movement should be encouraged at the national level through an appropriate legal framework. 

Some participants also felt that CSOs needed to develop a more convincing argument for the private sector to collaborate. The green movement for example is doing an excellent work in convincing the private sector that firms can be more economically profitable by reducing their emissions and waste while at the same time improving the quality of life for citizens. Other parts of the civil society movement need to derive lessons from the success of the greens. Incentives need to be created for the private sector to enter into partnerships with the various parts of civil society. That’s when real progress will take place.  

All over the world the state is re-defining its role in public management. How will this re-definition of the role of state affect civil society? Are civil society organisations prepared to assume a greatly expanded responsibility? The trend seems to be quite clear. Due to the increasing complexity of public management, the state does not have the resources nor the capacity to process all the information needed to ensure effective and efficient allocation of public resources. The private sector and the civil society will have to be called upon to undertake many of the current tasks of the state. However, this transfer of responsibility will require a careful assessment of the capacity of individual CSOs.  

For establishing sustainable partnerships, CSOs play the most important role. CSOs cement partnerships. However, sustainability of alliances is also ensured in the forms of programmes and initiatives that benefit women and other groups. Here continuous flow and availability of resources becomes very critical in sustaining alliances. UNDP and other international and bilateral organisations can have an important role in establishing endowments to ensure the sustainability of gender sensitive partnerships. Strengthening the sustainability of partnerships would include three main elements; a) training for resource mobilisation at grassroots level, b) working at equal level with the government and c) training CSOs to become involved in issues in the public arena that are beyond the traditional service delivery.  

In Zambia, the Non-Governmental Co-ordinating Committee (an umbrella organisation of 54 CSOs), was established to address gender and development issues. In collaboration with the donor community, this body has drawn-up a Strategic Plan for the Advancement of Women for the period 1996-2001. The plan focuses on five topics: poverty, women and health, women and education, women and decision-making, and the girl child. In government, the activities of this committee have helped to elevate women’s issues to formal representation at Secretary level in the Office of the Secretary to the Cabinet. Working with the government office (Gender in Development), the Committee is drafting a gender policy document. A number of the members of the Committee have since been appointed to serve on the Boards of economic institutions such as the Stock Exchange and the Investment Centre. 

South Africa’s attempts to resolve gender issues found expression in an equality clause covering race and gender in the constitution; in the constitution’s provision for the establishment of a gender commission; and the establishment of an Office for the Status of Women within the office of the Deputy President. Women’s input is also sought in relation to the preparation of the budget. These results were achieved because of widespread consultation and involvement of women’s groups in policy dialogues. The challenge is to ensure the continuing vitality of these mechanisms, partly through adequate funding.

Concern was also raised that the voice of children was not adequately reflected in the debate on the role of CSOs. Other more vocal interest groups tended to dominate the agenda of civil society. Mainstreaming children’s concern into the policies and programmes of CSOs and government was no less important than mainstreaming gender. Concern for the wellbeing of children was a sign of a strong democracy and healthy civil society. It was also felt that the interests of rural CSOs should not be subjugated to those in urban areas.  

Participants also raised concern over the lack of implementation of many international agreements such as those dealing with human rights, the environment, women, workers’ rights, human settlements and so forth. Others felt that it was the role of CSOs to maintain the pressure on the government until satisfactory results had been achieved. International organisations, however, should also maintain pressure on national governments to fulfil their commitments.  

Twenty African women participated recently in a mission to observe the elections in Liberia. What they discovered was a complete lack of understanding of the democratic process among the population, particularly women. The Group concluded that if women are to participate in the democratic process in Liberia, they will need extensive training. Women’s influence in decision-making will not count until they have learned the basic principles of the democratic process as well as techniques to organise themselves. This situation appears to be the same in other conflict areas on the African continent.  

There is a need to set-up a Special Fund for Women in Peace to provide political education to women in conflict areas. An encouraging sign in these countries is that women entrepreneurs are often helping other women in the worst conflict areas to set-up businesses. The experience from Rwanda reveals that women played a key role in the re-construction process by dealing with issues such as ownership of homes and assets and addressing the root causes of violence. Women in Rwanda have demonstrated that they have the capacity to play an important role in re-building the country. However, the machinery for institutionalising women’s involvement in public affairs in Rwanda hardly exists. 

