Ngo Diplomacy Conference Report_final

Photo: Jon Warren

REPORT:

CONFERENCE ON NON-GOVERNMENTAL DIPLOMACY December 11, 2008 Co-sponsored by: Mortara Center for International Studies Georgetown University

Prepared by Sylvain Browa, Kimberly Darter and Jonathan Hackett

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The organizers of this conference—InterAction, Coordination SUD, the Embassy of France and Georgetown University’s Mortara Center for International Studies—would like to recognize the following individuals for their thought-provoking insights and continued dedication to the issues surrounding nongovernmental diplomacy: Henrietta H. Fore* – Director, U.S. Foreign Assistance, Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development H. E. Pierre Vimont – Ambassador of France to the United States Marwan Muasher – Vice President, External Affairs, The World Bank Sarah Newhall* – President & CEO, Pact Furthermore, we would like to express our deepest gratitude to all those individuals and organizations that helped in the planning and organization of this conference. With humble recognition to the panelists of each session, we acknowledge that this conference would not have been possible without their sincere dedication and active participation. * Position held at time of conference.

Photo: Debbie DeVoe

TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward

4

Introduction

5



Perspectives on Nongovernmental Diplomacy

The “Associational Revolution”

6



The Convergence of Multiple Voices

6

Lessons from Past Experience

Elimination of Landmines

7

Access to HIV/AIDS Treatment

7



Lessons

8

Current Areas of Engagement

Food Price Crisis

9



Climate Change

10



Challenges

10

Concluding Observations

12

Disclaimer: Any factual errors made in the writing of this report are the sole responsibility of its authors and not that of the conference presenters or participants.

FOREWORD When Dr. Henri Rouillé d’Orfeuil first introduced me to the term “nongovernmental diplomacy,” I questioned whether diplomacy was in fact a domain of non-state actors. This question led me to reflect on my 20 years of working within the NGO community. These years included crossing oceans to participate in gatherings with government representatives of close to 100 nation-states and collaborating with other NGO actors to determine how the NGO community should relate to traditional diplomatic actors such as United Nations agencies, international financial institutions and national governments. What evolved out of these meetings was an expanded diplomatic role for NGOs—not just as advocates within our own countries but as a global community of NGOs engaged in a wide range of what could best be called diplomatic efforts. These experiences included many formal and informal dialogues about how NGOs relate to one another and should best govern themselves across nations, as well as how we relate to the power structures and state structures of the world. My conclusion was that the term nongovernmental diplomacy is both a valid concept and one that deserves deeper exploration. This report is based on the conversations that took place during a one-day conference in December 2008 in Washington, D.C.

4

The original idea for this event grew out of work done by Dr. d’Orfeuil, at the time president of Coordination SUD, and Dr. Carol Lancaster, then director of Georgetown University’s Mortara Center for International Studies. The Embassy of France, with the leadership of Ambassador Pierre Vimont, played an important conceptual and organizing role as well. Throughout our history, NGOs have engaged in diplomacy; yet the evolution, issues, approaches and outcomes of this engagement are rich areas that until now have lacked the cohesive rigor of academic inquiry. The role that the NGO community does, can and should play as it relates to, influences and engages in diplomacy with nation-states and other actors merits further examination. It is my hope that this report and the conference itself will contribute to advancing that endeavor.

Samuel A. Worthington CEO and President InterAction

INTRODUCTION “The time of pure intergovernmentality is over.” ­—Henri Rouillé d’Orfeuil

In a context in which nation-states are increasingly challenged by the growing complexity of transnational issues, the growth, expansion and sophistication of NGOs has allowed them to pursue the implementation of their missions beyond national borders. This has led to the unprecedented presence of NGOs in global public policymaking processes around issues such as global governance, the global economy, human rights, borderless conflicts and disease, environmental sustainability, human security and poverty reduction, gender inequality and more.

Photo: Peter Biro

On December 11, 2008, InterAction (U.S.), Coordination SUD (France), the Embassy of France in Washington, D.C., and Georgetown University’s Mortara Center for International Studies co-hosted the Conference on Non-Governmental Diplomacy. The conference was an executive-level gathering of over 70 non-governmental organization (NGO) leaders, diplomats, academics, policymakers and experts from foundations, think tanks and research institutions. Participants explored the critical role of NGOs in traditional diplomatic spheres, took stock of past experiences, drew lessons from them to inform ongoing efforts and identified opportunities for NGOs and their institutional counterparts to better capitalize on their respective strengths. and communities. This conference report attempts to capture the major threads of these discussions. It is a complement to the web-based conference materials that can be accessed at http:// www.interaction.org/ngo-diplomacy.