Participants agreed that building critical partnerships between the state, private sector and civil society is the key to sustainable development and growth. However, it does not matter who initiates the partnership. Successful partnerships are built on key principles; mutual trust, transparency and accountability; equity and particularly gender equality. For CSOs to be able to play a constructive role in this process, they must carefully define their objectives and partners. This calls for capacity building of CSOs through empowerment of women; access to information and resources; and space in decision-making processes. A conducive regulatory framework needs to be designed to foster such socially beneficial involvement of CSOs in public affairs. 

Macro policies have direct impact at the micro-level. The impact of structural adjustment programmes, globalisation and equalisation processes are good examples of those direct linkages. Poverty needs to be re-defined to include access to decision-making by both men and women and to information as well as human rights. The role of CSOs needs to be broadened, including an advocacy role for enhanced political space in the democratisation process and the right of citizens to basic services.  

All data on poverty reflect that women and children have been worst hit by structural adjustment programmes; health epidemics; lack of access to resources, credit and education. Weak representation of women in decision-making bodies has been an important factor in explaining this outcome. Increased representation of women in decision-making is an important step to improve the laws and policies that impact upon women and children.  

NGOs work mainly in two interdependent areas: advocacy and service delivery. The credibility of NGOs in their advocacy is built on constituents of citizens whose support legitimises and gives strength to the advocacy. These constituents are the lightning rod that grounds theory in reality of average people. At the same time, NGOs that work in service delivery have come to realise how dependent their efforts are on the broader social economic and political framework in which they work at the national, regional and global level. 

The globalisation of the world’s economy has broadened the concept of interdependence from the village to the world. This has created new challenges for CSOs, as consumer patterns in Europe and North America affect labour conditions in developing countries more directly than before, as IMF imposed structural adjustment programmes shred traditional social safety nets and World Bank projects approved in Washington have environmental consequences in countries as far away as Laos and Sudan.  

But the challenges of advocacy know no boundaries, thus the diversity of civil society organisations. From the humblest efforts of Campesinos in Colombia to force the government to honour their title to their own land to the efforts of Greenpeace to protect the common heritage of the world’s oceans, we are all engaged in an urgent process of learning new skills, of sharing our experiences with each other to leave a better world - a more sustainable world – to our children.

In her Keynote Addresss, Ms. Somsook Boonyabancha, argued that the present state institutions are not able to manage and keep pace with rapid, spontaneous and complex forms of social problems at various levels and scales in cities and countries. Despite extensive assistance from international agencies to build-up state capacity to deal with these complex problems, the results have been meagre to say the least. Although some countries show some signs of positive change, experience has revealed that policy change that does not reflect the social consciousness of the people is too fragile to be sustained.

 The change in the relationship between the state and the various CSOs introduced through the implementation of various programmes and activities has the potential to gradually build new forms of governance. However, it is important to realise that in order to attain such a collaboration between the state and civil society, changes have to occur in all actors simultaneously by ways of changing each other, learning from each other and using each other to achieve a common goal.  

This new form of governance, where all the relevant actors are able to participate in decision-making and management, needs to be developed and supported. It is important to realise that in order to achieve such a transformation, people have to change and that change has to come from within. It has to come from people who need change and are able to convince their own community as well as others of the need to change. And finally the agents of change need to persuade the policy-makers of the state that there is a propelling need to change.  

The political, social and economic context in which CSOs operate has changed dramatically in the last decade. Some CSO groups have been unable to adjust, have therefore slowed down, or collapsed. They have not been able to link to other CSOs to re-build their strength to adapt to new challenges in their operating environment. This is very unfortunate because much experience and knowledge has been lost that has been built-up over a long period. Those CSOs, however, that have survived have done so because of their ability to change themselves from within. They have acquired new technical, communication and negotiation skills and techniques to help them convince the government of the need to reform. 

As a result, we are now seeing new types of CSOs emerge with expertise from other sectors of society such as the private sector, the media, the government and so forth. These new civil society organisations are often characterised by large membership but relatively low internal connection. If a real societal change, however, is to occur, we have to connect them into a broader network with the traditional CSOs. This is the real challenge for civil society in the coming years. We have witnessed a dramatic rise in community-based organisations (CBOs) in the last few years, fostered by the information revolution. This new form of organisation offers tremendous potential in enacting meaningful social change in their communities.  

However, instead of supporting directly the work of CBOs, international agencies are still mostly channelling their support to governments. But governments change all the time and policies too. The net result is no change because the population has not been convinced of the need to change and has not been able to participate in the process itself.  

This transformation can begin at the project level. A good participatory project can evolve into a programme with a wider scope and impact, leading to a new practice, new perception, reformulation of policy and eventually into a new institution. The CSOs – the intermediary institution – need to support this transformation process by bringing in their expertise in lobbying and negotiating with the government.  

As an example of this approach, Ms. Boonyabancha described the development of a savings group in Thailand that has evolved into a major programme crossing national boundaries in Asia, bringing with it changes in policy and new institutions. The savings fund in Thailand enabled communities all over the country to establish their own savings fund which are able to fund development activities at the community level. There are now about five hundred savings groups in the country and with the assistance of NGOs they have organised themselves into about thirty city networks. These networks are also encouraged to link with other civil society actors. Through these alliances, the CSOs can enter into dialogue with the municipality on policy that can eventually lead to new institutional mechanisms and sustained change. 

This change process, however, has to start from within and then evolve into a movement that can influence the policies of the state. Here the crucial aspect is to empower, strengthen and support the poor because that is where the change process will have to begin. People have to realise that they have a problem and become committed to change their situation. However, the reform process will also require close linkages between the people, their CBOs and the intermediary institutions that can advocate policy changes at the local and national level. By linking with other organisations, people also learn faster and the pace of development is accelerated. A sort of multiplier effect is created.  

The drafting of the Philippine Constitution in 1986-1987 was the first collaborative work undertaken between the Government and civil society. Civil society has also been a major factor in laying the foundation for the fall of the previous autocratic regime. The new Constitution institutionalised people power and gave civil society a definite role in the life of the nation. As a result, NGOs and other CSOs have gradually increased their role in policy-making. Although CSOs are no strangers to the role of advocacy, it has created some difficulty in shifting from the tactics of the parliament of the street to that of being a critical partner with government in developing policy.  

The Philippine Agenda 21 is perhaps the most important evidence of government and civil society collaboration. It provides the framework for sustainable development in the country. The President of the Philippines has called the National Agenda 21 Document the most consulted policy document in the history of the country. A similar consultative process was used in preparing the agenda of the Philippine Government in the last year’s APEC meeting, influencing both the position of the Government on sensitive issues like globalisation and liberalisation and the Manila Declaration. However, some CSOs were not satisfied by the documents that came out of the meeting and marched in the streets. This experience has divided the civil society in the Philippines between those that believe that incremental improvements, through consensus, will lead to better results and those that want to take a more hard line position.  

Based on the experience of CSOs in influencing policies in the Philippines, Ms. Sicam offered the following lessons: thorough preparation, including research and analysis, and alliance building with other CSOs is very important; careful sensitisation of the media to the views of CSOs; training CSOs in advocacy; well planned campaigns and strategic planning; and willingness to negotiate and accept incremental gains.

NGOs have a very important experience at the local, national and international level in introducing innovative approaches in the delivery of services to marginalised communities. Ecuador is an example of a country where civil society was able to exert significant influence on policy-making on a very sensitive political issue. Indigenous people began a revolution in that country to keep their land. To raise awareness among the general public of their plight, the indigenous people organised high-profile demonstrations. And NGOs mobilised social investment funds in Latin America to strengthen their leverage in the policy-making process via the government.  

In 1989, CBOs and NGOs were invited to a meeting with both local and central government to discuss ways to solve the conflict. By 1995, the indigenous people had been accepted by the government as a formal negotiation partner. As a result of this struggle, a strong link was built between the indigenous people, NGOs, social service developers, grassroots organisations and international organisations. The experience from Ecuador demonstrates that NGOs have a catalytic role in mobilising people’s participation to address issues central to their wellbeing.

NGOs also have a major role to ensure that the interests of ordinary citizens are included in the implementation of various stabilisation and structural adjustment policies. At the national level, NGOs have an important role in analysing the implications of such policies on the various groups in society. NGOs also have an important responsibility in monitoring that the government is upholding human, social and economic rights of the people.