In each of these global policymaking processes, NGOs are increasingly playing critical roles, acting as watchdogs, critics and even mediators in some instances, as well as providing or advocating alternative solutions to shared problems—functions that have traditionally been the prerogative and responsibility of nation-states. NGOs have combined conventional diplomatic approaches with new methods specific to their nature and modes of operation to pressure or persuade governments and international bodies to acknowledge and address national and transnational issues. From the furthering of human rights, to broadening access to HIV/AIDS treatment and generic medicines, to the elimination of landmines and mitigation of major conflicts, the efforts of NGOs have generated lessons as well as raised questions. Are NGOs blurring the line between advocacy and diplomacy? Is there a difference between advocacy and diplomacy? What is the added value of NGOs’ efforts? Are there replicable lessons from past experiences that can enlighten current efforts on major issues such as global warming and the food price crisis? Do NGOs have the mandate and skills to be effective in this endeavor? The daylong discussions at the Conference revisited the roles NGOs played in securing the Elimination of Landmines and Access to HIV/AIDS Treatment for the poor and explored the possibility of similar successes in the ongoing efforts to address the impacts of Climate Change and the Food Price Crisis, especially on the world’s poor and most vulnerable countries 5

PERSPECTIVES ON NONGOVERNMENTAL DIPLOMACY 1

The opening plenary session introduced the concept of nongovernmental diplomacy and highlighted leading thoughts among both academics and NGO practitioners. The lessons learned and best practices referenced illustrated how the practice of nongovernmental diplomacy is reflective of the interconnected ways in which the world functions, especially when faced with global issues. Recent attempts to confront the food price crisis reinforced the fact that potential solutions cannot be solely those of state or corporate actors; rather, they must encompass a broader realm of actors, including civil society partners such as academic institutions and NGOs. For example, it is often NGOs that help small farmers across the globe gain access to markets and significantly improve their agricultural productivity. The idea of a principal stakeholder group that owns development activities and resources is disproportionate in this case and the centrality of nonstate actors in addressing this issue illustrates the raison d’être of nongovernmental diplomacy. As the world deals increasingly with multiple and more complex challenges, particularly those faced by the poorest populations, nongovernmental diplomacy is expected to accelerate accordingly.

skill

Diplomacy is the profession, activity or of managing international relations. It is also skill and tact in dealing with people. – Oxford English Dictionary

The “Associational Revolution” The concept of diplomacy has changed significantly over the years. We have come a long way since negotiations such as the Treaty of Versailles. Today, diplomacy as a field is much more inclusive thanks to advancements in communication technologies that easily put different and geographically dispersed actors in touch and facilitate their mobilization. In this new era, nongovernmental diplomacy is a reality. The term, however, needs to be further clarified. The concept of nongovernmental diplomacy refers to NGOs intervening in diplomatic matters. Diplomacy, on the other hand, is the non-warlike organizing of relations between countries. Nongovernmental diplomacy is therefore the process by which the community of nongovernmental organizations intervenes at this level (of relationships between nation-states) and seeks to significantly influence the outcomes of what officially remain 1 Plenary Session Moderator: Samuel Worthington, President & CEO, InterAction Plenary Session Speakers: Michel Doucin, Ambassador of France for Corporate Social Responsibility and Bioethics Carol Lancaster, Director, Mortara Center for International Studies, Georgetown University Henri Rouillé d’Orfeuil, President, Coordination SUD

6

intergovernmental negotiations. In practice, once they have identified and framed an issue, the next step for NGOs is to convince at least one government to put that issue on the (intergovernmental) table. For instance, it was through the government of Canada that the issue of landmines came to the attention of governments worldwide and ultimately to Diplomacy is the the negotiating table. And it is art and practice ultimately governments that of conducting sign legislation and international treaties.

negotiations between nations. It is also skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility.

The expansion of nongovernmental diplomacy today is linked to the “associational revolution” of the last 25 years, illustrated by the vast increase in the – Merriam-Webster Dictionary number of NGOs worldwide. As a result, there has been an evolving diplomacy of NGOs that was not as pervasive before the 1990s. Some of the major pieces of scholarly literature on nongovernmental diplomacy raise a number of central points and issues related to this “associational revolution.” Three of the major questions related to nongovernmental diplomacy merit particular attention: What do NGOs represent and how representative are they? How accountable are they, and to what or whom? And finally, what legitimacy do they have as actors of nongovernmental diplomacy? In this context, the actions of nongovernmental organizations are grounded in the globally recognized right of freedom of association and of citizens and citizen organizations to come together and defend a shared cause. This is an important element in cross-border solidarity and related collective action among non-state actors. For NGOs, the reference to diplomacy speaks essentially to a variety of relationships beyond local and national borders on global issues such as health, education, social and economic inequalities, environmental protection, conflicts and more. In the face of globalization, it would be irresponsible to limit NGO work and political actions to the local level. Working beyond local or national boundaries, however, demands a great deal of organizing to identify, access and address an international audience, as well as the ability to connect the local with the international within a logical framework capable of advancing the agenda of the day.

There is a need to understand between Anglophone and Francophone countries in terms of NGO diplomacy work.

cross-pollination

– Anonymous quote

The Convergence of Multiple Voices In the local as well as the international context, the NGO community must be strict in terms of what and who it represents.

Photo: Syed Ziaul Habib Roobon

LESSONS FROM PAST EXPERIENCE

Nongovernmental diplomacy is healthy

NGOs are a distinct subgroup of a broader civil society that includes labor unions, educational institutions, faithbased organizations, social for the government movements and others. Even when collaborating, these various sector. –Ambassador Pierre Vimont, groups must be careful not to Embassy of France in Washington, D.C. speak in the name of one another but rather seize the opportunity to speak about their respective situations in relation to the issue at play or aspects of it. The convergence of multiple voices that emerges from the process is one of the diplomatic strengths of NGOs.

competition

NGOs often view themselves as small and weak compared to private enterprise. Yet the advances of the Millennium Development Goals, the Kyoto Protocol, the elimination of landmines and debt relief for developing countries, to name a few, prove that NGOs can be effective diplomats (even negotiators), despite differences in the critical diplomatic tools available to states and NGOs. Unlike states, NGOs cannot rely on military strength or economic resources. Rather they can assemble information, amplify marginalized voices, frame issues, mobilize public opinion, exercise moral persuasion and disrupt or embarrass states to advance negotiation processes among traditional diplomats at the international level. Everybody has a right to negotiate and NGOs have shown a capacity to enter the dialogue and create momentum. NGOs’ practices, diplomatic power and coordination efforts, however, could be further improved. Understandably, because of their diversity in size, issues of interest, institutional nature and geographical focus, there is sometimes a gulf between the guiding theories and practices of NGOs in the diplomatic sphere. This reality has a direct impact on their effectiveness. Alliances between Northern and Southern NGOs, for example, do not always appropriately take into account their differences in experience and interests. Above all, there is a need for the professionalization of nongovernmental diplomats, along with recognition of their legitimacy by international institutions. There is a whole world developing outside of the traditional diplomatic framework and non-state actors play a key role in it.

Two global issues with direct impact at the local and national levels in which NGOs have realized significant advances are the campaign to ban landmines and the campaign for access to HIV/ AIDS treatment.

Elimination of Landmines2 An NGO-led international campaign to ban landmines began in the early 1990s. One of the primary challenges NGOs confronted was how to frame the issue in a way that would grab the attention of a broad audience. As most of the victims of landmines are not soldiers but innocent civilians and most landmine accidents occur outside of conflict zones and/or periods of conflict, proponents of a ban chose the humanitarian angle. They therefore framed the issue as a humanitarian problem in need of a humanitarian solution to save lives and prevent suffering. NGOs also realized that in order to be successful, their efforts would have to be taken to a political level. This realization and the work that followed ultimately led to the creation and signing of the Mine Ban Treaty. While three permanent members of the UN Security Council refused to sign, advocates forged ahead and utlimately half of the world’s governments signed the treaty. Additionally, the Mine Ban Treaty established a norm against the use of landmines. Because of this stigma, even some nonsignatory countries no longer use them.