Few issues have aroused such controversy in developing countries as the implementation of stabilisation and structural adjustment policies. Affected groups have even organised riots at the country level to emphasise their disagreement with the implications of these policies. After a long preparatory work, the World Bank has agreed to participate in a tripartite initiative with civil society organisations and governments to review the effect of structural adjustment policies on various groups in the countries selected. A joint steering committee has been set up to co-ordinate the Structural Adjustment Participatory Review Initiative (SAPRI). The Policy Research Department of the World Bank and the Development Group for Alternative Policies (DGAP) act as secretariats for the respective partners.

Over the next 12-18 months, SAPRI, which was formally launched at the First Global Forum held in Washington on 14 July 1997, will analyse through case studies in ten countries these complex relationships. Each country will have a national steering committee made of representatives from government, civil society, and the Bank. The methodology will be to organise public forums at the country level where representatives of various groups can articulate their views on the impact of these policies. To be able to convince the World Bank to agree to participate in public forums on economic policies at the country level is a major breakthrough for civil society. The main objective is to foster democratisation of the economic reform process. The World Bank has also agreed to involve civil society organisations in future economic policy-making at the country level. This is also a major break from previous World Bank policies.  

 Following the statements by the panellists, the floor was opened to other participants for comments. Below is a summary of the comments made during the discussion session. 

It was pointed out that the credibility of CSOs was sometimes seriously hampered because of lack of accountability and transparency in their operations. Hard-won gains in recent years in increasing the influence of CSOs in national policy-making, could easily be eroded if CSOs did not pay more attention to issues of accountability and transparency in their work. The SAPRI network, which has close to one thousand affiliated CSOs, could possibly provide a suitable avenue to discuss this sensitive issue within the CSO movement internationally.  

Because CSOs often enter into negotiations with the government from a position of weakness, it was felt that more efforts should be made to strengthen their internal capacity for lobbying and negotiation. International organisations should foster and support such capacity building. Participating in policy formulation at the local and national levels carried also with it certain responsibilities. To equip CSOs for such politically sensitive responsibilities and to create the foundation for their own renewal and enhanced credibility, CSOs should undertake a critical self-assessment of their own strengths and weaknesses.  

Some participants felt that the most important current issue facing CSOs, was the impact of globalisation on countries in the South. Globalisation was making the world more unequal, unjust and unsustainable than ever before. It was imperative that CSOs mobilised their communities to protest the adverse effects of this phenomenon. An example from India was given. A major plant was to be set-up in one of the best horticultural lands of South India. After people had been sensitised to the implications of the plant to their own livelihood, hundreds of thousands of people protested against the plant and the plans for its instalment were abandoned. The sharing of such country experiences among CSOs should be fostered through international networks and supported by international organisations.  

It was also pointed out that the transformation of CSOs from an adversary of the government to that of a collaborator and partner in development, offered both risks and opportunities. It was essential for CSOs not be co-opted but to maintain their legitimacy towards their constituents by not loosing sight of their central role to protect the interests of the poor and the marginalised.  

However, some participants felt that consultations between CSOs and the government on economic policies, could offer new opportunities for CSOs to mitigate some of the most adverse distributive effects of controversial economic policies. Such consultations would provide CSOs with an improved avenue to influence economic policies that affect both poverty, the environment and the sustainable use of natural resources, rather than dealing only with the symptoms of these policies. This role, however, called for capacity building of CSOs to make them better at networking, advocacy, and linking micro-level activities with the setting of policies at the macro-level. 

 Moderator: Mr. Jan Vandemortele, Chief Economist, Evaluation, Planning and Policy Division, UNICEF (moderator)

Panellists: Mr. Edwin Judd, Deputy Director, Programme Division, UNICEF

Access to basic services and fair income distribution is central to any assessment of good governance. Basic human development indicators from various parts of the world indicate that very little progress has been made in improving the quality of life among the poorest. For example, in 1990 malnutrition worldwide was estimated to affect 30 percent of people. By 1995, this figure had gone up to between 31 percent and 33 percent. Mortality rates for children under five years old have hardly shown any improvement since 1990, moving from 105 per thousand to 99 per thousand, making the target of 55 per thousand by the year 2000 seem unattainable. However, some countries had been able to improve significantly their human development indicators. China, for example, has reduced infant mortality from 200 per thousand live births in 1949 to 42 per thousand in 1995.  