Access to HIV/AIDS Treatment3 Years after the majority of the world has come to understand and take action to prevent HIV/AIDS there are still about 200 million children in the world that are infected with it. More than half this number will, without treatment, die before they reach two years of age. To advance government action globally in the fight against HIV/AIDS, NGOs have advocated for funding to provide global access to prevention, treatment and care. In the U.S., NGO advocacy around HIV/AIDS resulted in the creation of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), passed by Congress in 2003. Even as support among individual countries and the international community has increased, NGOs have been vital in ongoing advocacy to hold UN member states accountable, engaging officially through UNAIDS and its Civil Society Task Force. In a recent high-level UN meeting on HIV/AIDS, over 1,000 NGOs participated through the Civil Society Task Force. U.S. NGOs have 2 Case Presenter: Luciano Loïacono-Clouet, Deputy Director of Institutional Relations, Handicap International Commenter: Anne Witkowsky, Senior Associate, Center for Strategic and International Studies Facilitator: Sarah Holewinski, Executive Director, CIVIC – Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict 3 Case Presenter: Clare Dougherty, Senior Public Policy Officer, Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation Commenter: John D. Hassell, Washington Director, UNAIDS Facilitator: Smita Baruah, Director for Government Relations, Global Health Council

7

been both implementers and observers of PEPFAR, continuing to advocate for its improvement, as demonstrated by their contributions to the 2008 reauthorization process.

Lessons

Understanding All the Viewpoints. In the absence of broad consensus, which is seldom achievable in the NGO community because of its diversity, it is extremely important to understand the points of view of all stakeholders. The HIV/AIDS community, for example, has made a concerted effort to avoid pitting sectors against one another. In the case of the Mine Ban Treaty, the U.S. government never became a signatory in part because of a lack of understanding between the humanitarian and military constituencies. The U.S. government was faced with the need to balance the concerns of both. Signing the Mine Ban Treaty came down to differences in wording, which neither the U.S. government nor the NGO community could agree on. Unable to find a way to bring the military into agreement, the U.S. government did not sign. Whether or not the outcome would have been different if NGOs and the U.S. government had better understood the perspectives and challenges of each stakeholder remains a question.

With a greater NGO role in the diplomatic spheres, comes greater NGO for the outcomes of global negotiations.

responsibility

–Anonymous quote Having a Clear Ask. In the campaigns for both the Mine Ban Treaty and increasing access to HIV/AIDS treatment, NGOs were able to identify key priorities and hone their discussion points. This did not happen overnight but rather through many discussions with many different constituencies over a period of months and years. HIV/AIDS advocates worked cooperatively with other NGOs to form a united front and continue to make an effort to do so. The UNAIDS Civil Society Task Force, for example, embodies a diversity of voices. Through the Task Force, people living with HIV/AIDS have been directly involved in formulating positions and recommendations on controversial topics such as prostitution and HIV/AIDS. Operating at the Political Level. When operating at the political level, both timing and being at the right table can make all the difference. In the case of HIV/AIDS, common interests among very different stakeholders emerged when the disease became a tipping point for the military and financial security of countries. It was at this point that the UN Security Council recognized the enormity and immediacy of the issue. National security arguments have since shifted to economic security arguments but HIV/AIDS continues to be a comparative priority at the 8

Photo: Connie Gonzalez

The collective NGO experience with the landmines and HIV/AIDS treatment agendas at the global level presents valuable lessons. We have attempted to categorize these lessons to help frame the discussion and begin to conceptualize fundamental aspects of nongovernmental diplomacy.

political level. Additionally, in the U.S. context, NGOs identified key decision-makers within government to carry the argument forward when and where NGOs did not have access. In the Mine Ban Treaty case, NGOs found themselves at a series of wrong tables until they secured the support and guidance of the Canadian government, which led them to the right table. This process of getting to the right table was not without its rewards. By the time NGOs found their place, their discussion points were focused and they understood the power of consensus-building among a diverse group in order to move the agenda forward. Sustained and Respectful Engagement. Sustained and respectful engagement is paramount to building the relationships and understanding necessary to move an issue forward. When engaged in securing support for a cause, it is important to think long term. NGOs engaged in diplomacy best serve their cause if they refrain from embarrassing or insulting other stakeholders because the result could be a breakdown in dialogue or the isolation of a potential ally. Mine Ban Treaty advocates had to approach governments with determination and well-formulated arguments. In France, for example, NGOs sustained their conversations with French authorities, never allowing them to break down. Their success was due in part to the fact that they remained respectful and continued to engage proactively and with constructive proposals. Anonymity can also be important. In the Mine Ban Treaty case, authorities in places such as France and Burma engaged in discussions with NGOs on the condition that their names not be used and that they not be quoted in the media. By respecting the desire for anonymity in these conversations, NGOs were able to build trust with a wide range of actors, including military representatives. By contrast, government officials in the U.S. did not engage as candidly because they were afraid that what they said would be leaked to the media. Sustained and respectful engagement is relevant to relationships between NGOs and other like-minded actors as well. In order to build an alliance, it is fundamental to have a balance of power

and respect for all the groups involved. In the case of HIV/AIDS, this engagement has continued beyond the initial success as a diverse group of stakeholders has taken the next step of working together to observe how new guidelines will translate into implementation and impact. NGOs are also working increasingly with global advocacy networks to identify recommendations that can be brought to bear on national advocacy and international outreach and negotiations. Skills/Tools: Framing the political issue, mobilizing the public, creating broad-based alliances, coordinating across sectors, soliciting input, engaging celebrities on the issue, mobilizing resources and partners on the ground and using the Internet to tell a complex story are among the tools and skills that NGOs are mastering with increasing success. The sustained and inclusive advocacy effort that led to the banning of landmines and access to HIV/AIDS treatment was the result of years of discussion, coordination, outreach and action by many different stakeholders, including NGOs. Work in these areas continues even as new issues come to the fore. Two of those issues, the food price crisis and climate change, are illustrative of the challenges NGOs face in leveraging lessons from past experience.

CURRENT AREAS OF ENGAGEMENT Food Price Crisis4 The food price crisis that suddenly came to the world’s attention in March 2008 had in fact emerged on the ground much earlier. The cause was a combination of years of agricultural market deregulation around the world coupled with structural adjustment policies and inappropriate development strategies taken on by developing countries. The food crisis highlighted two interconnected issues—food security and food sovereignty. Three elements define food security: quantity of food, quality of food and access to food sources (including seeds). Food sovereignty addresses issues such as control of seeds, the right of farmers to decide what type of seeds to plant, and to what extent a country is reliant on food imports. NGOs’ efforts to address food security and food sovereignty are multifaceted and predate the food price crisis. For example, one of the impediments faced by small farmers who make up a majority of the world’s hungry poor is that access to seeds is restricted due to the high prices charged by multinational corporations. In response, NGOs have taken such actions as founding their own seed banks. They have also worked with small farmers, organizing them to oppose free trade agreements that distort agriculture development efforts, the most recent case being the one between the European Union and the Caribbean. A third approach used by NGOs has been to coordinate with national governments at technical and policy levels. Over the years some NGOs have developed levels of expertise that put them on an equal footing with government. This expertise is communicated and used to inform public opinion and enable NGOs, especially in the global South, to assess the decisions of their governments. The level of success in these NGO initiatives is noticeable. While there is still no global compact recognizing the right of nations to food sovereignty, the hiatus of trade liberalization agreements since 1994 can be considered a success. The NGO community and small farmer movements are working more collaboratively than ever before. NGOs have also had some success with governments and multilateral institutions, due principally to improved understanding of the issues and sustained engagement. Food security is now a priority in itself, well reflected in both individual and intergovernmental initiatives. International institutions are also listening to NGOs; the World Bank’s 2008 report on food security incorporated feedback from NGOs. Despite these steps forward, if NGOs want to see progress beyond the current status quo, they will need a new strategy to convince governments about the link between agricultural development and poverty reduction.

4 Case Presenter: Bénédicte Hermelin, Director, GRET Commenter: Saliou Sarr, Coordinator, ROPPA – Network of Peasant Organizations and Producers in West Africa Facilitator: Jim McDonald, Vice President for Policy & Programs, Bread for the World

9

Climate Change5 NGOs’ work around climate change has encompassed both reducing greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation) and providing solutions for the impacts of an already changed climate (adaptation). Despite a multitude of efforts to raise awareness and call for action, the world continues to face mitigation and adaptation challenges that should have been dealt with years ago, at the very least since Kyoto. Many believe this is because the U.S. has been in the way. It is widely agreed that even current mitigation efforts will not prevent some degree of climate change-related impacts, which increases the importance of adaptation efforts alongside mitigation. And while the current U.S. administration is sympathetic to the importance of these issues and has promised to support reduction of emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, many consider this insufficient. NGO diplomacy on climate change has been ongoing for many years, targeting policymakers, business and community leaders on the role that intact ecosystems play in preventing, slowing