There is need for the establishment and observance of robust international norms of good governance practice, giving the delivery of basic services a status akin to that of human rights. Such a ‘rights approach’ would build a direct link with the quality of governance in all countries. The quality of life is the purpose of development and that is where the ‘rights approach’ and good governance converge.  

The following norms should be established:  

• States should have the duty to protect all rights and fundamental freedoms of its citizens - the delivery of basic services would be essential to the fulfilment of these obligations;
• States should regard the right to development as a human right; and
• States have the obligation to develop effective development policies at the national level, and that international bodies have a similar responsibility for global issues.  

This approach to development offered the advantages of universality; protected people from abuses; provided a focus on developing people’s potential; and the reduction of socio-economic disparities. The ‘rights approach’ could therefore provide a more integrated framework for meeting basic needs of citizens; help programmes to combine strategies for achieving common goals; and support countries in undertaking institutional reform to protect highly vulnerable groups in their societies.  

Moreover, providing universal access to basic social services (or investing in people, especially women and children) makes sound economic, social and political sense. Basic services should not be considered as ‘welfare measures’ but rather as part of development that can provide a high rate of return on investment. Not only are more resources needed for basic social services but governments must also make sure that existing resources are more efficiently managed and used. Providing access to basic services to all citizens will not happen overnight but requires a comprehensive and systematic approach at the policy, institutional and citizen level, including: (i) strengthened support for the 20/20 Initiative; (ii) development of consultative mechanisms with local communities; (iii) dissemination of human rights information; (iv) Economic reform and investment in development; (v) institutional reform to sustain the effort. 

Although recent series of UN conferences has brought the attention of the global community to the importance of improving the quality of life and rights of individuals, its attainment is being hampered due to lack of systematic follow-up. The UN system needs to take a more proactive approach in maintaining a dialogue with national governments to keep up with the commitments made in these conferences. The delivery of basic services is a daunting challenge. About 800 million people are still malnourished; 1 billion people lack access to safe water and; more than 2 billion people are without adequate sanitation.  

A Basis Social Services Task Force has recently been established to provide a strengthened direction to the work of the UN in this area. The Task Force is comprised of 19 member organisations of the UN system. It has formulated a plan of action designed to produce concrete results, such as instruments that can be used by CSOs, governments and donors to make assessments of the status of provision of basic services in the respective countries. 

Many countries have begun to re-consider their approach in the provision of basic social services, resulting in a change from the demographic orientation (top-down) to a user reproductive health approach which is more in line with the basic services approach. This paradigm shift has led to greater decentralisation of service delivery and more active involvement of civil society at local levels. Much more concern is now devoted to the reproductive health needs of citizens themselves. This approach has led to a major change in the relationship between service providers and clients. In India, for example, the government has recently adopted the reproductive health approach to improve the provision of health services to its population.  

The original top-down approach adopted by the Indian government had resulted in a number of undesirable consequences. This included over-dependence on female sterilisation; poor knowledge of other contraceptive measures; dependence on incentives; insufficient attention given to contributory factors in the environment; and, owing to the deficiencies of the system, a loss of motivation by providers. The new client-based approach was throwing-up much more information about what needed to be done to implement and support family planning, such as: improving the mobility of health workers, and the general health infrastructure; allaying suspicions of other methods; and reducing the workloads of nurses and mid-wives. 

To foster a basic services approach at the country level, it is very important to bring women closer to decision-making. Experience reveals that women are much more likely to re-orient national budgets towards the needs of children and women. In decentralising the provision of social services to local levels, national governments need to ensure that resources commensurate to the task are transferred to local governments. Laws also need to be enacted and properly implemented that provide access of citizens to basic services. And accountability of service providers needs to be ensured. Advocacy and dissemination of information are also important to ensure that policy-makers and citizens are aware of their rights and responsibilities.  

The issue of escalating violence in cities all over the world was also raised and conflict-resolution was proposed as a crucial social service. The plight of street children, who were described as the most disenfranchised, neglected and vulnerable people on earth, should also receive much more attention. Street children are in need of a wide range of social services not only health services.