There are three ways in which NGOs can affect change. The first is through policy change by helping policy makers do something different and better. The second is by raising . The third is by creating political will for change. Knowing this is one thing. Facing the challenges inherent in carrying out these actions is another.

public awareness

– Jim McDonald, Bread for the World and adapting to climate change. NGOs have developed core capacities and significant expertise that they have used to frame issues for policymaking, solicit partner engagement, support government and civil society initiatives and investments, carry out research and project designs, draft position papers, implement models for sustainable funding mechanisms and engage in international conferences and negotiations. NGOs have also carved out space for themselves in the international meetings under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). They have used such international venues to have a voice in formal discussions, build support for key policy and project initiatives with national and local government officials and other NGO partners, and promote the rights and needs of indigenous and local communities. To date there is, unfortunately, little substantive progress compared with the level of NGO efforts. Within the U.S. there has been some progress, but primarily at the state level. One example is a model memorandum of understanding on forest 5 Case Presenter: David Hess, Vice President, Philippines, Indo-Burma & China Programs, Conservation International Commenter: J. Timmons Roberts, Professor of Sociology, Director Environmental Science and Policy, The College of William & Mary Facilitator: Daphne Wysham, Fellow, Institute for Policy Studies; Director, Sustainable Energy & Economy Network; Co-host, Earthbeat Radio

10

carbon emissions between the governors of California, Illinois and Wisconsin and several Brazilian states and Indonesian provinces that is slated for discussion at the December 2009 UNFCCC Climate Conference in Copenhagen. The agreement should lead to jointly developed rules to ensure that forest emissions reductions and sequestration meet the criteria set by California’s assembly. It is also the first agreement to link developing countries with U.S. greenhouse gas compliance policies. Even at this level, the challenges—such as involvement of local communities and equitable distribution of the carbon revenues—are many and NGOs will remain engaged here and at the national and international levels.

Challenges One question that was raised in different ways and at multiple times throughout the discussions was: When are NGOs most effective as diplomats, when they work collectively as a whole with other civil society organizations on big stages or when they work quietly and independently out of the spotlight? The lessons from past experience seem to suggest that both approaches are effective as long as NGOs continue to talk with one another as well as with other stakeholders, and that when acting independently the efforts of the whole are not undermined. What is less straightforward is when and how opportunities to create real change occur. Such opportunities, in the cases of the Mine Ban Treaty and access to HIV/AIDS treatment, were different but in both circumstances years of effort by NGOs helped set the stage and define the changes that were implemented. For the food price crisis and climate change, NGOs are still waiting and working for substantial progress. Using the same categories from the examination of past experience, the following looks at some of the challenges facing nongovernmental diplomacy efforts in the context of the food price crisis and climate change. Understanding All Viewpoints. There are times when more effort is needed to understand and consolidate the various NGO viewpoints into common positions and actions, rather than the need for more work to be done vis-à-vis government. Within the food security debate, for example, there are tensions in the NGO community between development organizations that want to emphasize policy modification and humanitarian organizations that want to emphasize emergency food aid. Despite these tensions, there are areas of common ground that can be built on. Both constituencies, for instance, agree that the food crisis is related to poverty and that one way to address it is to invest in agricultural development. An extremely important subset of this challenge is the need for dialogue, coordination and agreement between Northern and Southern NGOs. From experience, such an alignment has proven a powerful tool for change, enabling civil society to speak with one voice. An NGO initiative to limit imports of frozen chicken from the European Union to Cameroon is a telling experience. Cameroonian and European NGOs coordinated their actions to end the practice. In Cameroon, a local NGO with the support of

small farmers conducted research with the Customs Bureau and subsequently used the data to make a case to parliamentarians. Meanwhile, a concurrent campaign was organized in the European Union, urging officials to stop exporting frozen chickens to Africa. Having a Clear Ask. Complex issues involving many constituencies can significantly increase the difficulty of defining priorities. The many issues related to the food price crisis and food security are illustrative of how difficult it can be to define clear priorities that are broadly agreed upon. For example, on food security, the issue of genetically modified organisms raises many fears, including the fear that the entire world food supply could one day be controlled by a handful of for-profit companies that own the patents for genetic seed varieties. Similar concerns are raised with the strategy of import-dependent developed countries that purchase land in developing countries for agriculture production and achieve food sovereignty by controlling production in another country. Also at play is the issue of nutrition and the effort to stem the trend of diet-related illnesses that correlate with growing globalization by ensuring that poor families have access to nutritious food produced locally at affordable prices. In addition to constituencies, the challenge can also be one of context. In the U.S., for example, constituencybased NGOs engage more easily and with a significant degree of success when the debate is about policies that can be impacted by advocating with Congress and the administration, such as cotton subsidies.

deforestation and degradation) demonstrates that joint effort to some extent. NGOs still need, however, to address the indigenous rights issue in regard to REDD. Many of the targeted countries are those with weak democracies and judicial systems. It is therefore necessary to have a holistic or combined approach that allows for the anticipation of problems—social, economic and political— down the road such as corruption, land quality, judicial systems and banking. Skills/Tools. Some of the obstacles NGOs frequently encounter in their efforts to influence change are lack of information, insufficient research and rigorous research methodology, less than comprehensive market rules and structures, insufficient financing, political will, and a dearth of bankable projects. NGOs work to overcome these obstacles by reaching out to fellow NGOs and other stakeholders within the same country and across borders. They share information, initiate projects and engage in public policy, seeking to define and create change even as they work to strengthen and further define their own positions.

Sustained and Respectful Engagement. In addition to building sustained and respectful engagement with the full range of stakeholders, NGOs are also challenged with building trust among themselves. There is a tension in NGO diplomacy between acting as individual organizations and deciding when and where to work together to greater effect. While NGOs represent the priorities of many different constituencies, there is power in coordination and long-term thinking. The separation, years ago, of the climate issue from the development agenda illustrates the lack of coordination and long-term thinking. This is seen by many as a fundamental error that is only now being corrected as the development and climate change constituencies begin to come together. The current work around REDD (reduced emissions from

Photo: Bimala Colavito

Operating at the Political Level. It is often difficult for NGOs to know when they have conducted an effective nongovernmental diplomacy action. Governments may believe a particular action was their idea when in reality NGOs may have been behind the scenes shaping and influencing the outcome. This relates to a tension NGOs experience when deciding between what is best done quietly and what is best done out in the open. Nevertheless, to be successful, nongovernmental actors must operate at the political level, both domestically and internationally, even with a sympathetic government audience. On climate change, for example, the European Union appears to be backtracking on commitments made at the December 2008 UNFCCC meetings in Bali, possibly in reaction to the economic crisis and other domestic political and social pressures.

11

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

Photo: Marko Kokic

From the perspectives of participating diplomats, diplomacy has significantly evolved; the era of state-only diplomacy is over. There was general recognition among conference participants that the collective voice of nongovernmental organizations has become quite powerful. This is because nongovernmental organizations are often directly linked to citizen movements and bring those perspectives to meetings with government ministers and presidents. It is therefore worth noting that global governance regimes are relying increasingly on civil society input in global public policymaking processes. Nongovernmental organizations give voice to issues that require policy change. In addition, they can increase This is a very interesting the pool of policy options for consideration by state actors as topic and I see the well as increase the legitimacy of need for an academic policy outcomes.

course on the concept of nongovernmental diplomacy. There is a great need to the NGO diplomats of the future, as it is not being done. Hopefully this conference will generate future activity in the field.

Civil society has had a significant role to play in many of the diplomatic outcomes of the four cases examined—landmines, HIV/AIDS treatment, food price crisis and climate change. This experience is a testimony to the ability of nongovernmental organizations to transcend their individual institutional agendas in order to address global challenges. Nevertheless, as the field of nongovernmental diplomacy expands, so do the – Carol Lancaster, responsibilities and obligations Georgetown University that come with representation. Civil society organizations will find their motives, credibility and accountability further monitored and questioned in diplomatic spheres. They must therefore find practical ways to determine when and to what extent their diplomatic efforts have been successful in order to strengthen their accountability and improve their effectiveness.

train

1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 210 Washington, DC 20036 202-667-8227 www.InterAction.org

12